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.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Julian Irby was a licensed Professional Engineer with license number PE 43316 and Irby Engineering & Construction, Inc., held Certificate of Authorization #9511 issued by the Board of Professional Engineers. Mr. Irby has been licensed in the State of Florida as a professional engineer since 1990 and spent 21 years in the United States Navy Civil Engineer Corps. He is also a licensed general contractor. Respondent Irby was the engineer of record, with the firm name on the title block of plans for a residential construction project described as, "House Relocation, Foundation Design, 1000 Blk La Paz St., Pensacola, FL" (the relocation project). On or about June 2, 2004, Irby signed and sealed page one of one with a site plan and foundation pier detail for House Relocation at 1000 La Paz Street, and filed it with the Building Inspections Department of Escambia County (Building Department). On or about June 7, 2004, Irby signed and sealed page one of one with a site plan and foundation pier detail for House Relocation at 1000 La Paz Street, and filed it with the Building Department. On or about June 25, 2004, Irby signed and sealed six of six pages of plans (the June 25 plans) for House Relocation at 1000 La Paz Street, and filed them with the Building Department. Permitting for the project was performed in a two- step process, with a preliminary foundation plan submitted before the house was moved from the old site in order to obtain a moving permit and foundation permit. After those permits were issued, Respondents received test results from a geotechnical firm that caused some alteration in the design of the footings to accommodate the water table at the new site. The plans upon which the building permits were ultimately issued and which were used by the construction crew in the building process were the June 25 plans. On or about February 1, 2005, Irby signed and sealed seven of seven pages of plans for House Relocation at 1000 La Paz Street, and filed them with the Building Department on February 24, 2005. The seven pages of plans for the House Relocation signed and sealed February 1, 2005, and filed with the Building Inspections Department of Escambia County on February 24, 2005, represent the relocation project as completed. Changes made during construction and approved in the field are reflected in this set of plans. The Florida Building Code 2001, as amended 2003, is applicable to this case. The relocation project involved moving an existing home from Perdido Bay to a location several hundred feet further inland. The house was an elevated structure at the original location and was elevated at the La Paz address. Respondent Irby was not only the engineer of record but was also the contractor for the project. Certain features of the construction and design of the original structure were not known at the time the original plans were submitted for the foundation. For example, there was a façade that hid from view the I-beam, stringers and pipe posts under the floor of the home. These features could not be seen until the façade was removed in preparation for the move. Relocation projects are subject to certain exceptions under the Florida Building Code. Some design specifications normally required when building a house are not required for a relocation project, because the existing structure need not be redesigned or brought up to code as long as it meets conditions specified in Florida Building Code Section 101.4.2.3. There is no allegation that those conditions were not met in this case. The primary requirement for a relocation design is foundation plans sealed by a professional engineer or architect, if required by the Florida Building Code for residential buildings or structures of the same occupancy class. Respondents' plans filed with the Escambia County Building Inspections Department included foundation plans. Both witnesses testifying for the Petitioner stated that they did not review or prepare any calculations related to the plans and there was no evidence presented that the Building Department had required the calculations to be submitted with the plans. James Lane, who testified on behalf of the Petitioner, acknowledged that there is nothing in the Florida Building Code to prevent an engineer from using the dead weight of the house on the piers and the friction it creates as a method of construction. If the dead load of the house and the friction transfer from the house to the top of the piers is sufficient to address the lateral wind requirements, then straps (also referred to as connectors) would not be necessary to meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code. The main wind force resisting system for the relocation project was the embedment of the foundation piers in the fiberglass reinforced slab and continuous footing in the garage area. Page 6 of the June 25 plans specifies a four-inch minimum monolithic concrete slab with fiberglass reinforcement, using 3,000 PSI concrete, as well as number 4 rebar throughout the footings. There is no requirement that the exact location of rebar splicing be noted on the plans, and the plans are not deficient for failing to provide that information. Moreover, the Florida Building Code requires that a minimum of 2,500 PSI concrete be used. Respondents' design exceeded this requirement. Respondent Irby performed calculations, using the dead load weights in Florida Building Code Appendix A, that showed that the dead load of the existing house sitting on piers with the friction it created was more than sufficient to withstand the required lateral wind load. Mark Spitznagel, P.E., reviewed both the plans and the calculations and visited the construction site. He opined that the calculations showing wind loads could be supported using dead load friction between the house and the piers were correct, and that the Florida Building Code does not require an engineer to explain that no connector, or strap, is required under this circumstance. His testimony is credited. Despite the fact that no connectors were actually required, page six of the June 25 plans included directions for connectors that were used to provide additional support. The Administrative Complaint alleges that the plans do not provide adequate guidance for transfer of horizontal wind loads from the house to the supporting piers and posts or how the supporting piers and posts are to resist imposed loads from the house. The evidence presented at hearing did not indicate what information the Petitioner believed would be sufficient to meet the applicable standard of care. Moreover, the evidence presented supports the conclusion that the metal posts were never intended to transfer lateral wind loads, but were to support vertical loads. The metal posts were part of the existing house and not subject to redesign under the exemption afforded in Florida Building Code Section 101.4.2.3. Shear walls were not considered in the calculations performed by Irby. However, the June 25 plans included shear walls around the garage area, which served to provide extra support over and above what would be required by Irby's calculations. The detail provided on page 6 of the June 25 plans provided a clear load path from the foundation through the shear walls to the upper original structure. The June 25 plans admittedly do not provide wall thickness or metal yield strength for the pipe posts, nor weld attachment, size or thickness for top and bottom plates for the pipe posts. This information is not provided because the pipe posts were part of the original structure and there was no need to redesign them or include them in the foundation plans. The slab beneath the structure was also shown on sheets 1-3 and 6 of the June 25 plans. The slab characteristics are shown in the monolithic footing detail. The upper floor framing members, including the floor joists and the stringers and the I-beam atop the pipe posts were part of the original house design. The house was elevated at its original location, and the stringers, I-beam and pipe posts were part of the original structure. These components did not need to be shown on the plans because of the exemption provided in Florida Building Code Section 101.4.2.3. Respondents did not include main wind force resisting loads for the structure because the Florida Building Code does not require them to be shown for residential, as opposed to commercial, projects. Based on the evidence presented, only component and cladding pressures are required to be shown on the plans, and page 6 of the June 25 plans clearly provides this information. In accordance with Florida Building Code Section 1606.1.7, wind loads for components and cladding were provided showing that the structure was designed to withstand winds up to exposure category D, at 140 miles per hour. The house was actually moved and put in place on the foundation piers three days prior to Hurricane Ivan. Hurricane Ivan was a major hurricane causing extensive damage to the Pensacola area. According to the National Weather Service's Tropical Cyclone Report for the storm, Perdido Key was "essentially leveled." The house relocation project sustained no structural damage in Hurricane Ivan.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint against Respondents be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON 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 29th day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Campbell, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 A. G. Condon, Jr., Esquire Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon 30 South Spring Street Post Office Drawer 1271 Pensacola, Florida 32596 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Calloway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Doug Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Jose Ramone Garcia obtained a building permit for the purpose of aiding an uncertified or unregistered person to evade the provisions of Part 2, Chapter 468, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact Jose Ramone Garcia holds a license as a general contractor issued by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board and is licensed as doing business as Gabros Construction. Jose Ramone Garcia, on or about April 26, 1974, obtained a building permit No. 74-1006 issued by Collier County Building Department to build a home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida. The home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida, was built by Roger Dulaney, an unlicensed person, who had contracted verbally to build said home with Mr. William E. Young, the owner of the real property. Jose Ramone Garcia obtained the building permit No. 74-1006 with money given to him by Roger Dulaney, but Jose Ramone Garcia did not receive any compensation for his assistance to Roger Dulaney. Jose Ramone Garcia did not contract with William E. Young to build the home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida. Jose Ramone Garcia did not contract with any of the subcontractors or materialmen for services or goods used in the construction of the home at 378 Seabee Avenue, Vanderbilt Beach, Florida. Jose Ramone Garcia was frequently at the construction site at 378 Seabee Avenue and did oversee the construction which Dulaney directed. Garcia did insure that all construction work done was in accordance with the specifications and plans and the building code of Collier County. All work on the home at 378 Seabee Avenue was inspected and approved by the building authorities of Collier County. With several minor adjustments, the construction was acceptable to the owners. The major problem involved with the house constructed at 378 Seabee Avenue involved the contract price of the home arrived at between Dulaney and Young. Garcia did not negotiate the contract of the construction of the house at 378 Seabee Avenue and had no knowledge of the contract price. The dispute between Dulaney and Young resulted in court action between these parties which resulted in a judgment by the court in the favor of Dulaney. Jose Ramone Garcia has been unable to obtain a building permit as a contractor in Collier County since the filing of the Administrative Complaint in January, 1976. Garcia currently resides in Collier County.
Recommendation Because the licensing privilege of Garcia has already been effectively suspended for 14 months, which is a substantial period of suspension, the Hearing Officer does not feel that a further suspension would be of any benefit. The Hearing Officer would recommend that a civil penalty of $500 be assessed against Garcia based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law. DONE and ORDERED this 29th day of March, 1977, in Tallahassee, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry S. Sinoff, Esquire Jacobs, Sinoff, Edwards, Alford & Burgess Post Office Drawer I Fernandina Beach, Florida 32034 Jose Ramone Garcia 9341 S. W. 38th Street Miami, Florida J. K. Linnan Executive Director Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 8621 Jacksonville, Florida 32211
Findings Of Fact Harry L. Wilson is the holder of a registered roofing contractor's license from the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The license, Number RC 0041328, was first issued in March of 1982. The license was issued in the name of Harry L. Wilson Roofing, 1943 Hardy Street, Jacksonville, Florida, with the Respondent as qualifier. The Respondent has been the qualifier of Harry L. Wilson Roofing at all times relevant to this proceeding. On December 6, 1984, the Respondent and Robbie L. Hicks, entered into a written contract (Petitioner'S Exhibit 2). Pursuant to this written contract (hereinafter referred to as the "Contract"), the Respondent agreed to perform the repair work specified in the Contract in a "professional manner" and Ms. Hicks agreed to pay the Respondent $2,395.00. The property to be repaired is rental property owned by Ms. Hicks. The property is located at 1508 Eaverson Street, Jacksonville, Florida. The Respondent commenced work sometime during the early part of 1983. Shortly after commencing work, however, the Respondent and Ms. Hicks began having disagreements as to the work to be performed and the quality of the Respondent's work. These disagreements continued after the Respondent completed the work in November of 1983. Ms. Hicks testified that the work that the Respondent completed was done in an unprofessional manner and that the Respondent had not completed all of the work that he had agreed to perform. In particular, Ms. Hicks testified that the Respondent had failed to paint the interior of the house beige as required by the Contract, had failed to remove saw dust and other debris from the house following completion of the work, had failed to finish cabinets installed in the house, had failed to repair screens and generally had not performed in the manner he had agreed to perform. Ms. Hicks paid the Respondent all but $410.00 of the contract price. The Respondent testified that all off the work called for pursuant to the Contract had been performed. According to the Respondent, he had performed some work not required by the Contract and had not performed other work requested by Ms. Hicks because the work was beyond the scope of the Contract. The Respondent also stated that the work which Ms. Hicks expected would have cost considerably more than the price agreed upon in the Contract. The Respondent did not perform all of the work specified in the Contract in a "professional manner" as required by the Contract. Based upon the testimony of Mr. Claude Bagwell, Deputy Chief, Building and Zoning, Inspection Division of the City of Jacksonville, it is clear that no permit was issued by the City of Jacksonville to perform the work required by the Contract. The only permits issued with regard to Ms. Hicks' rental property was a permit issued in 1961 and the original building permit issued in 1949. Additionally, due to the fact that no Florida registered roofing contractor's license in the name of "Harry L. Wilson Roofing" had been filed with the City of Jacksonville, no permit could be issued to Harry L. Wilson Roofing with regard to the Contract. The Respondent admitted that he had not obtained a permit to perform the work required by the Contract. The Respondent indicated that he had not obtained a permit because he was not aware that one was required in order to perform the work. He did indicate that he had obtained permits to perform other jobs. The Respondent could not, however, have obtained permits for other jobs because no license issued in the name of Harry L. Wilson Roofing had been filed with the City of Jacksonville. The Respondent did take the examination required in order to obtain a registered roofing contractor's license. The Petitioner suggested in its Proposed Findings that the "permit requirement was explained" when the Respondent took the exam. No evidence to support such a finding was presented at the hearing. The Respondent in entering into the Contract clearly used the name "Wilson Recycling". Nowhere on the Contract is the name "Harry L. Wilson Roofing" used. The Respondent ultimately admitted that no Florida license authorizing the use of the name "Wilson Recycling" had been obtained by him. The Respondent, however, when initially asked whether a Florida license in the name of "Wilson Recycling" had been obtained indicated that such a license had been issued. On further examination, however, the Respondent testified that an occupational license in the name of "Wilson Recycling' had been obtained by him and not a Florida license. The work to be performed pursuant to the Contract was beyond the scope off the Respondent's license. As pointed out by Mr. Bagwell the work to be performed pursuant to the Contract would require licensure as a registered residential contractor or more.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That count I of the Administrative Complaint filed against the Respondent be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129 (1)(g), Florida Statutes (1983), by contracting in a name other than the name as set forth on the Respondent's license. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), by failing in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.119(2) and(3), Florida Statutes (1983), in that the Respondent failed to qualify the business name "Wilson Recycling" with the Construction Industry Licensing Board. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1983), when he failed in a material respect to comply with the provisions of Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes (1983), by contracting to perform and actually performing work beyond the scope of his Florida contracting license. It is further RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner suspend Respondent's roofing contractor's license for a period of three (3) months. DONE and ENTERED this17th day of December, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. LARRY J. SARTIN 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 17th day of December, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: H. Reynolds Sampson, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Harry L. Wilson 1943 Hardee Street Jacksonville, Florida 32209 Mr. Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue At the commencement of formal hearing, Petitioner voluntarily dismissed Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the pending Administrative Complaint, and the formal hearing proceeded upon Paragraphs 1-4 and 6 of the Administrative Complaint. The Department of Professional Regulation prosecuted Respondent for one count of the following enumerated alleged violations: Sections 489.129(1)(d), willful or deliberate disregard of building codes; (j), failure in any respect to comply with the Act; (m), fraud, deceit, or gross negligence; and 489.105(4), Florida Statutes, all of which arise out of a single incident.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Leonardo Sanchez, was licensed by the State of Florida as a certified general contractor holding license numbers CG C004810 and CG CA04810. Robert G. Wolf, Investigator Specialist II with Petitioner, investigated a complaint made by Mirta Garcia against a contractor named Leonardo Sanchez. Ms. Garcia told him she had entered into a contract with a Mr. Sanchez; that she had paid Sanchez a sum of money for an addition to her house; that Sanchez never supplied her a written contract; and that Sanchez pulled a permit for the work and never completed it. Ms. Garcia did not appear and testify at formal hearing and her representations to Mr. Wolf are mere hearsay. They do, however, supplement or explain other competent proof. Mr. Wolf spoke with a Mr. Sanchez who, in Mr. Wolf's words "acknowledged the contractual relationship with the Garcias." (TR-15) Mr. Wolf visited Ms. Garcia's home and determined that a job of construction had been begun there but that interior work had yet to be completed. John Delaney is Assistant Chief Code Enforcement Officer for the Board of Rules and Appeals for the Building and Zoning Department, Dade County. He also visited the Garcia home and on August 18, 1987 it was approximately 80 per cent complete, in his opinion. He presented as a certified business record, a building permit application for an owner "Mirta Garcia" by "Caribean Window" [sic] applied for in the name of Leonardo Sanchez, dated "accepted 12/9/85," and carrying the contractor number CGC004810 and the social security number 109-42- 4859 (P-2). The contractor number and social security number on the application match Respondent's contractor's license and social security number. "Caribbean Window" is one of the entities for which Respondent is the registered qualifying agent. Dade County Ordinance 57-22 establishes that the South Florida Building Code was in effect in Dade County at all times material to this Administrative Complaint. Section 305.2(a) of the South Florida Building Code establishes a mandatory duty for the permit holder to obtain a reinforcing inspection. Mr. Delaney also presented a certified computer printout of a Building Inspection log or record (P-3) showing that no one, including Respondent, had obtained the required reinforcing inspection related to the Garcia job as of the date of the computer inquiry. The computer printout reflects the dates of other inspections and the date and number of the application to which it pertains; it does not clarify when Mr. Delaney made his computer inquiry but a reasonable inference is that it was made the date of his visit to the Garcia home, August 18, 1987. No reason was presented to excuse Respondent as permit holder from obtaining the appropriate inspection.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), assessing an administrative fine therefor of $250.00, and dismissing the remaining charges. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 29th day of December, 1988, at 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 29th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-3445 The following constitute specific rulings upon the parties' respective proposed findings of fact (PFOF) pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes. Petitioner's PFOF 1-7 are accepted as modified to reflect the evidence of record. Respondent's PFOF Respondent submitted no proposals. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 G. W. Harrell, Esquire, and Donald Osterhouse, Qualified Representative Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Leonardo Sanchez 12700 Southwest 37 Street Miami, Florida 33175 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a Certified Building Contractor or Residential Contractor.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a 44-year-old male. He was born and raised in Tallahassee, Florida. He is a high school graduate. Petitioner passed the examination for licensure as a certified building contractor. This is a comprehensive examination that is designed to test knowledge in all aspects of the construction industry. Passing it is a mandatory prerequisite before an application can be considered by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (FCILB). However, passing the examination does not eliminate or modify the statutory or rule experience requirements. Petitioner submitted his application for a certified building contractor license on or about March 24, 2008. By letter of May 2, 2008, the Department of Business and Professional Regulation requested additional information. Petitioner then provided a revised affidavit from Chad Banks, a certified building contractor, and a letter from the Maintenance Construction Chief of the City of Tallahassee’s Gas Utility Department, each containing more detailed information about Petitioner’s experience. These items were received by Respondent on May 23, 2008. It is not clear whether Petitioner requested and was granted a continuance of his appearance with regard to the instant license application at an earlier FCILB meeting, but on January 15, 2009, the full Board considered Petitioner’s application at a duly-noticed public meeting in Altamonte Springs, Florida. At that time, Petitioner was present. During his appearance before the full Board on January 15, 2009, Petitioner was very nervous, but he believes that one of the Board members offered him, or at least asked him if he would accept, a residential contractor’s license in place of a certified building contractor’s license, and that he answered that he would accept such a license, only to have that “offer and acceptance” voted down by the full Board. However, Petitioner does not rule out the possibility that the vote taken at the meeting was actually with regard to denying the certified building contractor license for which he had applied. There is no evidence that Petitioner has ever submitted an application for a residential contractor’s license. By a Notice of Intent to Deny, dated March 16, 2009, and mailed March 24, 2009, the FCILB formally denied Petitioner’s application for a certified building contractor License stating: The applicant failed to demonstrate the required experience, pursuant to Section 489.111, Florida Statutes and Rule 61G4- 15.001, Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner seeks licensure as one who has four years of active experience and who has learned the trade by serving an apprenticeship as a skilled worker or as a foreman, at least one year of which experience is as a foreman. Petitioner has never worked as a full-time employee of a commercial or residential contractor. Petitioner got early experience in construction working around eight rental properties owned by his father. He performed light carpentry, deck construction, general handyman repairs, and some plumbing and roofing when he was approximately 16 to 21 years of age. However, Petitioner essentially relies on a work history that includes working as a plumber for Jim Bennett Plumbing from 1987 to 1993; as a foreman for the City of Tallahassee Gas Department from 1995 to 2005; as a “contractor trainee” for Chad Banks from 1999 to 2002; as having volunteered as superintendent for Gulf Coast Painting from 2003 to 2007; and as a maintenance man for the City of Tallahassee Parks Department from 2006 to 2007. Petitioner’s dates of employment overlap, because his volunteer experience was acquired mostly on weekends, holidays, in hours after he had already completed a full work day for the City of Tallahassee, or on “time off” from his regular employments with the City. Petitioner is a hard worker and wanted to learn the construction trade, but his volunteer construction jobs were intermittent, and he provided no clear assessment of the number of hours per week or month that he put in for any of them. From 1987 to 1993, Petitioner worked for Jim Bennett Plumbing. He started as a plumber’s helper and progressed to greater responsibility. In that position, he acquired a wide range of experience in plumbing for some residential, but mostly commercial, buildings. During this period, he also did some light cosmetic carpentry and tile work to restore building parts damaged by the installation of plumbing apparatus. Much of Petitioner’s construction experience relates to his association with Chad Banks, who testified that at all times material, Petitioner had “hands on” experience, working for him and that Petitioner was a competent worker. Petitioner has never been a “W-2 employee” of Mr. Banks, but there is no specific statutory or rule requirement that the experience necessary to qualify for the certified building contractor or the residential contractor license must be as a “W-2 employee.” Cf. Conclusions of Law. Mr. Banks was not licensed as a certified building contractor until 1999. Petitioner did some work for Mr. Banks when Mr. Banks was working as a sub-contractor on commercial projects (specifically one or more Super-Lube buildings) prior to Mr. Banks obtaining his certified building contractor’s license in 1999. Most of this employment involved pouring concrete slabs. Petitioner claims experience in “elevated slabs,” limited to the construction of a single Super-Lube building, which Petitioner described as laying a slab below ground level for mechanics to stand on and an at-ground level slab for cars to drive onto the lift for an oil change. He described no truly “elevated” slabs or floors above ground level on this project, and Petitioner’s and Mr. Banks’ testimony was vague as to Petitioner’s responsibilities on this project and as to the project’s duration. The general contractor on this project for whom Mr. Banks “subbed” did not testify. From this, and other employments, Petitioner has experience pouring foundation slabs, but he has never worked on a foundation slab in excess of 20,000 square feet. Petitioner also assisted in Mr. Banks’ construction of some rental sheds, but it is unclear if this was before or after Mr. Banks was licensed. Petitioner worked for Mr. Banks d/b/a C. B. Construction, Inc., in a volunteer capacity on exclusively residential construction from 1999 to 2002, and again from February 2004 to March 2008. During these periods, Petitioner and Mr. Banks considered Petitioner a “contractor trainee,” but Petitioner’s work for Mr. Banks was neither exclusive nor continuous; both men described it as “volunteer” work; and some of it seems to have amounted to Petitioner's looking over work done personally by Mr. Banks and having Mr. Banks explain to him, via a plan sheet, what Mr. Banks had already done personally. There is no evidence that during this time frame Petitioner worked for Mr. Banks as a foreman. Petitioner has the ability to “read” many types of construction “plans.” Petitioner has experience with slab footers, but he has not constructed red iron structural steel qualified for framing a building. Petitioner has experience in decorative masonry walls, but he has not constructed structural masonry walls of a type that would support framing members of a building or other vertical construction. Petitioner also worked for the City of Tallahassee as a “W-2” employee, mostly as a foreman overseeing a crew of four workers, from 1995 to 2005. In that capacity, he worked on a church, but the church itself had been constructed several years previously, and Petitioner’s crew’s contribution was tying-in several gas lines during a roadway development project and keeping all the utilities up and running during the project, while a private contractor worked on the church. With regard to the foregoing project and many others for the City Utilities Department, Petitioner directed a crew that built sidewalks and gutters or that tied these features into existing roadways and driveways. In that capacity, he often coordinated activities with residential contractors. Over his ten years’ employment with the City Utilities, Petitioner also directed a crew that exclusively created underground vaults for the housing and shelter of utility apparatus. However, none of his endeavors for the City Utilities involved vertical structural construction for floors above ground. Petitioner has also built new gas stations for the City’s natural gas vehicles, and has erected pre-fab utility buildings, including much slab work, but the nature and duration of these endeavors is not sufficiently clear to categorize them as qualifying him for the certified building contractor license. Most of Petitioner’s experience with the City, as substantiated by the letter of the City Utilities Maintenance Construction Chief, Mr. Lavine, has been in the construction of driveways, roads, gutters, storm drains, sidewalks, culverts, underground utility structures, plumbing and gas lines. While it is accepted that Petitioner has worked on such projects, this type of work more properly falls in the categories of “plumbing contractor” or “underground utility contractor” and Mr. Lavine was not demonstrated to have any certification/licensure in a category appropriate to Petitioner’s application. (See Conclusions of Law.) Sometime after 2005, for approximately a year, Petitioner was employed by the City of Tallahassee Parks and Recreation Department and in that capacity participated in at least one construction of a dugout and a concession stand at one of its playgrounds. He also did repairs on several dugouts and concession stands, but this latter work would not be classified as “structural” construction. Petitioner’s experience in precast concrete structures is limited to his work with gas utility structures, but does not include work on precast tilt walls, which are the type of walls that are constructed off-site, delivered to the job site, placed on the slab foundation, and raised in place as part of an on- going commercial building project. Petitioner has no experience in column erection. “Columns” in this context within the construction trade refers to supports for upper level structural members, which would entail vertical construction. Petitioner’s experience in concrete formwork does not include experience in the structurally reinforced concrete formwork that would be used in vertical buildings, such as all floors above ground level. FCILB’s Chairman testified that the Board interprets the type of experience necessary to comply with the statutes and rules, more particularly Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G4- 15.001(2), to be “structural experience.” There is no affirmative evidence that Petitioner has ever notified the Clerk of the Agency that he was relying on a right to a default license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order denying Petitioner’s application for licensure as a Certified Building Contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 24th day of November, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 24th day of November, 2009.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Thomas J. Embro holds two licenses issued by Petitioner. They are RG0021774, registered general contractor, and RC0021647, registered roofing contractor. He has held these licenses since 1974. Sometime in the fall of 1979 Respondent was hired by Richard F. Rogers to replace the roof on a residential structure located at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue, Gainesville, Florida. At that time the house was for sale. Mr. Rogers, who is a real estate agent, wanted the roof replaced in anticipation of a Veterans Administration financed sale of the house to Mr. William Schrader. Prior to beginning work on the roof Mr. Embro did not obtain a building permit from the City of Gainesville for the job. On October 1, 1979 Mr. Schrader made a complaint to the Building Division of the City of Gainesville. His complaint stated that the roofing work performed by Respondent was unsatisfactory. Mr. Al Davis, a building inspector employed by Gainesville, reviewed the city records and determined that a permit had not been issued to Respondent for reroofing Mr. Schrader's house. On October 3, 1979 Mr. Davis wrote a letter to Mr. Embro which stated in its entirety: October 3, 1979 Mr. Thomas J. Embro 3816 SW 18 Street Gainesville, Florida Dear Sir: We have received a complaint from Mr. Bill Schrader of 4119 NW 12th Avenue on the reroofing that you performed on his residence. After receiving the complaint I investigated out records and the work performed by your company and found the following violations: Our records indicate that a permit was not issued to reroof the above address, this is a violation of Section 106.1 of the Southern Standard Building Code. The roof material was not installed correctly. Shingles shall be installed in accordance to manufacture [sic] re- quirements and some parts of the roof are too flat for shingles. Interior damage has been caused by the roof leaking from not installing the shingles as required. The above violations shall be corrected within 10 days from receipt of this letter. Your compliance will make further action unnecessary. Sincerely, /s/ Al Davis Building Official cc: Mr. Bill Dow, State Investigator Mr. Bill Schrader Mr. Embro applied on October 25, 1979 for a permit from Gainesville for the work at 4119 N.W. 12th Avenue. The permit was issued on December 6, 1979. It is not unusual in Gainesville for a contractor to begin a construction job before the appropriate permit is applied for or issued. When this is not a frequent practice of a particular contractor the City imposes no penalty. If the contractor habitually begins construction without permits, the City imposes a penalty by charging him double the regular permit application fee. Mr. Embro was not charged a penalty by the City in this case. In the course of his contracting business Mr. Embro frequently asked his wife to make permit applications for him before he begins work. In this case he believed that she had applied for the appropriate permit. The City of Gainesville allows persons other than the contractor to apply for a building permit on behalf of a contractor if the contractor has first filed an authorization with the City designating an agent. Mr. Embro filed such an authorization on February 13, 1980 for his wife to be his designated agent.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against Thomas J. Embro. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 16th day of November, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL PEARCE DODSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1981.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now, and has been since 1982, a roofing contractor licensed to practice in the State of Florida. He holds license number RC 0041149. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the licensed qualifying agent for Reinforcement Roofing and Painting Company (Reinforcement). On or about November 29, 1987, Reinforcement, through Respondent, entered into a written contract with Wayne Leidecker in which it agreed, for $4,655.00, excluding permit fees and taxes, to replace the roof on Leidecker's residence, located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street in Miami, Florida. Shortly thereafter, Reinforcement obtained a permit from the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department to perform the work specified in the contract. It then proceeded to begin work on the project. The felt underlayer of the new roof was improperly installed. Reinforcement laid the shingles over this improperly installed felt underlayer without first calling for a tin cap/anchor sheet inspection, in willful violation of the local building code. The result was a roof having a "wavy" appearance. To make matters worse, some of the shingles were not properly fastened to the roof deck. Furthermore, the metal eaves and gable drips were installed too close to the facie in violation of the local building code. The work on the Leidecker project, which was performed under the supervision of Respondent, was completed in January, 1988. The job, however, having been done in an incompetent manner, failed its final inspection. Efforts were subsequently made by Reinforcement, under the direction of Respondent, to correct the foregoing problems. These efforts were inadequate and unsuccessful. Consequently, the project was still unable to pass a final inspection. Leidecker was growing increasingly impatient. In the latter part of 1988, he had Charles H. Walton, the Vice-President of Bob Hilson & Company, Inc., examine the roof. Based upon his examination, Walton concluded, in a written report which he gave Leidecker, that "[d]ue to all of the above deficiencies, South Florida Building Code infractions and the waviness of the shingles, the only way that I can truthfully say that this roof can be properly corrected is to remove this existing shingle roof entirely to a smooth workable surface and reinstall a new 3-tab, 20 year type fungus resistant fiberglass shingle roof system, that meets all of the South Florida Building Code specifications and manufacturers' requirements." This was consistent with what Leidecker had been told by the building inspectors who had previously inspected the roof. Accordingly, after receiving Walton's report, Leidecker refused to allow Reinforcement to do any further patchwork on the roof. He expected Reinforcement to take the removal and reinstallation measures Walton had recommended in his written report. He would accept nothing less. By letter dated July 14, 1989, Respondent was informed that a formal hearing would be held before the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB) on the following four charges filed against him relating to the Leidecker project: Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 3401.4(c) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to obtain the final roofing inspection required at a roofing job located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street Miami, Dade County, Florida; said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative condition of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 3403.3(h)(2) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to imbed sheets of roofing felt without wrinkles or buckles as required at a roofing job located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida; said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative condition of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 3408.3(c) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to install metal eave and/or gable drips so the bottom of said metal drips did not touch facie and did [not] have the minimum of a one-half inch clearance from the structure as required at a roofing job located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida; said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative condition of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 10-22(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, in that they did fail to fulfill their contractual obligation to honor a six (6) year warranty in connection with roofing work done on the residence located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. The hearing on these charges was held as scheduled on August 10, 1989. The CTQB found Respondent guilty of Charges 1, 2 and 3 and not guilty of Charge The following penalties were imposed: Charge 1- six-month suspension of Respondent's personal and business certificates and a fine of $1,000.00; Charge 2- six-month suspension of Respondent's personal and business certificates and a fine of $250.00; and Charge 3- official letter of reprimand and a fine of $250.00. In addition, he was directed to pay $257.00 in administrative costs. On October 12, 1989, Respondent made another appearance before the CTQB. He made a request that the foregoing penalties be reduced. His request was granted. The CTQB "lifted" his suspension, but with the caveat that if he did not timely pay his fines the suspension would be reinstated. Respondent failed to make timely payment. As a result, his suspension was reinstated. Neither Reinforcement, nor Respondent in his individual capacity, has yet to take the measures necessary to correct the problems with the Leidecker roof that were caused by the shoddy work done under Respondent's inadequate supervision. Respondent has been disciplined on two separate, prior occasions by the Construction Industry Licensing Board for conduct unrelated to that which is the subject of the charges filed against him in the instant case. On February 12, 1986, the Board issued a final order in Case No. 0053301 imposing a $250.00 administrative fine upon Respondent. On June 16, 1988, in another case, Case No. 81135, the Board fined Respondent $500.00 for violating the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, charged in the instant amended administrative complaint and suspending Respondent's license for a period one year and imposing upon him a fine in the amount of $3,500.00 for having committed these violations. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of September, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1990.
The Issue The principal issue in this case is whether certain local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by the Broward County Board of Review and Appeals (BORA) comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). As to Broward County, there is the additional issue of whether Broward County is a proper party to this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, and upon the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Findings about status of Broward County Respondent Broward County is a county created pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Broward County became a charter county effective on January 1, 1975, by a referendum approved by the voters of Broward County in November of 1974. In 1976, the Broward County Charter was amended to add a new Section 8.18, which the legislative history for the charter describes as establishing BORA as “an arm of Charter government.” Broward County has not voted to adopt any local amendments to the Florida Building Code. Findings about status of BORA Respondent BORA, is a board created under the provisions of the Charter of Broward County (the “Charter”). BORA was originally created in 1971 by a special act of the Florida legislature, 71-575, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1971. That special act adopted the South Florida Building Code, as the applicable building code for Broward County and included within the South Florida Building Code as Section 203 the following language, which created BORA: 203. Board of Rules and Appeals. In order to determine the suitability of alternate materials and types of construction, to provide for reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code and to assist in the control of the construction of buildings and structures, there is hereby created a BORA, appointed by the appointing authority, consisting of twenty-four (24) members who are qualified by training and experience to pass on matters pertaining to building construction. Findings about status of Petitioners Petitioner, TRG-Aquazul, Ltd. ("TRG"), is a Florida limited partnership and is the developer of a high-rise multi- family residential building project located in Broward County (“Project”) which is subject to the Florida Building Code, as amended, in Broward County. Petitioner, Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, is a principal of Initial Engineers. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga and Initial Engineers are the mechanical engineers of record on the Project. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga's firm has designed other high-rise residential buildings in Broward County in the past and plans on doing more such projects in the future. Petitioners allege that they will be materially and adversely affected by the application of the Broward County local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code in that the application of said technical amendments to the Project will require a redesign of the mechanical systems of the Project to comply with those technical amendments and undertaking such redesign will cost significant time and money. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga submitted plans to the Broward County Building Department for approval in connection with the Project. The plans submitted included plans for smoke control measures. The smoke control measures were not approved by the chief mechanical official because in his estimation they did not comply with the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code enacted by BORA on March 1, 2002. Despite the Broward County Building Official’s suggestion that Mr. Fernandez-Fraga appeal the Building Official’s decision interpreting the applicable code, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga decided not to appeal that decision. Rather, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga chose to challenge the validity of the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by BORA, a different appeal than the one discussed with the Building Official. TRG, through its engineer and its architect of record on the project, attempted to comply with option four of the local technical amendments at issue here, which allows one to achieve an understanding with the local building official on an alternative method for smoke control. TRG could not, and did not, reach that understanding with the Broward County Building Official. The building that TRG proposes to build is over 75 feet high, which makes it subject to the local technical amendments at issue here. At the time the local technical amendments at issue here were being adopted, Petitioners were not concerned with such developments because at that time they did not have any projects in Broward County. Findings about BORA's amendment process Once it was clear that Florida was going to have a new statewide Florida Building Code, BORA embarked upon a course of action to adopt several local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code. Such amendments were allowed, with certain qualifications and requirements, by the then-new statutes providing for the implementation of a new Florida Building Code. On March 1, 2002, BORA adopted the local technical amendments that are at issue here. Those two local technical amendmants, Sections 412 and M403.6.4, contained standards for the application and testing of smoke control systems for high-rise buildings. The two amendments were more stringent than the corresponding requirements in the Florida Building Code. Each of these local technical amendments had been part of Broward County’s local building code in effect prior to the adoption of the Florida Building Code, and as set forth in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. BORA sought to maintain the status quo within Broward County with respect to the adoption of these two local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code, a status quo that had been in effect since the mid 1980's. The two local technical amendments at issue here did not introduce any new subjects that had not previously been contained in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. The process leading up to the adoption of amendments on March 1, 2002, began several months earlier with the appointment of a committee and a sub-committee to discuss and draft proposed amendments. The chairman of BORA’s Mechanical Committee appointed a subcommittee which reviewed materials and made decisions with respect to the Local Amendments and made recommendations to the Mechanical Committee which, in turn, made recommendations to BORA The meetings of BORA’s Mechanical Committee and its Smoke Control Subcommittee were not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper of general circulation. No findings or determinations made by BORA’s Mechanical Committee or Smoke Control Subcommittee with respect to the local need to enact the Local Amendments are reflected in the minutes of their meetings. On December 13, 2001, BORA held a hearing to receive and consider information from the subcommittee and the committee regarding the pending proposed amendments. BORA’s December 13, 2001 hearing was not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. Final BORA action to adopt the proposed amendments was eventually scheduled for March 1, 2002. The March 1, 2002, BORA meeting was the only BORA meeting pertaining to the local technical amendments at issue here that was publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. BORA did not make any findings or determinations at the March 1, 2002, meeting. There was no discussion or determinations made at the March 1, 2002, hearing regarding whether there was a local need justifying the subject local technical amendments. There was no discussion at the March 1, 2002 hearing regarding the subject local technical amendments. At the March 1, 2002, meeting, BORA determined that what its Mechanical Committee presented was acceptable and BORA therefore voted to adopt it without any meaningful discussion. BORA did not make any other determinations with respect to the local technical amendments at that hearing. The members of the Florida Building Commission’s Mechanical and Technical Advisory Committee, which drafted and/or made recommendations with respect to the Florida Building Code, are presently considering the possibility of putting more stringent smoke control measures into the Florida Building Code for statewide application. Findings about the challenge process Broward County does not have, and has never had, an interlocal agreement establishing a countywide compliance review board for the purpose of reviewing any challenges to local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code that may be challenged by a substantially affected party. Neither Broward County, per se, nor any of the municipalities in Broward County, is authorized to exercise any authority over the building code in Broward County. In light of this situation in Broward County it appears to have been the concensus of the members of BORA that it was simply not necessary to structure any interlocal agreement nor create any county-wide compliance review board as otherwise generally provided for in the applicable statutory provisions. Thus, when Petitioner Fernandez-Fraga advised BORA that he wished to challenge the validity of two of the local technical amendments adopted by BORA, it was initially unclear where the challenge should be filed and where it should be heard. Following discussion with Commission staff, BORA advised that the challenge should be filed with BORA and would be heard by BORA. On or about March 20, 2003, Petitioners filed an appeal with BORA challenging the validity of the subject amendments. BORA scheduled a hearing on the challenge for April 10, 2003. BORA was apparently of the initial view that it was hearing the Petitioners' appeal in the capacity of a statutory "countywide compliance review board" because BORA originally noticed the April 10, 2003, hearing as being held by “the Board of Rules and Appeals sitting as a Countywide Compliance Review Board pursuant to Florida Statutes 553.73(4)(b) to hear challenges to Broward County Local Amendments to Sections 412 and M403.6.4 by Mr. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, P.A.” Notwithstanding the notice and agenda of the April 10, 2003, BORA meeting/hearing, during the course of the hearing BORA took the position that Broward County does not have a countywide compliance review board as described in Section 553.73(4)(b)8, Florida Statutes. Counsel for BORA stated, on the record, that BORA “has exclusive authority over the building code in Broward County.” Counsel then advised the Board: That statutory section which refers to an interlocal agreement applies to counties where the county and municipalities have the authority to amend the code. In Broward County, the municipalities and the county do not have that authority. Therefore, we don’t have a Compliance Review Board in Broward County because it’s just not authorized because we operate on a different procedure here. The Board of Rules and Appeals has the sole authority to amend the code, so we’re hearing this appeal tonight really as an appeal to reconsider whether the action of this board in March of 2002, when you passed these amendments, were done properly, and that’s the sole issue. The appeal was heard by BORA on April 10, 2003. BORA voted unanimously to deny the appeal. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga promptly received a letter from James DiPietro advising him that the appeal had been rejected. Thereafter the Petitioners timely filed their petition seeking relief from the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Building Commission issue a final order which concludes that, for the reasons set forth above, the local technical amendments adopted by BORA which are challenged in this case fail to comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2001), and are invalid local technical amendments, and further concluding that Broward County is not a necessary or appropriate party to this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 30th day of June, 2003.
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
