Findings Of Fact Prior to July 10, 1984, Son-Mar Propane, Inc. (Son-Mar) was licensed by the Department as a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas, in appliances and in equipment for use of such gas and installation. Virgil Berdeaux was the president of Son-Mar and he and his wife were the sole stockholders. Virgil Berdeaux passed the competency exam which qualified Son-Mar for licensure. Sonny Wade Berdeaux Virgil Berdeaux's son, was the manager of Son-Mar. Son- Mar's business address and place of operation was 16034 U.S. Highway 19 North in Hudson, Florida. Virgil Berdeaux and his wife owned the property located at that address and leased it to Son-Mar. A propane pumping station and a building was located on the property at 16034 U.S. Highway 19. The building housed a pawn shop and supply store for mobile home and RV equipment. Son-Mar operated the pumping station and the stores. It also installed tanks and delivered gas to customers. 1/ On July 10, 1984, a final order was entered by the Department which ordered "[t]hat any and all of [Son-Mar's] licenses issued by the State Fire Marshal Division of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and eligibility to hold said licenses are hereby revoked." The revocation of Son-Mar's licenses was due to its violation of certain safety standards and rules. Specifically, it was found that an employee of Son-Mar, Mr. John Delham, filled a cylinder that had not been recertified, that he lay it horizontally in the customer's van, and that he failed to secure the tank in the van. While the van was still parked at Son-Mar an explosion occurred which destroyed the van and killed its occupant. On July 19, 1984, nine days after Son-Mar's licenses were revoked, Virgil Berdeaux submitted an application for licensure as a dealer in appliances and equipment for use of liquefied petroleum gas, listing the business address as 16034 U.S. Highway 19, Hudson, Florida, and listing the business name as Son- Mar Pawn Shop. On August 3, 1984, twenty-four days after the revocation of Son- Mar's licenses, Sonny Wade Berdeaux submitted an application for licensure as a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas, listing the business address as 16034 U.S. Highway 19, Hudson, Florida. The Department issues several different types of liquefied petroleum gas licenses. A Type 06, Class 02 license, known as a 602 license, is issued to a dealer in appliances and equipment for use of liquefied petroleum gas. The 602 license allows the holder to sell propane appliances and equipment, such as stoves, heaters, and gas grills but it does not permit the holder to install appliances or sell propane gas. A competency examination is not required for this type of license, and there is no inspection of the place of business prior to issuance of the license. Virgil Berdeaux applied for a 602 license. He completed the application and submitted the required fee. The application listed W. C. Johnson, Virgil Berdeaux's son-in-law, as the manager of the business. Bill Johnson had run the pawn shop for Son-Mar. Sonny Wade Berdeaux applied for a Type 06, Class 04 license known as 604 license, which is issued to a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas. This type of license permits the holder to pump liquefied petroleum gas for sale to the public. An applicant for this type of license must pass a competency test and file a surety bond or certificate of insurance. Further, if the licensee has a dispensing station, an inspection of the business location must be performed to ensure that it is in compliance with all safety regulations. Sonny Wade Berdeaux passed the competency examination, filed a certificate of insurance, and submitted the proper fee. Son-Mar held a Type 06, Class 01 license (a 601 license) as a dealer in liquefied petroleum gas, in appliances and in equipment for use of such gas and installation. A 601 license permits the holder to pump liquefied petroleum gas for sale to the public, to sell appliances and equipment for use of liquefied petroleum gas, and to install such appliances and equipment. In essence, it is a combination of a 602 license, a 604 license, and a license to install equipment. Both Sonny Wade Berdeaux and Virgil Berdeaux received letters dated October 8, 1984, which informed them that their applications for licensure had been denied. Both letters referred to the revocation of Son-Mar's licenses and pointed out that the applicants would be operating on the same premises and employing the same staff as Son-Mar. Both letters concluded as follows: Thus, it would appear that your application is seeking licensure for essentially the same entity that has only recently had its liquefied petroleum gas licenses revoked. Therefore, in the interest of public safety, this Bureau cannot permit an Order of Revocation to be obviated by a mere procedural reapplication in your name. The applications for licensure both list the business address as 16034 U.S. Highway 19 in Hudson, Florida. At the time of application Virgil Berdeaux owned that property and Sonny Wade Berdeaux had leased the pumping station. However, on July 1, 1985, the property at 16034 U.S. Highway 19 was sold. The pumping station was moved out along with the inventory that remained in the pawn shop. Neither Virgil Berdeaux or Sonny Wader Berdeaux retained any interest in the property, and at this time neither could operate a business at that location. Although there was testimony concerning the manner in which the business would have been operated and controlled had licensure been granted at the time of applications there was no testimony indicating where or how the business would now be operated. There was no attempt to amend either application to reflect a current business address, and the certificate of insurance entered into evidence lists 16034 U.S. Highway 19, Hudson, Florida, as the location covered. 2/
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law; it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered denying petitioners' applications for licensure. DONE and ENTERED this 21st day of May, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE A. GRUBBS 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 21st day of May, 1986.
Findings Of Fact B. D. Taylor, Respondent, is the owner of a wastewater treatment facility near Panama City, Florida, which serves a community of some 125-150 mobile homes at Lane Mobile Home Estates. The facility has a 24,000 gallons per day capacity to provide secondary treatment of wastewater with percolating ponds. It was first permitted in 1971 upon construction and has been in continuous operation since that time. In 1980 Respondent employed the services of a consultant to apply for a renewal of its temporary Permit to operate a wastewater treatment facility. This application stated the temporary operating permit (TOP) was needed to give Respondent time to connect to the regional wastewater treatment facility. The schedule contained in the following paragraph was submitted by Respondent at the time needed to accomplish this objective, Following inspection of the facility, a TOP was issued December 5, 1980 (Exhibit 1), and expired January 1, 1983. TOPs are issued to facilities which do not comply with the requirements for Wastewater treatment. Exhibit 1 contained a schedule of compliance to which Respondent was directed to strictly comply to stop the discharge of pollutants from the property on which the facility is located. These conditions are: Date when preliminary engineering to tie into regional will be complete and notification to DER. July 1, 1981; Date when engineering to tie into regional system will be complete and notification to DER - June 1, 1982; Date construction application will be submitted to phase out present facility - March 1, 1982; Date construction will commence - June 1, 1982; Date construction is to be complete and so certified - October 1, 1982; and Date that wastewater effluent disposal system will be certified "in compliance" to permit - January 1, 1903. None of these conditions or schedules has been met by Respondent. The regional wastewater treatment facility was completed in 1982 and Respondent could have connected to this system in the summer of 1982. This wastewater treatment facility is a potential source of pollution. The holding ponds are bordered by a ditch which is connected to Game Farm Greek, which is classified as Class III waters. The size of Game Farm Creek is such that any discharge of pollution to this body of water would reduce its classification below Class III. On several occasions in the past there have been breaks in the berm surrounding the holding ponds which allow the wastewater in the holding ponds to flow into the ditch and into Game Farm Creek. Even without a break in the berm, wastewater from these holding ponds will enter Game Farm Creek either by percolation or overflow of the holding ponds caused by the inability of the soil to absorb the effluent. On January 28, 1983, this facility was inspected and the results of the inspection were discussed with the operators of the facility. The plant was again inspected on February 8 and February 18, 1983. These inspections disclosed solids were not settling out of the wastewater in the settling tanks; inadequate chlorination of the wastewater was being obtained in the chlorination tanks; samples taken from various points in the system, the ditch along side the holding tanks and in Game Farm Creek, disclosed excess fecal coliform counts; and that very poor treatment was being afforded the wastewater received at the plant as evidence by high levels of total Kejhdal nitrogen and ammonia, high levels of phosphates, high biochemical oxygen demand, and low levels of nitrates and nitrites. In July, 1983, in response to a complaint about odors emanating from the plant, the facility was again inspected. This inspector found the aeration tanks anaerobic, effluent had a strong septic odor, the clarifier was cloudy, the chlorine feeder was empty, no chlorine residual in contact tank, final effluent was cloudy, both ponds were covered with duckweed and small pond was discharging in the roadside ditch (Exhibit 14) Expenses to Petitioner resulting from the inspections intended to bring Respondent in compliance with the requirements for wastewater treatment facilities are $280.32 (Exhibit 9)
The Issue Whether the Respondent should have his fire sprinkler contractor license disciplined for violations of the statutes and rules as alleged by the Petitioner’s Second Administrative Complaint, and Whether, if the Petitioner does not prove the allegations against the Respondent, the Respondent should recover his attorney’s fees and costs.
Findings Of Fact The Department of Insurance and State Fire Marshall is charged with the licensure and regulation of fire protection system contractors. Ralph Hamm is now and was at all times relative to this case a certified fire protection system contractor holding certificate number 437539000188. Ralph Hamm is the president of W.F.P. Company, Inc. (WFP). As the certified contractor, he is responsible for the work done by the company. The Petitioner may discipline his license for violation of the code and statutes; however, the Petitioner does not license and has no jurisdiction over the company. The Department of Correction (DOC) let bids to install fire sprinkler systems in several of its facilities. WFP won several of these bids. These bids called for the design and installation of the systems based upon drawings of the facilities provided by DOC. The drawings accompanying the bid for Tomoka Correctional Institution (Tomoka) were incorrect, showing a structure similar to the Marion Correctional Institution, a job on which WFP had been the successful bidder. Tomoka’s maintenance and construction superintendent upon seeing the drawings prior to the receipt of bids, advised DOC’s project manager of the discrepancy in the drawings. The project manager acknowledged the problem, but advised that the bid would be published. It was the superintendent’s understanding that the contractor that won the bid would be permitted to build the system to fit the actual structure, and thereafter the work memorialized in “as built” drawings. This process was misleading to a bidder who accepted the drawings as accurate knowing that the Department had several prototype building designs which it replicated at its institutions based upon the nature of the facilities and topography. WFP, which had already designed a system for an identical building, could anticipate reusing its previous design, saving design costs, and presenting a lower bid. WFP won the contract. The record reveals that during the course of construction at Tomoka additional changes were made to include sprinkling rooms not originally indicated as being protected, altering the height of the pipes, changing the nature of the sprinkler heads from standard to institutional, and from hanging down (pendent) to being upright. NFPA 13, 1991 Edition, (NFPA) was the standard for the installation of the Tomoka sprinkler system. The bid for the Tomoka job called for all labor, materials, supervision equipment, services equipment, design and installation to comply with NFPA 13. In October 1995, Mr. Victor Higgs, a fire safety inspector with the State Fire Marshall’s Office (SFMO) with experience in general fire safety inspections, inspected Dorm B and Dorm E on the Tomoka job at the request of WFP during construction. Following his inspection, Higgs wrote a report finding essentially the same conditions in both dorms. Higgs found that the sprinkler installation was not in accordance with the on-hand drawings which had been approved by the SFMO; that hydraulic requirements for the systems as installed had not been recalculated; that there were no test certificates for the hydrostatic pressure of the above ground or below ground piping; that there was no indication of the type of sprinkler head to be used in the halls; and that smoke barriers had not been re-established where the pipes penetrated walls between areas. Of the observations made by Higgs, only the failure to re-establish the smoke barriers constituted a life threatening hazard prior to the conclusion of the job. The other conditions may have indicated an incomplete system, but did not increase the threat of fire. His other findings related to and were the result of having to do large portions of the job by change order. Higgs notified Ralph Hamm of his findings in October 1995. Subsequently, a conflict arose between the SFMO and WFP about the metal clamps being used by WFP to hold the pipe up against the ceilings and walls of the job. The personnel of the SFM advised WFP that the clamps were not to NFPA standard. The NFPA lists a number of approved clamps which a contractor may use or the contractor may use a clamp that has been tested and shown to hold five times the weight of the pipe with water in it plus 250 pounds. WFP asserted that the clamps it was using met the latter standard, but the SFM personnel wanted evidence of the testing. WFP wrote several letters regarding the clamps, but did not provide evidence of testing until after the administrative complaint was filed. In the meantime, WFP had replaced all of the clamps with a clamp listed in the NFPA, a Grinnel 262 pipe clamp, prior to the final approval of the job by the SFM. The test of the clamp originally used was conducted in accord with the standards provided to WFP’s engineer by Underwriter’s Laboratories, and showed that the clamp originally used met the strength requirements of the NFPA. A video of the test conducted by Foy Hamm was made and reviewed which shows the clamp holding a weight exceeding the NFPA standard. A conflict appears in the deposition testimony of WFP’s engineer, Gary West, regarding whether the clamp tested was the one originally used or the Grinnel 262. Foy Hamm, who conducted the test, testified that the clamp tested was the clamp WFP had originally used, and was not a Grinnel 262. The video was reviewed, and the clamp appears to be identical to those introduced at hearing and identified as clamps originally used by WFP. The test establishes that the original clamps met the NFPA standard when they were installed. Mezzapella, a fire safety inspector from SFMO, testified about as-built drawings, and stated that they had not approved by the SFMO. According to Mezzapella, as-built drawings are prepared by a contractor, approved by the SFMO and delivered to an owner who maintains them as a historical record. Gary West also testified about the procedure for approving as-built drawings of a job and re-certification of the drawings after changes have been made. The as-builts are not approved by the SFMO. Upon completion of the construction phase of the job, the as-built drawings are reviewed by the engineer, who makes new calculations as necessary, recommendations as necessary, and certifies the plans. Another of the alleged violations committed by WFP was failing to provide for drains in sections of the pipe installed that were lower than rest of the pipe. This condition resulted from DOC’s request that the height of the pipe be raised in the halls to prevent inmates from grabbing the pipes and swinging on them. As a result, in other places, such as the dayroom where the pipe had to be run under a major structural element of the building, the lower run of pipe would trap water. The NFPA provides that if more than five gallons of water can be trapped in such a low area, a drain must be provided; however, a pendent head may serve as such a drain. Ralph Hamm, the Respondent, drained the water in the dayroom area that was trapped, and it contained less than five gallons.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is, RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a final order finding that the Respondent violated Section 633.539(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and fine the Respondent $1,000 for each of the three reported violations proven plus cost not to exceed $1,000. Further, that the Respondent be required to attend continuing education courses on the NFPA, and be placed on probation for one year from the date of the completion of said courses. And, further Respondent is not entitled to attorney's fees and costs. DONE and ENTERED this 6th day of June, 1997, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 6th day of June, 1997. COPIES FURNISHED: Marc S. Nash, Esquire Department of Insurance 612 Larson Building Tallahassee, FL 32399-0333 M. Lee Fagan, Esquire Suite 31 One San Joe Place Jacksonville, FL 32257 Bill Nelson, State Treasurer and Insurance Commissioner The Capitol, Plaza Level Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300 Daniel Y. Sumner, General Counsel Department of Insurance The Capitol, LL-26 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0300
The Issue Did the Respondent violate the provisions of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint?
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a licensed professional engineer. The Respondent holds license number PE 10214. The Respondent signed and sealed on or about November 15, 2001, a set of plans for the water fire sprinkler system for the new student gymnasium at Gulf Coast Community College consisting of three pages, and a set of calculations consisting of 14 pages for said sprinkler system. All discussions herein of sprinkler systems and the statutes related to such systems is limited to water-based systems. The calculations are intended to show that the performance of the sprinklers is sufficient in the area defined by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards as the hydraulically most demanding. The hydraulically most demanding area is the 1500 square feet fartherest away and highest from the "fire riser" or the source of water to feed to the system. The area defined as the hydraulically most demanding was identified on the plans as being in the southwest corner of the building, taking the top of the plan as pointing due north, or that portion of the building on the bottom, left corner of the building consisting of the women's showers and women's toilets. The calculations were generated by a computer based upon data provided on the size, height, length, and diameter of the pipes servicing the system and the number of sprinkler heads required in the hydraulically most demanding area. These calculations assume all the sprinkler heads in the hydraulically most demanding area will be activated, but no other sprinkler heads in the system will be activated. The calculations, Joint Exhibit 1, contained an error regarding the nodes and their length. See page 3 of Joint Exhibit 1, Nodes 20 and 25 at the bottom of the page. The best demonstrative evidence of the nature of the error is contained in Petitioner's Exhibit 3 in the diagram marked Piping Isometric. In sum, there should have been another node in the calculation of 61 feet. Testimony was received regarding the plans, their modification and actual construction of the system. The best presentation of the ultimate construction is represented in Respondent's Exhibit 1, which clearly shows two service pipes into the women's shower area. According to the uncontroverted testimony of the contractor, the intent was always to have two pipes servicing this area, one suspended under the other on the same set of supports, each pipe servicing the same number of heads in the area of the women's shower room. This was not adequately shown in the original drawings, and a second drawing clearly showing the two pipes was prepared to satisfy the general contractor. The calculations for the second pipe would be essentially the same as the first pipe because they are the same length and both have the same "load." There was testimony regarding new calculations supporting the plans, R-1, these calculations were introduced as R-2. They also show the pressure was adequate. The plans were approved by the State Fire Marshall's Office, by the Department of Education, and the Petitioner's expert witness opined that two pipes would supply sufficient water to service the area. Credible testimony was received that the quality and performance standards for valves, alarm checks, and switches were contained in the specifications provided to the bidders by the general contractor. These were not necessary in the Respondent's plan. Credible testimony was received that the entire project had one classification of hazard occupancy, as stated on the calculations, Joint Exhibit 1. No credible evidence was received that electrical or mechanical rooms have a different hazard occupancy and should have been treated any differently. The Board's witness testified that one of the design approaches is hydraulic calculation, See Tx 75-75. It is clear from the calculations, Joint Exhibit 1, that this was the method used. The installation of the backflow preventer was the responsibility of the general contractor and not part of the Respondent's responsibility. Further, pipes, valves, etc., were contained in the general contractor's specifications. Lastly, there is a four-inch check valve shown in the detail for the fire riser, which is a four-inch pipe and is the responsibility of the Respondent. The source of water is city water, which is treated. There would be no microbial corrosion concerns. The first page of the plans marked Petitioner's Exhibit 1, shows the fire riser as being located in the northwest corner of the building. The second and third pages show the fire riser as being located in the northeast corner of the building. Testimony was received concerning the modification of the plans to conform to the location of the fire main. Except for computation of the hydraulically most demanding area, location of the riser is not particularly important. The location of the fire riser was in fact, on the northeast corner, and this was the location used for calculation of the hydraulically most demanding area. The "as built" drawings, Petitioner's Exhibit 2, clearly show the riser in its proper location. To the extent that page one fails to reflect the same location as pages two and three, it is of no real significance. Under the contract for the sprinkler system, the general contractor was responsible for providing water to the fire riser and the sprinkler contractor was responsible for the system from that point. In sum, the plans incorporated those specifications given. Section 633.021(18), Florida Statutes, defines the "point of service" as the point at which the underground piping for a sprinkler system using water as the extinguishing agent becomes used exclusively for the sprinkler system. The statute provides that the point of service is designated by the engineer who sealed the plans for a system of more than 50 heads. The Respondent was not responsible for designing or presenting plans for the underground water service "mainward" of the fire riser. The riser by definition is not underground service. Therefore, the Respondent was not responsible for that portion of the total system at which the point of service would have been designated. No evidence was presented to establish that the definition of point of service creates a requirement for an engineer designing sprinkler design to control the system design to that point. No evidence was presented regarding the practices of the profession when this factual situation arises. No evidence was presented on the importance of the point of service in terms of a sprinkler system, and no testimony was offered regarding how an engineer would sign and seal plans that were beyond the scope of the work he was engaged to do. Special Findings Regarding the Various Sets of Plans As stated above, there were several sets of plans introduced at hearing. Petitioner's Exhibit 1 was identified as the set of plans signed and sealed by the Respondent; however, there was no evidence that these plans were used to build any portion of the project. In fact, the testimony was to the contrary, that these plans were expected to be modified and were modified prior to construction. Petitioner's Exhibit 2 was identified by Mr. Caldwell as a set of plans which he "red lined" as "as built" drawings after the construction was completed. He did not identify what iteration of the original plans he used; however, inspection and comparison show that they are virtually identical to the set, Petitioner's Exhibit 1. Mr. Caldwell qualified his additions to the plans to state that they reflected only what he could see without removal of tiles or materials. Respondent's Exhibit 1 was identified by Chris Thomas as being plans that were amended to address the concerns of Mr. Schmidt. These plans show two pipes where the original plans showed one pipe servicing the women's shower room. Because of the delay in prosecuting this case and the losses due to storms these plans are received and accepted as definitive because to do otherwise would raise due process issues the Petitioner having been aware of the alleged problems since before the plans were executed. No evidence was received regarding the customary practice in signing and sealing multiple versions of plans. There was no evidence presented regarding amended calculations in support of the drawings. In the absence of such testimony, it is concluded that only one set of calculations were prepared, and they were determined by the approving authorities to be sufficient. The Respondent admits that he did not date the calculations or the plans.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board dismiss the complaint against the Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of October, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 13th day of October, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Bruce A. Campbell, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Alvin L. Petters, Esquire Peters and Scoon 25 East 8th Street Panama City, Florida 32401 Doug Sunshine, Esquire V.P. for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Florida Engineers Management Corp. 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267
The Issue Whether Petitioners, Charles and Andrea Abraham, were subject to a discriminatory housing practice by Respondent, Sandy Cove 3 Association, Inc., based on their national origin, in violation of Florida's Fair Housing Act. 1 All statutory references are to Florida Statutes (2020), unless otherwise noted.
Findings Of Fact Sandy Cove 3 ("Sandy Cove") is a small development of condominiums located in Sarasota, Florida. Sandy Cove was built in 1973 and consists of 16 units. Sandy Cove is governed and operated by the Association. Petitioners own a two-bedroom condominium in Sandy Cove. Petitioners purchased their unit (#220) in 2009. They primarily use their condominium as rental property. At the final hearing, Petitioner Charles Abraham testified that he and his wife, Andrea, reside primarily in Maryland and Hungary. The focus of this dispute centers on a corkscrew of copper water pipes that runs from the top of the water heater in Petitioners' condominium into the primary water pipes within the unit's walls. This matter specifically concerns who should pay to replace these pipes. Each party believes that the other side should bear the costs. In their initial housing discrimination complaint filed with the Commission, Petitioners attribute the Association's refusal to replace the copper pipes in their condominium to discrimination based on their national origin (Hungarian). At the final hearing, Mr. Abraham testified that, sometime in 2016, Petitioners noticed that the water pipes connected to their water heater were beginning to show ominous signs of age and wear. The bends and joints of several pipe sections had turned green and were developing a buildup of corrosion. Petitioners felt that the pipes were a "disaster" waiting to happen. Mr. Abraham stated that initially he attempted to repair the pipes himself by applying glue to several connections. However, because he noticed a small amount of water leakage "from time to time," he believed that the pipes were in real danger of cracking or popping open. In 2018, Petitioners turned to the Association for assistance in fixing the potential plumbing problem. On November 28, 2018, Petitioners wrote the Association requesting it to repair their pipes. Thereafter, according to Mr. Abraham, the parties exchanged "around 100 emails" discussing how the pipes should be fixed, and who should pay for the repairs. Eventually, in the summer of 2019, Sandy Cove management contacted Daniel's Plumbing Service to inspect Petitioners' plumbing situation. On July 29, 2019, a plumber from Daniel's Plumbing Service examined Petitioners' water heater and the pipes attached to it. Following his inspection, the plumber wrote on the service invoice: Arrived and found corrosion on copper adapters to water heater. Water heater is 30 gallon electric that is 19 years old. Water heater should be replaced. Relief valve is 1/2" which should be changed to 3/4". Gate valve to water heater is no good and also needs to be replaced. No leaks at this time. The plumber then added: Notes-Dylan from management said to pick up-no further work is to be done at this time. He said work that is to be done is homeowners responsibility. Mr. Abraham testified that, after the plumbing inspection, the Association informed him that the pipes located inside his condominium were his responsibility as the unit owner, not the Association's responsibility. Mr. Abraham declared that the Association has refused to pay to replace the copper pipes in his unit. Mr. Abraham claimed that the Association's response was contrary to what he had seen and heard regarding the water pipes in other units. He insisted that the Association has paid to replace pipes for other condominium owners within Sandy Cove. Mr. Abraham specifically believed that in 2016, the Association repaired or replaced pipes with similar issues in units 115, 116, 117, 215, and 216. To support his position, Mr. Abraham relayed that, in 2017, the Association collected a special assessment from every unit owner specifically to cover the plumbing issues at Sandy Cove. Mr. Abraham recounted that he personally paid the Association $2,100. Consequently, Petitioners were quite frustrated that, after paying the Association several thousand dollars specifically for Sandy Cove plumbing problems, the Association refused his request for assistance to fix his own copper pipes. Seeking to confirm the necessary repairs, Petitioners hired two additional plumbers to inspect the water pipes in their unit. A plumber from Michael Douglas Plumbers visited Petitioners' condominium on September 9, 2020, and documented the following: Proposal to replace copper piping in water heater closet (very corroded and recommend replacing) * * * All piping from wall to water heater to be in PEX with new ballvalves Water heater is 20 yrs old 30 gal low (30 amp breaker) recommended replacement. * * * Replacement will cost … $1511.76 … this price includes replacing pipes as well. Petitioners also introduced the testimony of Robert DeForge, the current Operations Manager for Daniels Plumbing Service. Mr. DeForge was not the plumber who inspected Petitioners' water heater in July 2019. However, as a Master Plumber with over 30 years of plumbing experience, he credibly expounded on the description written on the July 29, 2019, invoice. Mr. DeForge explained that copper pipes are no longer favored within the plumbing industry. Instead, the current industry standard is to use PVC pipes (polyvinyl chloride – a synthetic plastic) for cold water pipes and CPVC pipes for hot water (CPVC is designed to handle a hotter temperature range). Regarding the status of Petitioners' pipes, Mr. DeForge confirmed that copper pipes can corrode over time. Following his review of a photograph of Petitioners' copper pipes and water heater, Mr. DeForge opined that the corrosion about which Petitioners complain did not result from a water leak, but is due to electrolysis from metal on metal contact (galvanized pipe to copper pipe). Mr. DeForge further remarked that corrosion can lead to water leaks, which will require the pipes to be replaced. At that point, if Petitioners are experiencing leaking pipes, Mr. DeForge would recommend that the current copper pipes be replaced with PVC/CPVC pipes. Mr. DeForge also commented that a pipe replacement job would likely increase the size of the pipes connected to the water heater. The 1/2" copper pipes currently attached to Petitioners' water heater would be replaced with 3/4" PVC/CPVC pipes. Mr. DeForge added that the pipes could be replaced without having to displace Petitioners' current water heater. The procedure would require an adapter to connect the 3/4" PVC pipe to the 1/2" relief valve affixed atop the existing water heater. Addressing the cost of the plumbing services to rectify the problem, Mr. DeForge testified that simply replacing the pipes above the water heater will cost about $150. To replace everything (new pipes and new water heater), the plumbing services would cost approximately $1,000 to $1,200. Mr. Abraham expressed that Petitioners' ultimate goal is to have the Association pay to replaced the copper pipes in his unit. Regarding the water heater, Mr. Abraham stated that he understands that the old water heater is his responsibility as the unit owner. Therefore, Petitioners are prepared to bear that expense. That being said, Mr. Abraham asserts that the water heater is functioning perfectly fine at present. Therefore, the only problem that needs to be remedied at this moment is the condition of the aging copper pipes. In doing so, however, Mr. Abraham added that the current plumbing situation is complicated by the fact that, to install new PVC/CPVC pipes, the relief valve connecting the water heater to the (new) pipes should be replaced. And, if the relief valve must be replaced, then Mr. Abraham asserts that the water heater should be replaced, as well. Mr. Abraham estimates that the entire service job will cost between $1,500 and $2,000. John Meuschke testified on behalf of the Association. Mr. Meuschke currently serves as president of the Association's board of directors, a position he has held for over 11 years. He also owns a unit in Sandy Cove. Mr. Meuschke stated that, generally, the Association assumes all financial responsibility for maintaining and repairing the "common elements" within Sandy Cove. Mr. Meuschke explained that the "common elements" consist of everything outside the individual condominium units. Conversely, the individual owners are responsible for the maintenance and repair costs for issues occurring inside their units' walls. Regarding Petitioners' specific complaint, Mr. Meuschke recounted that the Association received Petitioners' 2018 correspondence regarding a water leak in their unit. Mr. Meuschke advised, however, that the Association declined to pay for the requested repairs because the copper pipes which Petitioners sought to replace were located inside Petitioners' unit, directly above the water heater to be precise. Accordingly, Mr. Meuschke contended that Petitioners were responsible for any costs associated with the pipes' repair or replacement. Conversely, Mr. Meuschke stated that if the water pipes were leaking inside the walls that divide the separate units, the Association would have assumed financial responsibility for any plumbing costs. Because the inspection by Daniels Plumbing Service revealed, "no leaks at this time," however, Mr. Meuschke asserted that nothing indicated that the Association should pay for any repairs involving Petitioners' copper pipes. Further, replacing a unit's water heater is the sole responsibility of each condominium owner, because it too is located within the confines of an individual unit at Sandy Cove. To support the Association's position, Mr. Meuschke referenced the Declaration of Condominium of Sandy Cove 3 (the "Declaration"). In determining who is financially responsible for repairs, Mr. Meuschke pointed to Article 6, entitled Maintenance, Alteration and Improvement, which provides: By the Association. The Association shall maintain, repair and replace at the Association's expense: All portions of a Unit, except interior surfaces, contributing to the support of the Unit, which portions shall include but not be limited to load- bearing columns and load-bearing walls. All … plumbing, … and other facilities for the furnishing of utility services contained in the portions of a Unit maintained by the Association, and all such facilities contained within a Unit that service part or parts of the Condominium other than the Unit within which contained. * * * By the Unit Owner. The responsibility of the Unit Owner shall be as follows: To maintain, repair, and replace, at his expense, all portions of his Unit except portions to be maintained, repaired and replaced by the Association. Such shall be done without disturbing the rights of other Unit Owners. * * * 6.5) Common Elements, By the Association. The maintenance and operation of the common elements shall be the responsibility of the Association as a common expense. Mr. Meuschke pithily explained that a unit owner owns everything from the paint on the Unit's walls inward, and the Association is responsible for everything from the walls out. Mr. Meuschke also voiced that the Association collects a monthly assessment from each condominium owner in Sandy Cove. This money is designated for the Association's annual operating budget. The assessments also pay for the upkeep of the Sandy Cove "common elements," as well as any necessary repairs of the same. Mr. Meuschke relayed that occasionally the Association imposes a special assessment against the unit owners to generate additional funds for the Association's operating budget. Pertinent to Petitioners' dispute, in March 2017, the Association levied an additional charge on all Sandy Cove condominiums. Mr. Meuschke confirmed that owners of one-bedroom units were assessed in the amount of $1,908, and two-bedroom units (including Petitioners) were tasked to pay an additional $2,100. The purpose of the Special Assessment was to replenish the Association's reserves, as well as pay for several unexpected plumbing issues. Mr. Meuschke explained that these plumbing issues concerned the original cast iron pipes that ran within the walls between the units. Several of these pipes had deteriorated and burst causing a number of active leaks. Because the cast iron pipes were not located inside the individual units, the Association considered them "common elements" and assumed the repair/replacement costs as an Association responsibility. None of the special assessment funds, however, were designated for repairs to Petitioners' unit or to pipes inside any other unit. To conclude, Mr. Meuschke steadfastly refuted Petitioners' allegation that the Association's decision regarding Petitioners' request for plumbing repairs was unfair. He specifically rejected Petitioners' claim that the Association took any action against Petitioners, or denied them services, based on their national origin. On the contrary, Mr. Meuschke asserted that the Association would have made the same decision regarding any unit owners' request to replace the copper pipes above the water heater located inside the boundaries of their condominium. Mr. Meuschke maintained that the Association's common and consistent practice has been to only pay to repair plumbing issues located in the Sandy Cove "common elements." Mr. Meuschke maintained that the Association has never paid to replace pipes or repair plumbing problems that have occurred inside an individual unit. Instead, the unit owner has always been responsible for that repair or maintenance activity. Petitioners offered no evidence to prove otherwise. Based on the competent substantial evidence in the record, the preponderance of the evidence does not establish that the Association discriminated against Petitioners based on their national origin. Accordingly, Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proving that the Association committed unlawful discrimination in violation of the FHA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order determining that Respondent, Sandy Cove 3 Association, Inc., did not commit a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioners and dismissing their Petition for Relief. 4 See, e.g., Gooden v. Internal Rev. Serv., 679 Fed. Appx. 958, 966 (11th Cir. 2017)(“[G]eneral allegations, based on mere speculation and hunches, in no way establish that any alleged [discriminatory activity] was race-, gender-, or disability based.”). DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of February, 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles Abraham Andrea Abraham Post Office Box 162 Highland, Maryland 20777 Brett Stolson Argus Property Management, Inc. 2477 Stickney Point Road, Suite 118A Sarasota, Florida 34231 Robert Braland 4413 Claybrooke Drive Lothian, Maryland 20711 S J. BRUCE CULPEPPER Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of February, 2021. Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Paul Edward Olah, Esquire Law Offices of Wells Olah, P.A. 1800 Second Street, Suite 808 Sarasota, Florida 34236 Cheyanne Costilla, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399
Findings Of Fact On November 16, 1981, Arnold J. Pergament, an inspector in petitioner's employ, visited Mr. Griffin's establishment. He found one fire extinguisher missing; one fire extinguisher to be of an unapproved type; and one that had last been serviced more than a year earlier. Mr. Pergament had originally called the fire extinguishers to Mr. Griffin's attention on July 20, 1981. Some structural wood had rotted, Mr. Pergament noted on November 16, 1981. Metal railings had wide spaces between vertical and horizontal members. These railings had been in place for approximately 15 years, however, without comment by Mr. Pergament who inspected all that time. On July 20, 1981, Mr. Pergament first noticed that a concrete walkway was in disrepair. In places, it was pitched at angles that made walking awkward. This situation persisted through November 16, 1981, even though it had originally been brought to Mr. Griffin's attention in July. By December 9, 1981, Mr. Griffin had begun taking steps to correct the deficiencies Mr. Pergament had listed. The parties stipulated that all problems had been corrected as of December 31, 1981.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner fine respondent Twenty-five Dollars ($25). DONE AND ENTERED this 6th day of April, 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 6th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: L. E. Griffen Carlton Court Nine Northwest Avenue D Belle Glade, Florida 33430 John A. Boggs, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sherman S. Winn, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, Petitioner, vs. DOAH CASE NO. 82-298 H&R Control No. 60-2500H E. GRIFFIN d/b/a CARLTON COURT, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact On February 2, 1981, Arnold J. Pergament inspected the 511 Rooming House. He found one fire extinguisher in good order and another losing pressure and in need of recharge. Roomers appliances overloaded electrical circuits. The bathrooms were not designated as being restricted to one sex. They were dirty, lacked hot water, adequate lighting, and a sink was off the wall; one toilet had a broken tank, another was missing a toilet seat. The showers needed repair. Screening was missing in the bathrooms, in the rooms, and on outside doors. Hallways were inadequately lighted. Railings on second floor walkways and stairways were widely spaced. The grounds were covered with trash, garbage, and sour water. When Mr. Pergament returned for a scheduled reinspection on April 6, 1981, he found that not a single violation had been corrected. Another inspection, on May 26, 1981, revealed additional deterioration: A bathroom was under one-half inch of water. The fire extinguishers had been serviced but no steps to correct any other violations had been taken. The condition of the grounds was worse. The same circumstances or worse obtained on June 1, 1981, on July 1, 1981, on August 26, 1981, and on March 19, 1982. Conditions at the 511 Rooming House amount to an eminent danger to the public health and safety.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license, No. 60-2595-H, for a period of one (1) year. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of April, 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 13th day of April, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: T. E. Burgess 511 Rooming House 511 Southwest Fifth Street Belle Glade, Florida 33430 William A. Hatch, Esquire Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Lewis Reif Division of Hotels and Restaurants 201 West Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Sherman S. Winn, Director Division of Hotels and Restaurants 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent Emerald Plaza West, Inc., holds license No. 23-12623-H, issued by petitioner. Miami Garden West Apartments consists of 31 or 38 (T. 79) apartments in several buildings located on Northwest 183rd Street in Miami, Florida. E.J. Catogas, president of Emerald Plaza West, Inc., was also president of the general contracting firm that built the complex in 1973. Two years or so before the hearing, Emerald Plaza West, Inc., became the owner of Miami Garden West Apartments as a result of a foreclosure action. By the time of the hearing, the apartments had been sold and belonged to Nicky Limited, but respondent Emerald Plaza West, Inc., continued to manage the property under contract to the new owner. On April 11, 1980, Rogers Brown, an investigator in petitioner's employ, visited Miami Garden West Apartments. He found less fire extinguishers than the required two per building, and, of the fire extinguishers he found, some were in need of recharging. He discovered a refrigerator in need of repair in apartment No. 2 at 2250 Northwest 183rd Street, two toilets near the swimming pool in need of repair, and several screens in need of replacement, namely, screens on the east and west sides of apartment No. 2 in building 18257; on the east side of apartment No. 3 and in the kitchen of the same apartment', and on the east and rear sides of apartment No. 1 in building No. 18257; front and rear screens were missing in building 18255, and on the front and north sides of apartments Nos. 2 and 3 of building 18251. The inspector also found roaches and rodents on the premises. An employee of respondent lives two blocks from the apartment complex and helps with the repairs but is unable to speak English. Since he was unwilling to sign Inspector Brown's inspection report, Mr. Brown caused the report to be mailed to respondent, certified mail. Mr. Catogas refused the letter, however. Rogers Brown personally furnished E.J. Catogas copies of inspection reports on November 19, 1980. 1/ On May 15, 1980, personal service of the report had been effected on the wife of the employee who lived nearby. When Rogers Brown again inspected Miami Garden West Apartments, on June 9, 1980, he found some buildings still lacking fire extinguishers altogether, and found no fire extinguisher that was not out of date. There were only three or four fire extinguishers in the entire complex, and each needed recharging. Without contradiction, Mr. Catogas testified that the fire extinguishers are sometimes stolen. According to the same witness, the apartments are located in a fairly nice neighborhood and all the fire extinguishers were in place and operable on September 3, 1981. Petitioner's Mr. Brown found all the fire extinguishers in good order when he inspected on April 29, 1981. He had advised respondent that some of the fire extinguishers were in need of recharging on February 19, 1981. When Mr. Brown inspected on June 9, 1980, the roof on the southeast side of apartment No. 2 in the building at 2250 183rd Street leaked. Water was also leaking through a windowsill, and the refrigerator was not working in that apartment. At the time, apartment No. 2 at 2250 Northwest 183rd Street was occupied by Fannie Lindsey, whose maiden name was Fannie Hogan. During one period, her toilets overflowed, two to three times a week, for a reason she did not understand. Ms. Lindsey brought a lawsuit against respondent seeking changes in the conditions in her apartment. On December 26, 1980, Mr. Catogas or his lawyer wrote Ms. Lindsey's lawyer that the repairs sought had been effected. At the time of the hearing, the roof had been repaired, but the refrigerator still did not work. Mr. Catogas explained that he had adopted a policy, on advice of counsel, of effecting emergency repairs only in the Lindsey apartment. The door was off the pump room for the swimming pool and the laundry room also lacked a door, on June 9, 1980. There was a wet spot in the ceiling of the laundry room and holes in the sheet-rock lining the walls. One of the plates in the drop ceiling in apartment No. 4, building No. 18257, was broken, and the baseboard required repair. The outside toilets near the pool were inoperable. The plumbing has since been repaired, but residents do not have access to these toilets because the doors have been locked since the repairs were effected. No screens were to be found on the east side of apartment No. 2 at building No. 18257, on the east and rear sides of apartment No. 1 in the same building, and at the kitchen window and on the east side of apartment No. 3, also in building No. 18257. The front and north screens were missing at apartments Nos. 2 and 3 in building 18251 and front and rear screens were missing in building No. 18255. There were roaches and rat droppings in some of the apartments Inspector Brown visited on June 9, 1980. At some point, an employee of respondent began exterminating pests at the complex. Chemicals (some diazo compound) and equipment are kept on the grounds. Rogers Brown returned to Miami Garden West Apartments on August 16, 1980, on February 19, 1981, and on February 23, 1981. On his most recent visit, he once again found roaches and evidence of rodents; missing screens on the front and rear of building No. 18255; and that the drop ceiling in apartment No. 4, building No. 18257 remained unrepaired. According to Mr. Catogas, this has since been fixed. Mr. Brown also noted the still unmet need for repair to the baseboard in the living room of apartment No. 4 in building No. 18257. Respondent makes repairs from time to time and regularly exterminates the premises. Petitioner filed a proposed order which has been considered in the drafting of the foregoing findings of fact and substantially adopted, in substance. Proposed findings that have not been adopted have been rejected as inconsistent with or unsupported by the evidence or as irrelevant to the controversy.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner assess a civil penalty against respondent in the amount of $2,500. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of January, 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 14th day of January, 1982.
