Findings Of Fact By Stipulation of the parties, it is found that Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CC-C015772. He is also known as Tony Gory, and was the qualifying agent for Roofing Technology, Inc., at all times material hereto. On or about August 16, 1982, Respondent submitted a proposal, on behalf of Roofing Technology, Incorporated, to Lillian Perper for roofing work to be done on her residence at 3616 Flamingo Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. Mrs. Perper accepted the proposal on August 17, 1982, and testified that the written proposal contained all terms and conditions of her agreement with Respondent. Respondent obtained the permit for this job on August 23, 1982. Mrs. Perper made timely payments to Respondent, under the terms of their agreement, totaling $11,057.00. Respondent completed the work in late September, 1982 and Mrs. Perper made her final payment on October 8, 1982. Respondent's agreement with Mrs. Perper included a warranty stated as follows: All workmanship and material to be guaranteed against defects for a period of ten (10) years; except for fire, termites, windstorm, or damages caused by acts of God. Within two months after completion of the reroofing, Mrs. Perper noted leaks in her livingroom and bedroom ceilings. She called Respondent, and-he came right out and 3 inspected her roof. He then sent a crew to Mrs. Perper's house and they attempted to locate and fix the leaks. However, they were not successful and the leaks continued. Mrs. Perper made several additional attempts to reach Respondent, but was not able to personally talk with him again about her roof. She did leave messages at his office that she was continuing to have leaks in her roof. In June, 1983, Respondent sent a crew of two men to Mrs. Perper's house to work on her roof. However, she denied them access to her roof because Respondent was not present, although they did identify themselves as roofers who Respondent had sent to repair her roof. Mrs. Perper was concerned that this crew would tear her roof off without Respondent being present to supervise the job. No additional attempts were made by Mrs. Perper to reach Respondent, or by Respondent to repair her roof, after she refused access to the roofing crew in June, 1983. The South Florida Building Code has been adopted as the building code of the City of Miami Beach. Regarding roof coverings, the South Florida Building Code provides that the building official shall be notified by the permit holder upon completion of the roof covering (Section 3401.1(b)(4)), nails should not be driven through the sheathing between supports (Section 3401.1(c)), mortar used to secure roof tile shall be sandwiched between all laps at all butts and along the sides of barrel tile (Section 3403.2(e)), roof tiles shall be secured to resist uplift forces (Section 3403.2(f)) and such tile shall extend beyond roof sheathing at the eaves (Section 3403.2(h)). An inspection of Mrs. Perper's roof conducted on February 25, 1985, by Robert B. Hilson, who was accepted as an expert in roofing and the installation of Spanish-S tile, indicates there were violations of several of the above provisions of the South Florida Building Code when he made his inspection, but there is no evidence that these violations were willful or deliberate, or that they were the result of work completed by Respondent in September, 1982. Between June, 1983, when Mrs. Perper denied access to Respondent's crew and February, 1985, when Hilson made his inspection, Mrs. Perper allowed a painter to go on her roof to see about her leak problem and to repair some flashing around her chimney. There is conflicting evidence concerning whether Respondent called for a final inspection after completing the roofing of Mrs. Perper's residence. Respondent testified that he did call for the inspection, but could offer nothing to substantiate his testimony. Petitioner called Oswald Ferro, building inspector, who testified that in the limited time he had available to him he could only find a record in the City of Miami Beach building department of one inspection on this job, but this was not a final inspection on this job. He had no personal knowledge about inspections on this job or whether Respondent had failed to call for a final inspection. Based upon the conflicting evidence presented and considering the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Petitioner has not established that Respondent failed to call for a final inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Frank A. Gory. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Errol H. Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin G. Brooks, Esquire 300 Hollywood Federal Building 4600 Sheridan Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1,2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant. 7,8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 13,14 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5,7. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. 17,18 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected in Finding of Fact 13. 21-28 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Respondent did not timely file proposed findings of fact by August 26, 1986 as required by Order entered August 6, 1986, and therefore no rulings can be made relative to any proposed findings which may be submitted by Respondent.
The Issue Whether or not upon inspection conducted by the Petitioner on February 26, 1976, the Respondent failed to have installed exit lights, signs, and globes for the first and second floors, in violation of Section 509.211(2), Florida Statutes and Rule 7C-1.04(3), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not upon inspection conducted by the Petitioner on February 26, 1976, the Respondent failed to provide a handrail installation from the second to the first floor in violation of Rule 7C-1.03(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent now holds, and on February 26, 1976, held license no. 23-893H, with the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. An inspection conducted by inspectors for the Petitioner on February 26, 1976, done at the Florence Apartments, 710 Northeast 127th Street, North Miami, Florida, revealed globe lights in the areas of the exits of the first and second floors. These lights were white in color and did not indicate by writing that the areas illuminated were in fact exits. There were no other signs or apparatuses indicating the areas as exits. Inspection on that same day, to wit, February 26, 1976, and in the same location revealed that the rear stairwell within the subject building, within the first and second floors of the building, did not have a handrail presently installed on that rear stairway as called for in Rule 7C-1.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. There had been a handrail there before, but it was removed prior to the inspection. The rear stairs were flanked on one side by a full wall running from the floor to the ceiling, and by a parallel waist high wall opposite the full wall, which may be described as a banister. This banister wall was approximately 4" thick, running the length of the stairs, with a flat surface atop the banister. The flat surface spoken of does not serve the function of a handrail. The subject building was constructed prior to January 1, 1970 and is an apartment house within the meaning of Chapter 509,F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that a fine in the amount of $100.00 be imposed in lieu of suspension or revocation, for the violation as established in count two of the complaint. DONE and ENTERED THIS 8th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George A. Frix Owner 365 Northeast 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1727 FILE NO. 23-893H ROBERT J. GROVER, TRUSTEE, t/a THE FLORENCE APARTMENTS, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact In General: Respondent is, and was at all times material to the Administrative Complaint, a certified general contractor, having been issued license no. CG C016774 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At no time material to the Administrative Complaint was Stephen Karlan licensed, registered or certified by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. As to Counts I--III: There is no evidence, direct or indirect, to tie any participation by Stephen Karlan to any event at the Reyes' home (Administrative Complaint Counts I--III). Mrs. Carolyn Reyes is the wife of Augustin Reyes, both of whom have resided at 9355 Southwest 180th Street, Miami, Florida, for approximately 12 years. They first met with Respondent Gomez sometime in July of 1983, and after a series of discussions concerning the work which the Reyes' desired, their budget restrictions, and charges proposed by Respondent, a contract was prepared by Respondent on Respondent's stationery. (P-3) The contracted work included: completely remodeling the kitchen and living room; the installation of central air conditioning and heating; the construction of a swimming pool; and the construction of a covered patio. The Reyes provided Respondent with a check in the amount of $4,227.40, representing a twenty percent down payment on the contract price of $24,237.00. Although signed by Mr. Reyes, who did not testify, Mr. Reyes' signature was identified by Mrs. Reyes on the contract and on the September 20, 1983 check. She was present at the execution of the contract and tendering of the check on the Reyes' joint bank account to Respondent Reyes on September 20, 1983. Existence of this contract and its terms is not disputed by Respondent. Subsequently, approximately $3,100.00 was deducted from the total contract price by way of a change order. This amount represented the cost of installing a roof over the patio and brought the new contract price to $21,137.00. (P-3 and P-6) A change order, prepared by Respondent, and signed by Mrs. Reyes, was agreed to approximately October 18, 1983, for installation of more expensive bronze-tone sliding glass doors in the family room and $250.00 was paid additionally by the Reyes. From September through November, 1983, Respondent performed construction work at the Reyes' residence. Under the terms of the contract, the Reyes provided Respondent with the following amounts, mostly by checks drawn on their joint account and issued over Mrs. Reyes' signature. DATES AMOUNTS September 20, 1983 $ 4,227.40 (20 percent down payment) October 5, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (installation of kitchen cabinets) October 13, 1983 $ 3,170.55 (pool framing inspection) October 24, 1983 $ 250.00 (change order--glass doors) October 25, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (air conditioning equipment) October 28, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (pool gunnited) November 3, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (kitchen remodeling) November 4, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (plumbing payment) November 21, 1983 $ 2,000.00 (kitchen and den) November 23, 1983 $ 1,000.00 (kitchen and den) November 28, 1983 $ 982.00 December 6, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (pool decking) $21,211.50 TOTAL (P-6) All of these checks were cashed by Respondent. During October and November, 1983, work was localized in the kitchen. Mrs. Reyes recalled not being able to use her kitchen for Thanksgiving, 1983. Except for recurring problems of improperly installed tiles, cabinets and appliances, related infra., Respondent completed the bulk of the kitchen remodeling in early December, 1983. Also in early December, 1983, the swimming pool was dug and gunnite was sprayed for the pool. Gunnite is a base of a spray used for installing the concrete bottom of a swimming pool prior to installing further marble-type finishing material, tile, and accouterments. In this same time period, the overhang above the anticipated patio was torn off the existing house by Respondent with the apparent goal of tying the existing roof beams into the new roof. After December 6, 1983, Respondent failed to perform any actual construction at the Reyes' residence until May, 1984. 2/ His crew only worked there one day in December of 1983. Approximately December 20, renegotiation of pool costs and kitchen tile costs were indulged-in by the the participants. The final result was that the Reyes would pay $80.00 more for kitchen tiles and $106.00 more for pool tiles and would be permitted by Respondent to deduct $246.00 from the total owed on the contract to him. Mrs. Reyes purchased the pool materials and paid cash for them rather than turning over any monies to Respondent but she stored them on her property so that the work could go forward. Respondent testified that shortly before that point in time, he realized that he had underestimated the cost of doing the Reyes' job by $6,000.00 to $7,000.00 and attempted to explain to them that having received approximately 90 percent of the contract price, but having not completed that much of the work contracted-for, he would have to do the work as he was able between other jobs in order to stay afloat financially. Respondent's proposal was not initially acceptable to the Reyes and they hired a lawyer who thereafter prohibited Respondent making direct contact with the Reyes. At that time, the following items remained to be completed at the Reyes' residence. The pool tile had not been installed; the pool equipment had not been purchased or installed; the living room windows had not been installed; and the patio roof had not been completed. There were also numerous problems with the quality of the workmanship of the completed items. The kitchen cabinets and the dishwasher were both initially improperly installed. As a result of the Reyes complaining to the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department, one of that agency's code enforcement officers, John Delaney, inspected the Reyes' home on April 20, 1984. At that time, Mr. Delaney noted all of the items listed in Paragraph 8 as needing completion and also noted that the patio roof overhang was still exposed to the elements and that the air conditioning unit was only balanced on a concrete slab. Mr. Delaney estimated that at that time the contract work was approximately 55 percent to 60 percent complete. Upon investigation and a record search, Mr. Delaney determined that Respondent had obtained an approved building permit for the construction of the swimming pool and the open beamed porch. (P-13) The building permit did not specify installation of the pool's piping. Likewise the building permit did not specify that Respondent might perform the interior remodeling work. This permit which Respondent did obtain lists, and Respondent's signature acknowledges, that Respondent knew that "unless specifically covered by this permit" separate permits must also be obtained for electrical, plumbing, roofing, and paving and pool, among other items. Upon concluding his investigation, Mr. Delaney felt sufficient evidence existed to charge Respondent with violation of Section 10-22 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code and forwarded his investigative report to the official for the appropriate unincorporated municipality. This report indicates that Respondent also pulled permits for mechanical air conditioning and heating and an electrical permit for the swimming pool. To Mr. Delaney's knowledge, no charges were ever filed by that official against Respondent. 3/ Mr. Delaney conceded that a state certified general contractor such as Respondent can legitimately do pool piping and that the only failure of Respondent was in not pulling the county permit. He indicated that the kitchen work in the Reyes' home would require a special permit because there is electrical and plumbing work in replacing old appliances with new. However, as to the kitchen cabinets he felt it would be permissible for either the general contractor to pull a general permit or for a subcontractor to pull a specialty cabinet permit. By questions on cross-examination of Mr. Delaney, Respondent asserted that no electrical work was done, no switches were moved and his only work was replacement of kitchen cabinets, floor, and acoustical tile but this is in the form of his questions and not sworn testimony. Respondent eventually came back to the Reyes job. He finished the pool in July, 1984. He finished the open beamed roof in October 1984. Respondent's carpenters or subcontracting cabinetmakers Carlos and Hector eventually fixed a kitchen door drawer Mrs. Reyes had complained about. (It was never established what these workers' status was/is.) Despite her general dissatisfaction with the tiles in her kitchen, despite a chipped sink, and despite personally having to explain to the plumber (again the tile setter and plumber's contract or employment relationship with Respondent is unclear) how to install the dishwasher, Mrs. Reyes currently feels 95 percent of the contract work has been completed by Respondent. 4/ She acknowledged that Respondent has provided additional bronze fixtures in her family room by way of mitigation. As to Counts IV--VII: In March, 1982, June Mildred Cooper contracted with one Steve Karlan for the construction of a bathroom addition on a residence located at 4835 Westwood Lakes Drive, Miami, Florida. The contract price was $6,700.00. Steve Karlan is not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. See supra. All oral representations made by Karlan to Mrs. Cooper are total hearsay and excludable, but it is clear that Respondent was never mentioned or otherwise identified during the contract negotiation of Cooper and Karlan. Cooper submitted contract payments directly to Karlan and never paid anything to Respondent. Cooper found Respondent on the job one day and thinks he said something to her like, "I'm the boss," but her memory of the exact language, if any, is vague. Cooper was admittedly not on the premises most of the time the construction was in progress because she repeatedly visited her other residence in Indianapolis for several months at a time. Respondent admits he was approached by Steve Karlan to give an estimate for the bathroom job and they thereafter agreed that Respondent should do the work. Respondent admits Karlan later gave him a piece of paper, probably a tax assessment, showing June Cooper's name as the owner, which Respondent used as the basis for filling out the building permit application which he applied for and received covering the portion of the construction work he did at her Florida residence. At the conclusion of his job, Respondent also executed a waiver-of- mechanic-lien affidavit which did not specify any owner and gave it to Karlan. Gomez never inquired into the relationship between Karlan and Cooper and just assumed Karlan was a relative, probably a son, living at the same address, and initially assumed Karlan had authority to authorize the work because Karlan opened the door to him the first time Respondent came to do the requested estimate. At the time Karlan opened the door to Respondent, some construction was already in progress in the house. Respondent represents that this scenario of obtaining a construction job is so customary in the trade that he never questioned Karlan's statement until Mrs. Cooper ultimately complained about the construction after completion. He recalls meeting her at the house twice during construction, but does not think he told her he was the boss. In mitigation, he represents that he made good on Mrs. Cooper's complaints. Respondent admits he later entered a contract with Steve Karlan as a "salesman" after satisfying Mrs. Cooper but that contract had nothing to do with the Cooper job.
Recommendation Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order requiring Respondent to pay a penalty of $1,000.00 and monitoring his license for one year in a probationary status. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1985.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Eugene Amrhein, is a certified roofing contractor, license number CC C020238, and was the qualifying agent for Knight Roofing, Inc. at all times relevant to these cases. On or about December 16, 1982, Respondent, conducting business through Knight Roofing Inc., contracted with Evelyn Nickerson for reroofing of a home at 707 N.E. 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida for a contract price of $1,485. She gave Respondent a downpayment of $785, and upon completion of the project paid the balance of $700. Respondent commenced work on the project without obtaining a permit, as required by Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code. Respondent also failed to obtain an inspection as required by Section 305.2(a), of this code. On or about March 10, 1981, Respondent conducting business through Knight Roofing, Inc., contracted with Judevilla Geria for the rebuilding of an existing flat tile roof for a contract price of $4,100. Respondent did not obtain the required building permit, in violation of Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code. Respondent did not perform the work contracted in that only a coat of paint was applied. He failed to rebuild the existing roof by recementing each tile, replacing rotten lumber, soffitt and fascia, nor did he replace approximately 50 tiles as required by the contract. However, Respondent has honored his warranty to Geria to the extent of repairing four leaks that developed subsequent to the work. On or about June 29, 1982 Respondent contracted with Golda Oxenberg to waterproof a roof at 3253 Foxcroft Road, Miramar, Florida. The contract price was $1,000. The project was completed and Respondent was paid in full. The Respondent violated Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code by failing to obtain a permit for this project. On or about August 22, 1983, Knight Roofing Inc., contracted with Joseph Castellano to repair the roof of a home at 1215 1st Street, Indian Rocks Beach, Florida. The contract price was $600, and included a two-year warranty. At no time was a licensed roofer present at the job site. David Ness, then an unlicensed individual, contracted for the work, performed the work, and received the payments. At no time did the Respondent supervise the work on the Castellano home. After completion, the roof began to leak. Respondent has not repaired the leak, despite his warranty. Respondent violated Section 108.2(d), Standard Building Code (adopted by Indian Rocks Beach Ordinance 291) by failing to obtain required inspections. However, no evidence was presented to show that Respondent violated Section 108.2(b), Standard Building Code, since a permit was obtained. Respondent has moved, but failed to notify the Construction Board of his new address as required by Rule 21E- 15.07, F.A.C. On March 7, 1984, Respondent contracted with Ralph Huff for roofing work at 3210 N.E. 9th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. The contract price was $5,725, and the work was completed. Respondent admitted at hearing that he failed to follow up on his warranty agreement. Respondent did not violate Section 305.2(a), South Florida Building Code since a final inspection was obtained on October 25, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's license. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William F. Beggs, Esquire BEGGS and VECCHIO 3012 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Benjamin J. Eigner, held certified general contractor's license number CG C001534 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. In 1980, Respondent was employed by the City of Tamarac as its chief building official. In that position his major function was to administrate and supervise employees who enforced the South Florida Building Code and the Code of Ordinances of the City of Tamarac. (Respondent's Exhibit 2). His duties included, inter alia, the review of qualifications and issuance of certificates of competency to contractors who wished to work within the City. On or about February 7, 1980, the Broward County Grand Jury issued a true bill or indictment against Respondent charging him with having solicited a bribe in his capacity as chief building official for the City of Tamarac. On or about July 3, 1980, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in Broward County Circuit Court to the charge of bribery. Adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence was withheld, and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of five years. As a special condition, Respondent was also required to spend one year in the Broward County Jail. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Because of health problems, Respondent was medically discharged from serving the remainder of his one year incarceration on January 26, 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint and that his certified general contractor's license be suspended for a period of nine months from the date of the final order entered herein after which time it shall be automatically reinstated. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myron B. Berman, Esquire P. O. Box 1113 North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Mr. Benjamin J. Eigner 7850 Beechfern Circle Tamarac, Florida 33321
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed as a contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. His license for the 1979-1981 license period had not been renewed at the time that the hearing was conducted, and he was therefore delinquent. [This finding is determined from Petitioner's Exhibit 1.] During June, 1977, the Respondent entered Into a contract with Emily D. Wohanka and Ruby Sue Dennard. Ms. Wohanka and Ms. Dennard, who are sisters, agreed to purchase a lot in Satellite Beach, Florida, and the Respondent agreed to construct a single-family dwelling on the lot. The parties agreed to an addendum to the contract during July or August, 1977. The addendum included some specifics with respect to construction and provided: Home will be complete and ready for occupancy within a reasonable period of time--normally three to five months. [This finding is determined from Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 9, and the testimony of Wohanka and Jordan.) The lot which Ms. Wohanka and Ms. Dennard purchased was not cleared until December, 1977. No progress on construction was made during January or February, 1980. The Respondent obtained a building permit from the City of Satellite Beach, Florida, on February 20, 1978. Construction work commenced in either March or April, 1978. By June, 1978, Ms. Wohanka became concerned that work was commencing too slowly. She told the Respondent that she needed to move in by the end of July. Respondent told her that it was probable that construction would not be completed until mid-August. By September, the project was still not completed. Ms. Wohanka tried to reach Respondent by telephone, but he would not return her calls. She tried to locate him at home, but no one would answer the door. She complained to the building official in the City of Satellite Beach, but the building official had similar problems reaching the Respondent. Ms. Wohanka also complained to N. M. Jordan, the real estate agent who had negotiated the contract. Ms. Jordan was able to locate the Respondent, and the Respondent told Ms. Jordan that he could not complete the project because he was losing money. In late September or early October, Ms. Wohanka and her sister located the Respondent at his home. The Respondent was just walking out of the front door when they arrived. The Respondent told them that he could not discuss the matter, that he had turned it over to Ms. Jordan, and that he was not a part of it anymore. [This finding is determined from Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3; and from the testimony of Wobanka, Hijort, and Jordan.] When Ms. Wohanka contacted the Respondent in late September or early October, no work had been done on the project for at least a month, and the house was not completed. Light fixtures, appliances, and air conditioning had not been installed. Cabinets and other fixtures were stored in a bathroom. Inside doors had not been installed. Flooring was not completed. No sidewalks or concrete driveway had been constructed. There had been no landscaping or sodding, and the sprinkler system had not been installed. The plumbing was not operational. Ms. Wohanka contracted with a new builder to complete the project. She was able to move into the residence on December 28, 1978, but work was not finally completed until late January, 1979. Additional expenses beyond those agreed to by the Respondent were incurred by Ms. Wohanka. The Respondent had drawn on a construction loan; but, there is no evidence in the record that the Respondent used these funds for any purposes other than the construction of the dwelling. [This finding is determined from the testimony of Wohanka.] During July, 1977, the Respondent entered into a contract with James and Eleanor A. Lawrence. The Lawrences agreed to purchase a lot in Satellite Beach, Florida, and the Respondent agreed to construct a duplex dwelling on the lot. The Respondent obtained a building permit from the City of Satellite Beach on February 22, 1978. Unknown problems developed, and the project was not being completed. The Satellite Beach building official had difficulty locating the Respondent, but he was ultimately assured by the Respondent that the project would be completed. The Respondent told the realtor who negotiated the contract, Ms. Jordan, that he could not complete the 3 reject because he was losing money. The Lawrences did not testify at the hearing, and specifics regarding their relationship with the Respondent are not known. It is not known whether the Respondent abandoned the project uncompleted without notifying the Lawrences, or whether some agreement was made between them regarding completion of the project. There is no evidenced that the Respondent diverted any funds from the project. [This finding is determined from the testimony of Hjort and Jordan.] No building codes from the City of Satellite Beach were received into evidence. There is no evidence in the record from which it could be concluded that the Respondent violated any provisions of the building codes in either the Wohanka or Lawrence transactions.
Findings Of Fact Daniel Fowler, a general contractor licensed in Florida (T. 289), qualified Raben-Pastal, A Joint Venture, under license No. CG CA15439 on August 15, 1980, and renewed the license for the period 1981 to 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. At all pertinent times, he was employed as a construction superintendent for Raben-Pastal, at a residential development in the City of Coconut Creek known as The Hammocks at Coconut Creek, Phase II (The Hammocks), and answered to Paul Pariser, president both of Raben Builders and of Pastal Construction, Inc., and himself a general contractor licensed in Florida. Before construction began, Raben-Pastal secured a building permit for a two- story building (No. 280-81), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, on February 19, 1981, and for a four-story building (No. 344-81), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, on March 4, 1981. Respondent personally signed the applications, listing certificate of competency No. CG CA15439 on each. PLANS CHANGE After work had begun, Raben-Pastal decided on a change of floor plan for the two-story building. Their architect, Donald Bryan, approached James Cowley, Director of Planning and Zoning, and building official for the City of Coconut Creek. Mr. Bryan offered the building official an amended floor plan, but, after discussing it, the two men agreed that new elevations were involved as well as plumbing location changes, which should be reflected on additional drawings. Thereafter, Mr. Bryan "went back and submitted an entirely new set of working drawings and all of the architectural sheets to reflect" (T. 246) the changes. Eight or nine of the twelve pages in the amended application differed from the original application. The only structural change was in the balcony areas. (T. 238.) At the time the change of plans application was submitted on February 27, 1981, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, work on the two-story building had progressed through completion of the foundation. STOP WORK ORDER ENTERED On March 2, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote and had delivered by hand a letter to "Daniel Fowler, Raben/Pastal" in which he stated: Please be advised that until such time that the Revised Plans have been reviewed and approved, permit #280-81 is suspended and that the previously approved plans are to be considered disapproved. All work on the building shall cease immediately. A notice to this effect will be attached to the permit board as of this date. While in all probability a new permit fee will not be necessary the standard plan examination fee shall be required prior to the resumption of work. For your reference, the following are the applicable South Florida Building Code 1/ Sections, 302.1(E), 302.4(H), 303.4 and 304.4 (A)(B). Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. The following day, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley, as follows: In response to your letter of March 2nd, it is our opinion that stopping work on the building under code numbers 301.3, 302.3, 303.4 and 304.4 is invalid. We have contacted both our architect and structural engineer and confirmed that the 2 story revised plans have no revisions to the super structure. Since for the next 3 weeks we are doing nothing but super structure work, and certainly within that time frame, you will have had enough time to process the revised plans, we will continue to build the building as per permit #280-81 with our independent inspector making inspections per the South Florida Building Code requirements. . . Respondent's Exhibit No. 16. Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley a second letter on March 3, 1981, to the same general effect enclosing a letter signed by the building's architect and an engineer, which "represent[ed] that there are no structural changes outside of a minor slab configuration." Respondent's Exhibit No. 17. On March 4, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser, with a copy to Mr. Fowler, as follows: I am in receipt of your letter of March 3, 1981, wherein you stated the stop work order issued pursuant to my letter of March 2, 1981 was invalid. My position, of course, is that my action was not only valid, but in fact mandated by code. After meeting with your architect, Mr. Bryan, I propose the following solution. The stop work order will remain in effect for Construction only, i.e. steel re-inforcement, concrete, etc. could not be placed. Site work could continue i.e. soil preparation, filling, compacting, placing of batter boards, excavation for footings and forming. If the above meets with your approval, please acknowledge. Respondent's Exhibit No. 15. To this, Mr. Pariser responded the following day with this letter: In response to your letter of March 4th, the construction that we are proceeding with is just the very 1st floor lift of columns. That lift of columns is the same as shown on the plans for permit #280-81. There is no reason why you could not look at the set of plans you now have in your office for permit #280-81 and make a determination on the number of bars, sizing and location of same. I believe there is a total of 23 columns. Independent of this, you have already received a letter from our architect and an independent engineer stating that these columns will remain the same and you will have an independent engineer's inspection signed off on the permit card. My sincere appreciation for your understanding and return of this letter with your signature below acknowledging acceptance. If however, there is any further harassment in this matter, we will have no alternative but to invoke Chapter 71-575 Section 4 a of the South Florida Building Code, which states in part. . ."if any elected or appointed officials prohibit by any means, directly or indirectly, the use of any materials, types of construction and methods of design authorized by the code or alternate materials, types of construction and methods of design approved by the provisions of the Code, then the elected or appointed official may be removed from office for nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance in office". . .Respondent's Exhibit No. 19. On March 10, 1981, the amended plans were approved. After still further correspondence, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser, with a copy to Mr. Fowler, advising that "receipt of the required $200.00 Plan Exam Fee. . .re[s]cinded the suspension of Permit #280-81," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, effective April 7, 1981. STOP WORK ORDER VIOLATED By the time the stop work order was rescinded, the two-story building's superstructure was finished. No work accomplished before April 7, 1981, differed from that called for in the original plans. Through respondent and others, Raben-Pastal placed steel-reinforced concrete and performed other work in violation of the stop work order, without testing the validity of the order before the Board of Rules and Appeals or by initiating mandamus or other judicial proceedings. Respondent directed and participated in this work deliberately and with awareness that a stop work order was outstanding. At no time between March 2, 1981, and April 7, 1981, was anybody aware of the design defects that later came to light. STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS In late April of 1981, Coconut Creek's Mr. Cowley learned of cracking in concrete slabs around columns in both the two-story and the four-story buildings. By this time, roof slabs on both buildings had been poured, but neither ground slab had been finished. On the city's behalf, Mr. Cowley engaged D. E. Britt & Associates, consulting engineers, to examine the buildings. After Duncan Britt telephoned to say the buildings should be shored, Mr. Cowley orally advised respondent Fowler that shoring was necessary, on May 6 or 7, 1981. SHORING ORDERED On May 7, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote and caused to be delivered by hand to Paul Pariser a letter in which he stated: I have just received instructions from Mr. Britt of D. E. Britt and Associates to the effect that a minimum of four shores must be placed around ALL columns in the above referenced buildings. Said shores shall be placed immediately and remain in place until such time that the structural adequacy evaluation has been completed. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. A copy of this letter reached Mr. Fowler on May 8, 1981. On May 11, 1981, Mr. Pariser replied: I am in receipt of your letter of May 7, 1981, please be advised that even though Raben-Pastal is respecting your wishes as to the reshoring, we would like to know specifically by what basis in South Florida building code you are requesting same. Also, what is the time frame which we can expect to have this lifted? Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. In a separate letter dated May 11, 1981, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley: I take exception to the fact that you have predetermined that there are structural deficiencies. According to Mr. Bromley, our structural engineer, both buildings, as they stand now, are structurally sound. We, at Raben-Pastal, will stop work on anything that is related to column and plate slabs until the Britt analysis has been submitted. Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. Also on May 11, 1982, in response to a mailgram from respondent Fowler, Mr. Cowley wrote respondent to the effect that his order requiring shores around columns should not be construed as a stop work order. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. A mailgram confirmation stamped received May 12, 1981, states, over respondent's name: Per your instructions requiring 4 post shores to be placed around our columns on building C-46 and C-47, Raben-Pastal will immediately commence this remedial work. Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. During this period, the engineers advising Raben-Pastal continued to believe that both buildings were sound and this was communicated to Messrs. Fowler and Pariser. FIRST-STORY CEILING SLAB ESSENTIALLY UNSHORED Mr. Cowley, Duncan Britt, Ron Thomas, and Henry A. Luten, Britt's chief engineer, among others, visited the site of the four-story building on May 14, 1981. The building was 240-feet long and had more than 30 columns; the slab on grade had still not been poured. The upper floors had been shored, possibly in the process of flying the forms, but there were no more than two or three shores in place underneath the lowest slab then poured, i.e., the first-story ceiling. If done properly, shoring would have begun at ground level with shores placed on the concrete pads around the columns; work would have progressed upward floor by floor; and no more than two or three shores a day, on average, would have been dislodged by the contraction and expansion of concrete in response to temperature changes. Shoring upper floors without shoring the bottom floor may have enhanced rather than diminished the risk that the building would fall. On May 15, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote respondent Fowler, as follows: Yesterday, May 14, Mr. Britt, Mr. Ludin [sic], Mr. Thomas and I made an inspection of the above referenced buildings. We were appal[l]ed to find that our reshoring instructions had not been carried out on the ground floor of the four story building, permit number 344-81. Considering that a potentially hazardous situation exists, you leave me no choice but to issue the following order. YOU SHALL IMMEDIATELY SHORE THE GROUND AND SECOND FLOOR COLUMNS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: TWO (2) SHORES ON EACH SIDE AND ONE (1) ON EACH END. ALL SHORES ARE TO BE WEDGED TIGHTLY IN PLACE. GROUND FLOOR SHORES ARE TO BARE [sic] ON FOUNDATION. Failure to comply will result in a Stop Work Order which will remain in effect until such time the engineer of record, Mr. Arthur Bromley, determines what measures are required to correct the existing structural deficiencies. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. To this letter Mr. Fowler replied, also on May 15, 1981: Please be advised pursuant to your letter of today, that to the best of my knowledge we proceeded to a completed state, the shoring on both C-46 [the four-story building] and C-47 [the two-story building] per your request on May 7th. It may appear, without further investigation, that for whatever reason some of the shor[e]s may have come loose, however in your letter of May 7th, not received until May 8th, you asked for all columns in both the 2 story and 4 story buildings, with no mention of the bearing on the foundation. As you well know, your letter was untimely since we had poured our slab on C-47 on the 7th of May and have shored from the slab on grade, on certified compacted sub soil to the 1st raised slab. However in this new letter you are only asking for 2 floors of the 4 story building. Am I to understand that that is the total requirement? On May 7th your letter, specific in nature, required only 4 shor[e]s and this new letter requires 6 shor[e]s. Which is it? Respondent's Exhibit No. 10. The last hour of the working day on May 15, 1981, Mr. Fowler ordered all his men to spend shoring the four-story building. Just how much additional time was devoted to shoring was not clear from the evidence. On May 16, 1981, respondent Fowler wrote Mr. Cowley that "we have already expended. . .64 man hours in reshoring these buildings per your specifications." Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. At the final hearing, however, Mr. Fowler testified that, on May 7, 1981, "five men working on the two buildings [did] nothing but shoring. . .four of those men eight hours and one of those men for four hours," (T. 304-305) (May 7: 36 hours); on May 8, 1981, "seven men working on the shoring on the two buildings for a period of time varying between six and eight hours per man," (T. 305) (May 8: 42 to 56 hours); on May 9, 1981, "five men for half a day. . .[did] nothing but shoring on the two buildings," (T. 305) (May 9: 20 hours); on May 11, 1981, "five men working on shoring for a period varying between five hours and eight hours on the two buildings," (T. 306) (May 11: 25 to 40 hours); on May 12, 1981, "six men working on the shoring. . .one man at four hours and one man at five hours and four men at eight hours," (T. 306) (May 12: 41 hours); on May 13, 1981, "five men working on shoring. . .two for four hours and three for eight hours," (T. 306) (May 13: 32 hours); and, on May 15, 1981, seven men each working one hour (May 15: 7 hours). In short, respondent testified at hearing that 203 hours, at a minimum, were spent shoring both buildings from May 7, 1981, through May 15, 1981. This testimony has not been credited because of the witness's interest, because it exceeds by a factor of three the contemporaneous estimate or claim in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11, and because it does not square with the time sheets, Respondent's Exhibit No. 26, or with the progress reports, Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 27 and 28, on which Mr. Fowler purported to base his testimony. Mr. Goode was one of the workmen who eventually placed shores in the four-story building, working from the ground up. Read most favorably to respondent, Mr. Goode's testimony was that two men could shore one floor of the four-story building in seven hours. This, too, supports the view that Mr. Fowler's testimony about shoring was grossly exaggerated. The record is clear, however, that work of some kind, including work that was not shoring nor incident to the load test nor remedial took place on and under the four-story building between May 7, 1981, and May 15, 1981, thereafter. See Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 26-28; Testimony of Goode, Williams, Fowler. LOAD TEST As late as May 16, 1981, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley that "Bromley's letter. . .coupled with the inspection reports list. . .should, beyond a doubt, put your mind, and anyone else's mind, at ease that the buildings. . .are structurally sound." Respondent's Exhibit No. 13. About a week later, a load test was begun by a testing laboratory using criteria agreed on by Henry A. Luten for the City and by Arthur H. Bromley for Raben-Pastal. In order to perform the load test, the shoring under two bays was removed and scaffolding was erected in its place. Afterward, the scaffolding was removed and shores were reinstalled. LAWYERS' MISUNDERSTANDING Construction at The Hammocks had received increasingly strident publicity, depressing sales of prospective condominium apartments. Raben-Pastal was concerned that premature disclosure of the results of the load test might aggravate the situation. John R. Young, Esquire, raised the matter with Paul Stuart, Coconut Creek's city attorney. Mr. Young proposed that the city be represented at the test by its consulting engineers but that no city employee observe the test, against the possibility that a Sunshine Law disclosure requirement would result in dissemination of a public employee's notes or report on the load test, before those conducting the test had been afforded time to evaluate the significance of things like cracks. Mr. Stuart agreed to communicate this proposal to Mr. Cowley and did in fact do so. Mr. Stuart left town, and Mr. Young eventually assumed that his proposal had been accepted. That it had been accepted, he told Mr. Pariser in Mr. Fowler's hearing as fact. Messrs. Pariser and Fowler were surprised to learn then, on the day of the load test, that Ron Thomas, chief building inspector of Coconut Creek, had accompanied Benjamin Eigner, an employee of D. E. Britt & Associates, to the site. Raben-Pastal employees confronted Mr. Thomas, at the edge of the property, and Lee Smith radioed Mr. Pariser's office. Mr. Fowler went to the scene of the controversy and Mr. Pariser telephoned the police. After the police arrived and while Mr. Fowler was talking to a policeman, Mr. Thomas started in the direction of the load test being performed on the second floor of the four-story building; Mr. Fowler ran toward the building and physically interposed himself, blocking Thomas's way. At this juncture, Mr. Fowler was arrested. He was eventually acquitted of criminal charges arising out of this episode. BUILDER'S ENGINEER STOPS TEST Mr. Bromley, who was also on site for the load test, recommended to Raben-Pastal that it be stopped before completion, because "the deflection was at a point that if there was anything further, it would cause permanent structural damage." (T. 234.) Most of the engineers involved later came to agree that there was insufficient post-tension cable in the slabs and that there was a "punching shear problem," a 122-percent "over-stress in the punching shear area." (T. 238.) Punching shear occurs when the "concrete that adheres around the column leaves the rest of the floor area or the floor area separates from the concrete that adheres to the column," (T. 235) with the collapse of the building a possible result. Raben-Pastal's own engineer testified at the hearing that, "It was a dangerous situation, yes." (T. 235.) (Widening the columns eventually remedied the problem.) SECOND STOP WORK ORDER ENTERED On May 28, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser that he had visited the site on Sunday, May 25, 1981, found it deserted and "observed that the load test had very prudently been stopped slightly past the half way point." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. The letter continued: With this knowledge, I have no choice but to place you on notice that the above referenced buildings are unsafe and constructed in a dangerous manner. Pursuant to section 201.9 of the South Florida Building Code and more specifically the fact that over-stressing and a danger of collapse was emminent [sic] if loading were continued. During a meeting held on May 27, 1981, with Mr. Britt, Mr. Luten, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Adams and myself in attendance, Mr. Bromley concluded that all work on the above referenced be stopped, with the exception of remedial repairs and additional testing if necessary until further notice. I am in complete accord and do so order. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. By the time Mr. Pariser received this letter, he had already ordered all work stopped on or under both buildings, except for shoring, testing, or remedial work. Neither he nor respondent ever authorized any work in violation of the stop work order of May 28, 1981. On June 1, 1981, the day after respondent returned from vacation, Mr. Thomas visited the site and observed and photographed a workman standing on the ground underneath the four-story building, even though respondent had personally ordered everybody to stay out except for replacing shores as necessary. On or before May 29, 1981, the scaffolding installed for the load test had been removed and most, but not all, of the shores had been replaced. Some rested, however, not on the concrete pads around the columns but on scrap lumber and pieces of plywood. Also on June 1, 1981, at least one workman went underneath the four-story building to fetch a piece of PVC pipe.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1982.
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to be certified by endorsement as a standard building inspector.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that certifies standard building inspectors pursuant to the provisions of Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes (consisting of Sections 468.601 - 468.633). By application dated November 7, 1996, Petitioner applied for certification as a building inspector. This application contemplated that Petitioner would sit for the certification examination. Respondent determined that Petitioner was qualified to sit for the Principles and Practice portion and the Technical portion of the certification examination. Petitioner did not achieve a passing score on the certification examination. Consequently, his application for certification was rejected. By application dated December 22, 1997, Petitioner applied for certification as a building inspector without having to take the licensure examination. This was properly construed by Respondent to be an application for certification by endorsement. Petitioner requested Respondent to waive the certification examination pursuant to the provisions of Section 468.613, Florida Statutes, which provide as follows: The board shall examine other certification of training programs, as applicable, upon submission to the board for the consideration of an application for certification by endorsement. The board shall waive its examination, qualification, education, or training requirements to the extent that such examination, qualification, education, or training requirements are determined by the board to be comparable with those established by the board. By his application dated December 29, 1997, Petitioner sought certification based upon his qualifications1 and upon what his counsel referred to as "substantially equivalent" exams. The "substantially equivalent" exams to which counsel for Petitioner referred were to the examinations Petitioner passed in order to be licensed as a general contractor and as a roofing contractor. Petitioner's application reflects that he passed licensure examinations during 1983 in Broward County and in Dade County in the general contractor category. Petitioner passed a similar examination in Palm Beach County, Florida, in 1986. Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, was created by Chapter 93-166, Laws of Florida. Prior to 1993, there was no state-wide certification of building inspectors. There was no evidence as to the contents of the examinations Petitioner passed in 1983 and 1986, and there was no evidence as to the contents of the certification examination administered by Respondent to candidates for certification as building inspectors. Consequently, there is no basis upon which a comparison of these examinations can be made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for certification by endorsement be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of April, 1999.
