Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified building contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. CB CO24584. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Southern Construction Technologies, Inc. In March, 1988, Alfred and Martha Entrekin entered into a contract with Southern Construction Technologies, Inc., whereby they agreed to pay the sum of $178,000 for construction of a custom-built home. Since the Entrekins were unable to qualify for the financing needed for construction, Southern Construction obtained a construction loan on their behalf. Despite delays, construction commenced in May of 1988 and continued through October, when, the closing on the residence took place, subsequent to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Town of Davie. Just prior to the closing, a "punchlist" was prepared by Respondent and the Entrekins. That punchlist, which became part of the closing, contains 24 numbered items. (Due to misnumbering, the punchlist says 25.) Thirteen 0of those items on the copy of the punchlist offered in evidence by the Petitioner have been crossed off that list. Of the remaining 11 items, the evidence at final hearing reveals that some were corrected and some items were not the subject of any evidence offered by either party at the final hearing. Although additional items appear to have been added to the punchlist by the Entrekins sometime after the closing, those items will not be considered in this cause since no evidence was offered to indicate that those items were agreed to by the Respondent at the time of closing and no evidence was presented as to when those items were added to the original punchlist by the Entrekins. At the time of closing, the sum of $1,500 was placed in escrow to ensure completion of the punchlist by Respondent. Respondent performed some of the punchlist work on the day of the closing and continued working on the punchlist items for the next three weeks. On January 11, 1989, the Entrekins' attorney sent a demand letter seeking the release of the funds placed in escrow at the closing. Attached to that demand letter was a list of 16 items allegedly remaining on the punchlist. Some of the items on the new "punchlist" submitted by the Entrekins did not appear on the punchlist agreed to by the parties at the closing. Others did appear on the closing punchlist but had been struck through and initialed by Mrs. Entrekin, assumedly as having been completed, on the copy of the closing punchlist offered by Petitioner as an exhibit in this cause. In response to the demand letter, Respondent authorized the release of the $1,500 in escrow to the Entrekins. Respondent admits that at the time that the money was released to the Entrekins, there were still some repairs needed to the rake tiles on the roof and he had not seeded the backyard. Respondent testified that four rake tiles on the eaves were missing, some were misaligned, and some had not been "mudded" in with mortar, but no broken tiles remained on the roof. He also testified that he had not seeded the backyard because the Entrekins had not yet placed fill in the backyard, an item which Mr. Entrekin admits was his responsibility as provided in the contract between the Entrekins and Southern Construction Technologies, Inc. The only evidence submitted in corroboration of the complaints of the Entrekins consists of several invoices. In March, 1989, the Entrekins obtained an estimate for roof repairs from Warren Roofing, Inc., in the amount of $1,200. That invoice indicates the need to replace 80 broken tiles on the roof, the need to remove and replace approximately 130 rake tiles to be secured with mortar tinted to match (although Donald Warren testified that the tile used is nail-on tile which does not require mortar), and the need to "repair defects" in two rear valley areas. Warren Roofing was never hired to effectuate the repairs for which it had submitted its $1,200 estimate. The extensive work set forth in the estimate in March of 1989 is inconsistent with the roofing inspection which would have taken place prior to the certificate of occupancy issued prior to the closing in October of 1988. The only roofing repair effectuated to the Entrekin house by anyone other than Respondent was work performed by Warren Roofing in July of 1989 repairing a leak around the skylight. Petitioner also offered in evidence two invoices from pool services dated March of 1989. One invoice in the amount of $275 represents the cost of acid washing the pool, and the other invoice is for $230 to "filter pool water." Due to electrical problems, the water in the pool was not filtered for two days during the period of construction of the Entrekin house. No evidence was offered to show that the absence of filtering a pool for two days would require it to be acid washed, and no evidence was offered in support of the services performed or the need for the services represented by the second invoice. Another invoice represents the cost of 20 loads of muck for the backyard at a cost of $600, and $150 to rent a bulldozer. Since the muck for the backyard was the responsibility of the Entrekins, the bulldozer charge accompanying the 20 loads of muck is, in all probability, also the responsibility of the Entrekins. The last invoice submitted in evidence also bears the date of March of 1989 and represents 50 pounds of grass seed, in the amount of $110.50, a cost item which Respondent admits was his responsibility at the time that the escrowed monies were released to the Entrekins.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent not guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of January, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 25th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles N. Tetunic, Esquire Becker, Poliakoff & Streitfeld, P.A. Post Office Box 9057 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310-9057 Joseph Stephen Sharrow, Esquire Post Office Box 8995 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following relevant facts are found: At all times pertinent to this proceeding, respondent George W. Morrison was a registered residential contractor holding license number RR 0021945. On April 28, 1979, respondent entered into a contract with T. Joseph Feeney to construct a residence and pool on Sanibel Island "according to plans and specifications approved and signed by both parties" for the sum of $100,200.00. Construction on the residence was begun by respondent in late August, 1979. In January, the Feeneys desired to move into the home because they were having difficulty locating rental property. At that time, construction was not completed and neither a final inspection nor a Certificate of Occupancy had been obtained. Although construction had not yet been completed and respondent advised Mr. Feeney that it would be against the law to move into the house before a Certificate of Occupancy was obtained, Mr. Feeney and his family moved into the house on or about January 12, 1980. During the first week of occupancy, Mr. Feeney noticed that there was a sag in the bearing wall of the kitchen and that the house "swayed considerably." According to Mr. Feeney, after he was advised by Mr. Benson, a structural engineer, to either move out of the house or to "shore the house up, he attempted to contact the respondent. Mr. Feeney could not recall whether this occurred in late January, February or March of 1980. Being unable to contact the respondent, Mr. Feeney found his carpenter, Doug Hale, and explained the problem to him. Hale saw respondent that same day and respondent instructed Hale and his crew to go out to the Feeney residence that afternoon and shore the house up. Mr. Hale did notice a deflection and observed that one span was sagging down a small amount. He observed that the bridging work had been nailed from the top and recalled that the bottom nailing was to be performed after the house had settled. When performing the preventive shoring, Mr. Hale noticed that the bolts had been properly installed with washers. The bolts would have been retightened after the wood had dried and before calling in for a final inspection. Upon learning of the structural deficiencies in the Feeney residence, respondent hired his own structural engineer, Charles Wunder, and took the plans and specifications for the Feeney residence to him. Mr. Wunder found that the original drawings, plans and specifications caused the deflection problem in that the framing members used for the ledger beams were not of sufficient strength to hold up in the area where they were placed. Wonder's remedial plan was to use additional beam supports and steel flitch plates. He so advised the respondent by a letter dated February 12, 1980 and an attached sketch for the remedial work. After receiving Mr. Wunder's plans to remedy the structural defects, respondent ordered the steel plates and had them delivered to the Feeney residence. When respondent went there to perform the work, Mr. Feeney informed him that he wanted the work performed according to Mr. Benson's plans and blueprints. Benson's plans were much more involved and extensive, and respondent did not have the materials available to perform the work. Thereafter, an impasse occurred between Mr. Feeney and the respondent as to the manner in which the structural remedial work should be performed, and respondent was terminated by Mr. Feeney on or about April 13, 1980. Both respondent and his engineer, Mr. Wonder, believed that Mr. Benson's plans were "overdesigned" and massive compared to what needed to be done to make the residence structurally sound. Respondent testified that his engineer's plans for remediation would result in a cost of about $1,000.00. Mr. Feeney testified that he incurred costs of approximately $21,000.00 to have the remediation work performed according to Mr. Benson's plans. There was evidence that at least a portion of this figure was attributable to decorative and swimming pool work, as opposed to structural work. In late February or early March, 1980, after the preventive shoring had been completed by Doug Hale, the Building Official for Sanibel, George E. Blain, inspected the Feeney residence at Mr. Feeney's request. Mr. Blain found that the flooring and joist system had been installed according to the plans and specifications submitted and approved for the building permit. He could not give an opinion as to the cause of the deflection of the beams, but felt that there appeared to be a problem with the construction which could be corrected in the normal construction phase. A violation of the Southern Standard Building Code would occur only if the problem were not corrected at the time of final inspection, and this project had not yet been called up for such final inspection. While Mr. Blain found that some of the bolts were not properly placed or tightened at the time of his inspection, he found nothing to indicate that the required number of nails were not in place. After his inspection, Mrs. Blain wrote a letter to the respondent expressing his opinion that extensive remedial work was necessary to stabilize the floor support system of the Feeney residence. Respondent was instructed to have a registered engineer examine the floor support system and submit a report detailing the requirements necessary for loads stability. This report was to be received by Mr. Blain's office prior to the commencement of any corrective work by the respondent. Mr. Blain never received a response from the respondent to his March 5, 1980 letter. Respondent explained that he did not receive this letter from Mr. Blain until some time near the time that he and Mr. Feeney had reached an impasse situation with regard to the manner in which the remedial work was to be done. He therefore did not respond to Mr. Blain's letter because he did not believe that he would be performing the work.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed against George Morrison on March 8, 1982, be DISMISSED. Respectfully submitted and entered this 10th day of March, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE D. TREMOR, 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 10th day of March, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street (Suite 204) Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Allan T. Griffith, Esquire Griffith & Griffith, P.A. 9150 S. Cleveland Ave. (Suite 1) Ft. Myers, Florida 33907 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact On February 10, 1988 Harry B. Williams made application to the Department of Natural Resources for permission to construct a single-family dwelling with appurtenant structures at 2831 Ponte Verda Boulevard South, South Ponte Verda Beach, Florida. The permit sought was a coastal construction control line permit which would allow construction seaward of that line in the direction of the Atlantic Ocean. A copy of that permit application may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 2. Associated with the permit application was a description of the plans related to the dwelling and other structures. This application was received by the Department February 11, 1988. Following a review of the permit application the Department deemed it complete as of February 22, 1988. A site inspection was made of the property and a report was prepared by an employee with the Department, a Mr. Partel. The report may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 4, which includes photographs of the prospective building site, together with the surrounding property to include dwellings to the north and south of the lot where the Williams home would be built. As commented on by Mr. Partel the applicant had intended at that time to construct a single-family dwelling a maximum of 75 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. Although this evaluator, Mr. Partel, felt that the applicant had requested the right to construct a dwelling which was in line with existing construction, he felt that it could be moved further landward and that it could be limited in deck size and that a cantilevened form of construction was preferable to the concrete called for in the plans set out in the application information. It was also suggested that the sea oats that were in the way of the construction should be relocated seaward on a dune face slope where a denuded area is found. In this connection, the Department is empowered to make suggestions to the applicant concerning the minimization of the adverse impacts on the beach-dune system. Following the site visit of February 26, 1988 the Department wrote the applicant on March 11, 1988 and indicated concerns about the proximity of the dwelling to the crest of the dune. A copy of this correspondence may be found as Department's Exhibit Number 5. In the correspondence the Department asked the applicant to move the proposed dwelling 10 feet landward and that the 10 foot wide concrete patio, on the seaward side, be modified to a 10 foot wide wooden deck. The letter told the applicant that the approval would be conditioned on the sea oats and other dune grasses that would be disturbed by the proposed structures being replanted seaward of the project in the denuded areas of the dune. The applicant agreed to these changes. The relocation of the structure 10 feet landward took it away from the beach- dune system. The modified site plan that was brought about by the suggested changes is found Department's Exhibit Number 6, a copy of that amended site plan. With the relocation the construction would be 66 feet seaward of the coastal construction control line. An aerial photograph of the site location reference the basic design of the dwelling and the proximity to the relevant or existing coastal construction control line is found as Department's Exhibit Number 3. In responding to the suggestions to the change in location the modified site plan which moved the dwelling 10 feet landward was received by the Department on August 1, 1988. Under this arrangement the applicant had agreed to waive the requirements of Section 120.60, Florida Statutes pertaining to the obligation by the Department to review and decide its action of grant or denial within 90 days of date of receipt of the application. With the changes being made to the location of the proposed dwelling and associated structures and the type of construction materials used in the patio on the seaward side, together with the relocation of the plant life, the impact on the beach-dune system and adjacent property is acceptable. There is no adverse impact on the beach-dune system or on the adjacent properties. The location of the proposed dwelling and its associated structures as it relates to the 30-year erosion projection under the terms of Section 161.053, Florida Statutes, in this instance, shows that the dwelling would be approximately 55 feet landward of the 30-year erosion projection and not at risk. Calculations related to this finding may be found within Department's Exhibit Number 7. The existing coastal construction control line dates from January 28, 1988. Although the original application referred to the previous line of 1978 in describing the site plan and survey, the reason for this was that the site plan and survey were prepared prior to the establishment of the January 28, 1988 line, as allowed. In the course of the hearing appropriate reference was made to the January 28, 1988 line as it relates to the anticipated location of the dwelling and other structures as modified at the instigation of the Department. As contemplated by Section 161.053(5)(f), the Department required the applicant to provide mitigation of the- effects of the construction as a condition to a grant of the permit. Those permit conditions may be found in the Department's Exhibit Number 8, a copy of a proposed final order. Included within those would be the requirements for erection of a temporary construction fence on the site to protect existing native dune vegetation from the impacts of that construction, in addition to the requirement of the dune vegetation relocation. This would involve the irrigation and application of fertilizer to those plants with the expectation that a certain percentage would survive over time as described in this special condition. This project will not pose a hazard to the sea turtle and its hatchlings and habitat for the sea turtles and hatchlings. Ms. Butler, Petitioner in this cause, has a beach home which is north of the Williams property separated by a 10 foot easement between those properties. In mid July, 1988 Ms. Butler offered a written statement in opposition to the placement and size of the proposed dwelling together with other remarks and asked that the Department provide her information and documents pertaining to the application under the authority of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. On August 10, 1988 the Department dispatched a letter of inquiry to surrounding property owners to include Ms. Butler and solicited remarks concerning the Williams application to be provided on or about August 20, 1988. Ms. Butler had received certain documents from the Department concerning the application sometime in the middle of August 1988. On August 18, 1988 Butler made known her objection to the project on the grounds that the concerns about the 30-year erosion line and the size and placement of the dwelling. On September 2, 1988 the Department informed Ms. Butler of the intent to grant the permit to Mr. Williams. A copy of that correspondence may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit Number 5. This led to a timely request for hearing by Ms. Butler stating her opposition to this project. The request was received in accordance with the Department's advice that the request must be filed by September 26, 1988. Based upon the prehearing conference and the discussion of those issues which would be allowed for consideration as stated in the request for hearing and the statement of particulars that attend the request for hearing, commented on by the hearing officer at the commencement of the final hearing, and found within the transcript and further stated in the issues portion to this Recommended Order, this case has been carried forward. The presentation made by the Petitioner, after the Department and applicant had offered their cases, was through her testimony and that of employees of the Department together with exhibits she offered. The testimony of the Department employees concerned the procedural techniques that the agency pursued in reviewing the application at issue. Ms. Butler described her concern for her property, and the area between her property and the Williams property. This is the 10 foot easement area which is sparsely vegetated and low. As a consequence she was concerned that her property might be destroyed with the advent of the Williams construction. She has no expertise in her own right nor did she present expert opinion from other witnesses which would tend to bear out her concern. She also expressed the concern that the Williams home, in its dimensions, was too large and that it should be relocated an additional 10 feet back from the adjusted placement following the Department's criticism of the original application. In effect, she would have the house placed 20 feet away from the sea as compared to the original site plan submitted with the application on February 10, 1988. Again, there is no competent evidence presented which would support her theory that this further relocation was needed. Her expression of concern for the sea turtles and their hatchlings and habitat was not well founded. Turtles are known to nest on the sandy flat beach area and the construction of the Williams property will not interfere with that area adjacent to the ocean.
Recommendation Based upon a consideration of the facts and the conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department enter a Final Order which grants a coastal construction control line permit to Harry B. Williams, Jr., based upon his modified plan required by the Department and upon the special permit conditions announced in the proposed final order, a copy of which is found as Department's Exhibit Number 8. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of April, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS 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 April, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent, a registered general contractor, (1) unlawfully and willfully committed fraud and theft, violated the Fictitious Name Statute, and violated Municipal and County Contractor Licensing Ordinances, and (2) violated other provisions of the Construction Industry Licensing Law relating to the name under which a qualifying agent may engage in business.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was the holder of Registered General Contractors License No. RG0013533 issued by the Board to Respondent, d/b/a Deltec Construction Co. (Stipulation of counsel). Respondent is a fifty-five year old general contractor who has worked in construction for thirty-seven years, and has never been disciplined for misconduct associated with construction activities. (Testimony of Respondent) Respondent, at all times material hereto, did not qualify or license with the Board Trendway Construction Co., Trendway Construction Inc., or Trend- Tech Construction Co. (Testimony of Respondent, P.E. 1, 2, 3) Respondent's Business Activities in Daytona Beach, Florida On May 24, 1978, Respondent, d/b/a Deltec Construction Co., contracted with Darcy A. Vernier to assist him in the formation and operation of a corporation to be known as Trendway Construction Inc. In exchange for $8,500.00, Respondent agreed to provide a broad range of business assistance, expertise, training, and equipment to Trendway Construction, Inc. Vernier was designated General Manager and President of the new Company, and agreed to be individually responsible for its overall management. Although the long-term goal of the new Company was to perform general contracting, Vernier and Respondent envisioned that the Company would first gain necessary knowledge and experience by limiting its construction work to masonry and flat concrete construction projects. Profits were to be equally divided between Respondent (Deltec) and Vernier (Trendway), and, as subsequently amended, the Corporation was to be wholly owned by Vernier. (Testimony of Vernier, Respondent, P.E. 4) Prior to executing the contract, Vernier met with Respondent and discussed their proposed business venture on three separate occasions during a ten-day period. Vernier had his attorney review the contract prior to his signing, and fully understood its provisions. The proposed contract was modified, at Vernier's request, to ensure that Vernier would be the sole owner of the Corporation. (Testimony of Vernier) Prior to executing the contract, Respondent took Vernier to observe a masonry or flat concrete construction job in Ormond Beach, which he had recently completed d/b/a Deltec Construction Co. (Testimony of Vernier, Respondent) On July 6, 1978, pursuant to his contractual obligation, Respondent paid $250.00 for and obtained a Masonry Sub-Contractor's License, in Vernier's name, from the Building Department of the City of Daytona Beach. (Testimony of Respondent, Holmes, Vernier) Conflicting evidence was presented on whether, in order to do sub- contracting, masonry and flat concrete work within the City of Daytona Beach, a sub-contractor must also secure a certificate of competency or license from Volusia County under Ordinance 69-3. By stipulation, the testimony of Fred Holmes, Building Official with the City of Daytona Beach, was subsequently taken by deposition and submitted to determine this question. However, the testimony of Holmes is inconclusive, conflicting and unclear. (Testimony of Respondent, Vernier, Holmes, P.E. 7) Respondent did not represent to Vernier that Deltec Construction Co.'s licenses could be used by Vernier d/b/a Trendway Construction, Inc., and that no further licenses would be necessary. Vernier testified that Respondent made such representation, and Respondent denied it. Vernier's testimony is inconsistent with the express contractual provision which required Respondent to affirmatively secure "initial licensing" for Trendway Construction, Inc. Furthermore, Vernier's demeanor as a witness reflected a level of bitterness and hostility toward Respondent which may have influenced his recollection. (Since his construction company failed, Vernier had demanded Respondent return his money and filed a civil suit for such purpose.) In contrast, Respondent's unequivocal testimony on this question is buttressed by his consistent actions in securing an additional license for the Company from the City of Daytona Beach), and his subsequent action in attempting to secure a local license for another company under a contract markedly similar to the one between Vernier and Respondent, post. (Testimony of Respondent, Vernier, Garr, Fortner) Respondent was aware, however, that the Company would eventually have to acquire a license from Volusia County; he concluded, though, that his contractual obligations to secure "initial licensing" encompassed only the license required by the City of Daytona Beach. (Testimony of Respondent) Trendway Construction, Inc., was never organized as a corporation as envisioned by the contract between Respondent and Vernier. Soon after the contract was signed, serious business disagreements arose between Respondent and Vernier. Vernier, then, unilaterally moved the business, including its equipment, furnishings, office forms, and principal employee from Daytona Beach and relocated in another community. From the execution of the contract to Vernier's ultimate closing of the business, Respondent never received any profits from its operation, and his non-participation in the business operations was acknowledged by Vernier. During September or October, 1978, Vernier changed the name of the Company to Pelican Construction Co. During its existence, Trendway Construction was not registered as a fictitious name with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Volusia County. (Testimony of Respondent, Vernier) Respondent's Business Activities in Ocala, Florida During September and October, 1978), Respondent operated a duly licensed masonry and flat concrete construction business known as Deltec Construction Co., in Ocala, Florida. (Testimony of Garr, Fortner, Respondent) On October 5, 1978, Respondent d/b/a Deltec Construction Co. contracted with Albert W. Latham to assist in the formation and operation of a corporation to be known as Trendway Construction, Inc. (In the Daytona Beach transaction, Trendway Construction Co. had never been incorporated by Vernier, and he had subsequently changed the Company's name, infra.) In exchange for $8,500.00, Respondent agreed to provide business assistance, expertise, training and equipment to Trendway Construction, Inc. Albert Latham was designated as General Manager and President of the newly formed Company, and agreed to be individually responsible for its general overall management. Although general construction was the Company's long-term objective, the parties invisioned that necessary knowledge and experience would be acquired by limiting their initial work to sub-contracting masonry and flat concrete construction projects. Profits were to be equally divided between Respondent and Latham, and 60 percent of the capital stock of the corporation was to be owned by Latham--the remaining 40 percent, by Respondent. (Testimony of Respondent, P.E. 13) On October 23, 1978, Trendway Construction, Inc., was officially organized and formed pursuant to the contract between Respondent and Latham. (P.E. 9) Under the contract between Respondent and Latham, Respondent was obligated to secure initial licensing for the new Company, Trendway Construction, Inc. Because Trendway Construction, Inc., was going to initially engage only in masonry and flat concrete sub-contracting work, the only license required was a certification of competency from the City of Ocala. Respondent made reasonable, diligent and earnest efforts to obtain the required certification from the City. First, he tried to apply for the license on behalf of Trendway Construction, Inc. But, since Latham owned a controlling interest in the Company, and was apparently considered its owner, City Building Department officials insisted that Latham must apply for the license on behalf of the Company. Respondent then obtained and delivered to Latham the necessary application forms and character reference letters, set up appointments for Latham at the Building Department, and repeatedly reminded him of the need to secure the local certification. Despite Respondent's efforts, Latham procrastinated, and failed to obtain from the City of Ocala the required license for Trendway Construction, Inc. It is probable that if proper application had been made for the license, it would have been issued to Latham d/b/a Trendway Construction, Inc., upon payment of the application fee and proof of insurance. (Testimony of Respondent, Garr, Fortner, P.E. 13) After formation of the Corporation, Respondent continued to provide assistance to Latham and Trendway Construction, Inc., but he did not dictate what construction work would be done or whore it would be undertaken. Latham directed two construction work crews and made those decisions. Nevertheless, Respondent warned Latham that no construction work should be undertaken within Ocala until the necessary City certification was obtained. (Testimony of Respondent) On October 24, 1978, Trendway Construction, Inc., poured a driveway slab for Herbert Adams at 2332 East Silver Spring Boulevard, Ocala, Florida, for $668.72. Adams dealt only with Jack Cook, an employee of Trendway, and neither knew nor had any dealings with Respondent. (Testimony of Adams, Garr) The name of "Trendway Construction, Inc.," has not been registered with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Marion County, Florida. (Testimony of Respondent) Respondent did not attempt to mislead Latham by representing that Trendway Construction, Inc., could operate under Deltec's local or state licenses. (Testimony of Respondent) There was no evidence that Respondent mislead or misrepresented any material fact to Latham or failed to diligently carry out his obligations under their contract; neither was any evidence presented to show Latham was dissatisfied, in any manner, with Respondent's contractual performance. Respondent's Business Activities in Gainesville, Florida Respondent sold a construction business to Valentine Webber of Gainesville, Florida, for $8,500.00. (Testimony of Respondent)
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Board find Respondent Not Guilty of the charges contained in its Administrative Complaint, and that the Complaint be DISMISSED. DONE and ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. R. L. CALEEN JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 904/488-9675
Findings Of Fact Petitioners, Larry C. and Jan D. Giunipero, reside at 2345 Tour Eiffel Drive, Tallahassee, Florida. On February 29, 1984, they obtained a building permit from Franklin County to construct a single-family dwelling on their lot in Alligator Point, Franklin County, Florida. The Giuniperos engaged the services of a professional engineer to design their beach house. In so doing, the engineer designed the structure so as to comply with the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) guidelines, which are minimum building requirements established by the Federal Insurance Administration to qualify for federal flood insurance. These guidelines have been adopted by the Franklin County Planning and Zoning Department, and insure that the structure can withstand winds of 110 miles per hour. Even before the Guiniperos obtained their permit, respondent, Department of Natural Resources (DNR), was in the process of adopting new Rule 16B-26.14, Florida Administrative Code, which would establish a coastal construction line for Franklin County. Under the proposed rule, a coastal construction control line on Alligator Point would be established, and any excavation or construction activities thereafter on property seaward of the control line would require a permit from DNR, and have to be in conformity with all structural requirements set forth in Rule 168-33.07, Florida Administrative Code. Because the Guiniperos' lot lies on the seaward side of the control line, they were obviously affected by the rule. The rule adoption process was quite lengthy and well publicized. It began in October, 1983 when a public workshop was held in Apalachicola and aerial displays of the control line were placed in the courthouse. Further public hearings were held in Tallahassee in February, March and April, 1984. These hearings were the subject of numerous notices and advertisements in the Florida Administrative Weekly, Tallahassee Democrat, Apalachicola Times, Panama City News Herald, and Franklin County News. Clearly, the agency met all legal requirements in advertising the rule. However, for some reason, neither the Giuniperos or their professional engineer were aware of the pending rule change. Similarly, the Franklin County planner failed to advise them of the imminent rule change even though aerial displays of the proposed line were in the courthouse when the permit was issued. Rule 168-26.14, Florida Administrative Code, was adopted by the Florida Cabinet on April 5, 1984, and eventually became effective on April 30, 1984. As of that date, any construction or excavation work seaward of the control line required DNR to issue a permit unless a dwelling was already "under construction" in which case the project was grandfathered in. The parties agree that petitioners do not fall in this category since the dwelling was not "under construction" within the meaning of DNR rules. A few days before the rule became effective, a DNR engineer met with the Franklin County planner to review all building permits issued since September, 1983 for construction on the seaward side of the control line. The engineer did this so that he could inspect all building sites after the line became effective and determine which, if any, were "under construction" and therefore exempt from DNR permitting requirements. Because of the volume of permits issued to persons seeking to beat the April 30 deadline, and his unfamiliarity with alligator Point, the planner was unable to give the DNR engineer the precise location of petitioners' lot. On or about May 1, 1984, the engineer visited the general locale of petitioners' lot. There was no activity on petitioners' lot, and no permit posted on the site. Accordingly, he assumed a recently completed beach house some 300 feet east of petitioners' lot was actually the Giuniperos' house. Since it was already completed, he merely filed a report the following day indicating that "if the location referenced above is accurate, the structure appeared to be completed at that time." On July 6, 1984, petitioners proceeded to install twenty-three 8" by 8" pilings on their lot at a cost of $1,760. DNR discovered this construction activity a few days later and notified petitioners by telephone that such activity was illegal without a permit. A formal cease and desist order was sent on July 11, 1984, and no activity has taken place since that time. An application for a permit remains in abeyance pending the outcome of this proceeding. The structural requirements of DNR are more stringent than those previously required by Franklin County and FEMA. Indeed, the FEMA guidelines are not a part of a coastal construction regulatory program but are merely minimum standards to meet federal flood insurance criteria. Therefore, while the Guiniperos' proposed dwelling is designed to withstand a windload of 110 miles per hour DNR requires a structure to meet a windload of 140 miles per hour. DNR also recommends that larger and more expensive pilings be used, and that the structure be designed to adequately resist a 100 year return interval storm event. Because the DNR requirements are more stringent, petitioners estimate they will incur total costs of $8,890 just to pull out the old pilings and install larger ones. 1/ Additional costs may be incurred to redesign and build the structure to withstand a wind velocity of 140 miles per hour. By rule, DNR does not grant a waiver of its permit requirements except where a building is already constructed and an applicant desires to make "minor additions" to existing nonconforming structures. The Giuniperos do not qualify for such a waiver.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that petitioners' request for a waiver from the permitting requirements of Rule 16B-33.07 be DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of March, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. Hearings Hearings DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative this 11th day of March, 1985.
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Respondents, Richard H. League and Nancy A. League, violated a Department of Environmental Protection ("Department") rule that prohibits filling in wetlands and surface waters without a Department permit; and if so, whether Respondents should pay the administrative penalty and investigative costs and undertake the corrective actions that are demanded by the Department.
Findings Of Fact The Department is the state agency having the power and duty to protect Florida’s air and water resources and to administer and enforce the provisions of chapters 373 and 403, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto in Florida Administrative Code Title 62. Respondents own property located at 1160 River Road, Orange Park, Clay County, Florida. The property is adjacent to the St. Johns River. Sometime before 1995, pieces of concrete were placed in the water along the bank of the St. Johns River in an area that includes the shoreline of the League property, in an apparent effort to prevent or reduce shoreline erosion. On August 14, 1995, the Department issued Permit No. 102752932 to Richard League to construct a dock and replace a stormwater ditch with a covered culvert. The 1995 permit did not authorize a seawall, riprap, or other erosion control structure. A drawing attached to the 1995 permit shows the “typical concrete fill pieces at water’s edge,” which are the concrete pieces that had been placed along shoreline before 1995. The Department referred to the existing concrete pieces as a riprap revetment. Following the issuance of the permit, Mr. League discussed with Michael Eaton, Environmental Manager for the Submerged Lands and Environmental Resources Program for the Department's Northeast District Office, Mr. League's desire to restore the riprap material along his shoreline because, according to Mr. League, the concrete pieces had been displaced by storm waves and were no longer protecting his shoreline from erosion. On October 27, 1995, Mr. Eaton sent a letter to Mr. League regarding the "Existing Riprap Revetment," stating that "movement and rearranging of the riprap material along the revetment will not require a permit from the Department." The letter did not authorize the construction of a seawall or the placement of new material along Respondents' shoreline. In May 2005, the Department received an anonymous complaint that Respondents were constructing an unauthorized dock at their property. An investigation was conducted, but no major violation was found. Mr. League claims that, at the time of the 2005 investigation, he had completed 60 percent of the wall structure that is the subject of this proceeding. Mr. League also claims that the Department investigators saw the structure, but expressed no objection to the structure. However, there is no photographic or other evidence to support Mr. League's claim that the structure was observable in May 2005. No mention was made in the Department's investigative report that a seawall or similar structure was under construction at the League property. The normal practice of the Department is to describe such structures and activities in the investigative report. The aerial photographs in evidence support the Department's claim that the structure did not exist in May 2005. In April 2009, the Department received another anonymous complaint that Respondents were constructing an unauthorized structure at the shoreline. The investigation of the complaint revealed that Respondents were constructing a wall of pre-existing concrete pieces and new concrete pieces. The wall or seawall was not located at the bank, but was 12 to 21 feet waterward of the bank. It was apparently Respondents' intent to place fill behind the seawall to extend the upland property waterward. When Department employees conducted another inspection in January 2010, they found that wetlands and surface waters which had previously been observed behind (landward of) the seawall had been partially filled. At the hearing Respondents claimed that the structure qualifies as riprap. However, in their post-hearing submittal, Respondents alternately claimed that the structure was a seawall, an upland retaining wall, or riprap, depending on what rule or statute Respondents perceived as helpful in arguing that the structure did not require a permit. Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-341.021(15) defines "riprap" as "a sloping retaining or stabilizing structure made to reduce the force of waves and to protect the shore from erosion, and consists of unconsolidated boulders, rocks, or clean concrete rubble with no exposed reinforcing rods or similar protrusions." Respondents' structure is a consolidated wall, made by stacking relatively flat pieces of concrete. It has virtually no slope. It is not an unconsolidated, sloping pile of material. In addition, Respondents' structure is not placed at the bank for the purpose of retaining the existing bank. The Department contends that Respondents' structure is a seawall, which is defined in rule 62-341.021(16) as "a man- made wall or encroachment, except riprap, which is made to break the force of waves and to protect the shore from erosion." The waters of the St. Johns River reach and extend landward of the seawall constructed by Respondents. Photographs of the seawall show water stains and rafted debris at the base deposited by the waters of the St. Johns River. There was wetland vegetation behind the seawall. Mr. League admitted at the hearing that the waters of the St. Johns River sometimes move through the porous wall and fill the void between the wall and the bank. The landward extent of the St. Johns River is landward of Respondents' structure. The Department showed that the value of the time spent by Jim Maher, Matthew Kershner, and Heather Anthony to investigate this matter exceeded $1,000. However, the Department is only seeking $1,000 from Respondents for the Department's investigative costs.
The Issue The issues framed by the Amended Administrative Complaint are whether Mr. Chandwani was guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering with respect to drawings prepared for the renovation of a house, and whether he failed to obtain a certificate of authorization for a corporation which he owned which offered engineering services to the public.
Findings Of Fact The notice of the hearing was sent to Mr. Chandwani at the address disclosed on the Election of Rights form in which he demanded a formal hearing on the allegations made in the Administrative Complaint filed by the Department of Professional Regulation. Mr. Chandwani did not, however, appear at the hearing. Mr. Chandwani is licensed by the Board of Professional Engineers holding registration #PE0017049. Mr. Chandwani is the president of International Engineers and Builders, Inc., a Florida corporation whose Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Secretary of State on July 8, 1980. Mr. Chandwani, on behalf of International Engineers and Builders, Inc., entered into a contract on November 28, 1984, with Peter Persaud for the preparation of sealed plans for the rehabilitation of a property located at 22740 S.W. 179th Place, Miami, Florida. Mr. Persaud had purchased the property while it was in foreclosure. The property had come under the jurisdiction of the Dade County Code Enforcement Department due to defects in the structure, and Mr. Chandwani was engaged to provide drawings for the rehabilitation of the property. The plans originally delivered to Mr. Persaud by Mr. Chandwani were neither signed nor sealed. When taken to the Dade County Building and Zoning Department they were found to be deficient not only because they were not signed and sealed, but because they did not meet the criteria of the South Florida Building Code. For example, a cabana shown on the plans should not have been located on the property line. Eventually Mr. Chandwani provided signed and sealed plans, but only after a demand to do so had been made by Mr. Persaud's attorney. The testimony of James Owen Power, a consulting engineer who testified about the plans on behalf of the Board of Professional Engineers, has been accepted. The plans submitted are deficient in that they do not contain complete information on all components of the structure. For example, there is no design specified for roof trusses, nor is there any design for assembling trusses into a roof system. The plans are also confusing and contradictory in that Section A on sheet 1 of the plans appears to show a wall of a garage as part of an existing building but the plans indicate elsewhere that the garage is new, and nonexisting. There is also a confusing note with respect to a "cathedral ceiling" in the construction of the house, for there is no definition of what a cathedral ceiling is. Moreover, the drawings appear to show a level ceiling, not a cathedral ceiling. It is not clear whether the garage is to have any ceiling. Although Mr. Chandwani contracted with Mr. Persaud through International Engineers and Builders, Inc., International Engineers and Builders, Inc., has never been issued a certificate of authorization under the provision of Chapter 471, Florida Statutes.
Recommendation It is recommended that a final order be entered finding Mr. Chandwani guilty of negligence in the practice of professional engineering and of offering engineering services through an entity which does not hold a certificate of authorization, that he be reprimanded, fined $2,000 and his licensure be placed on probation for a period of two years. The fine shall be paid within sixty (60) days of the entry of the final order. DONE and ORDERED this 11th day of April, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY, JR. 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 11th day of April, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Arjan D. Chandwani 2560 Azalea Avenue Miramar, Florida 33025 Ray Shope, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seeley Executive Director Construction Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Facility Permit No. 003397-013-SO (the Permit) should be revoked and the facility closed for the reasons stated in the Department of Environmental Protection's (Department's) Notice of Revocation (Notice) issued on July 31, 2014.
Findings Of Fact A. The Parties, the Property, and the Dispute The Department administers and enforces the provisions of chapter 403 and the rules promulgated thereunder, including those applicable to construction and demolition debris (C & D) disposal facilities. Respondent is a Florida limited liability corporation that owns real property located at 6990 Rolling Hills Road, Pensacola, Escambia County (County), Florida. The large, odd- shaped parcel (whose exact size is unknown) is south-southwest of the intersection of Interstate 10 and Pensacola Boulevard (U.S. Highway 29) and has Class III fresh surface waters running in a northeast-southwest direction through the middle of the property. See Resp. Ex. 28. The entire site is surrounded by a six-foot tall fence or is separated from adjoining properties by natural barriers. A railroad track borders on the eastern side of the parcel; the western boundary fronts on Rolling Hills Road; and the northern boundary appears to be just south of West Pinestead Road. Id. The area immediately south of the parcel appears to be largely undeveloped. See Dept. Ex. 40. The Emerald Coast Utilities Authority (ECUA), a local government body, has an easement that runs along the eastern side of the property adjacent to the railroad track on which a 48-inch sewer pipe is located. An older residential area, known as Wedgewood, is located northeast of the facility on the north side of West Pinestead Road. Id. The closest Wedgewood homes appear to be around 400 or 500 feet from the edge of Respondent's property. A community and recreational center, the Marie K. Young Center, also known as the Wedgewood Center, serves the Wedgewood community, is northwest of the facility, and lies around 500 feet from the edge of the property. Established in 2012 where a school once stood, it has more than 200 members. Although non- parties, it is fair to say that the Wedgewood community and County strongly support the Department's efforts to revoke Respondent's permit. Respondent acquired the property in 2007. At that time, an existing C & D disposal facility (the facility) was located on the property operating under a permit issued by the Department. The Permit was renewed in February 2013 and will expire in early 2018. Besides the general and specific conditions, the renewed Permit incorporates the terms and conditions of a Consent Order executed in November 2012, as well as detailed requirements relating to the operation of the facility, water quality monitoring, an odor remediation plan, financial assurance and cost estimates, and closure of the facility. The latter requirements are found in four Appendices attached to the Permit. The facility operates under the name of Rolling Hills Construction and Demolition Recycling Center. All material received by the facility is disposed of in an active disposal pile known as cell 2, located in the middle of the northern section of the parcel. Cell 1, southwest of cell 2 and just east of Rolling Hills Road, was closed a number of years ago by the prior operator. Respondent operates the only C & D facility in the County.1/ It currently serves around 50 to 60 active customers, employs 16 persons, and operates between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The former manager, Charles Davidson, who had overseen operations since 2010, was replaced in June 2014, and Respondent blames him for ignoring or failing to address most of the problems encountered during the last three years. Since June, the managing partner of the LLC, Scott C. Miller, has overseen the operations. Unlike Class I or III landfills, a C & D landfill may accept only construction and demolition debris. Construction and demolition debris is defined as "discarded materials generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature." § 403.703(6), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 701.200(24). Debris includes not only items such as steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and lumber that are typically associated with construction or demolition projects, but also rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter that normally result from land clearing or land development operations. Id. No solid waste other than construction and demolition debris may be disposed of at the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 701.730(4)(d). To address and resolve certain violations that predated the renewal of the Permit, the Department and Respondent entered into a Consent Order on November 14, 2012. See Dept. Ex. 2. These violations occurred in 2011 and included the storage and/or disposal of non-C & D debris, and a failure to timely submit an appropriate Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Id. Among other things, the Consent Order required that within a time certain Respondent submit for Department review and approval an RAP; and after its approval to "continue to follow the time frames and requirements of Chapter 62-780, F.A.C." Id. Those requirements included the initiation of an active remediation system and site rehabilitation within a time certain, and the continued monitoring and related corrective action for any water quality violations or impacts. Id. To ensure that it has the financial ability to undertake any required corrective action, the Permit requires Respondent to provide proof of financial assurance for the corrective action program cost estimates. See Fla. Admin. Code 62-701.730(11)(d); § 2, Spec. Cond. F.1. This can be done through a number of mechanisms, such as a performance bond, letter of credit, or cash escrow. The Permit also requires Respondent to provide proof of financial assurance to demonstrate that it has the financial ability to close the facility and otherwise provide for the long-term care cost estimates of the facility. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-701.630; § 2, Spec. Cond. F.2. Rather than using a cash escrow or letter of credit, Respondent has chosen to use a performance bond for both requirements. These bonds must be updated annually to include an inflation adjustment. Given the many requirements imposed by the Permit and Consent Order, in 2013 and 2014 several follow-up site inspections of the facility were conducted by the Department, and a review of the operations was made to determine if the various deadlines had been met. Also, in 2014, the Department received complaints from the County and neighboring property owners, almost exclusively by those residing in the Wedgewood community, regarding offensive odors emanating from the facility. Based on field observations, the review of operations, and odor complaints, on July 31, 2014, the Department issued a Notice containing eight counts of wrongdoing. The Notice was issued under section 403.087(7)(b), which authorizes the Department to revoke a permit when it finds the permit holder has "[v]iolated law, department orders, rules, or regulations, or permit conditions." To Respondent's consternation, the Department opted to use that enforcement mechanism rather than initiating an enforcement action under section 403.121 or executing another consent order, both of which would likely result in a sanction less severe than permit revocation.2/ The Notice contains the following charges: exceeding surface water quality standards in rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530 (Count I); failing to implement an RAP as required by the Consent Order and Permit (Count II); failing to provide adequate financial assurances for facility closure costs (Count III); failing to provide financial assurances for the corrective action required by the RAP (Count IV); failing to reduce on-site and off-site objectionable odors and to implement a routine odor monitoring program (Count V); disposing non-C & D waste on site (Count VI); failing to remove unauthorized waste (Count VII); and disposing solid waste outside of its permitted (vertical) dimension of 130 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) (Count VIII). These allegations are discussed separately below. Although the Notice is based on violations that occurred on or before July 31, 2014, the undersigned denied the Department's motion in limine that would preclude Respondent from presenting mitigating evidence concerning circumstances surrounding the violations and efforts to remediate them after July 31, 2014. Given that ruling, the Department was allowed to present evidence to show that Respondent's remediation efforts have not been successful and that some violations still existed as of the date of final hearing. Respondent disputes the allegations and contends that most, if not all, are either untrue, inaccurate, have been remedied, or are in the process of being remedied. As noted above, Respondent considers the revocation of its permit too harsh a penalty in light of its continued efforts to comply with Department rules and enforcement guidelines. It contends that the Department is acting at the behest of the County, which desires to close the facility to satisfy the odor complaints of the Wedgewood residents, and to ultimately use the property for a new road that it intends to build in the future. Count I - Water Quality Violations The Notice alleges that two water quality monitoring reports filed by Respondent reflect that it exceeded surface water quality standards at two monitoring locations (MW-2 and SW-6) sampled on August 26, 2013, and at one monitoring location (MW-2) sampled on March 4, 2014. The Notice alleges that these exceedances constitute a failure to comply with Class III fresh surface water quality standards in rules 62-302.500 and 62- 302.530 and therefore violate conditions in the Permit. These standards apply in areas beyond the edge of the discharge area (or zone of discharge) established by the Permit. To ensure compliance with water quality standards, when the Permit was renewed in 2013, a Water Quality Monitoring Report (Appendix 3) was attached to the Permit. It required Respondent to monitor surface water for contamination, identify the locations at which samples must be collected, and specify the testing parameters. All of these conditions were accepted by Respondent and its consultant(s). The monitoring network, already in place when Respondent purchased the facility, consists of six ground water monitoring wells and three surface water monitoring stations. The surface water stations, which must be sampled to determine compliance with water quality criteria, are SW-5, a background location, and SW-6 and MW-2, both compliance locations located outside the zone of discharge. A background location is placed upstream of an activity in order to determine the quality of the water before any impacts by the activity. A compliance location is placed downstream of an activity to determine any impacts of the facility on surface water. The Water Quality Monitoring Plan and Permit require Respondent to submit semi-annual water quality reports. To conduct the preparation and filing of the reports, Respondent used an outside consulting firm, Enviro Pro Tech, Inc. (EPT). On November 5, 2013, EPT submitted a Second Semi-Annual 2013 report. See Dept. Ex. 5. According to Mr. Miller, who now oversees operations at the facility, EPT did not provide Respondent a copy of the report, or even discuss its findings, before filing it with the Department. A Department engineer reviewed the report and noted that surface water samples exceeded the Class III Fresh Water Quality Standards for iron, copper, lead, zinc, nickel, and mercury at SW-6 and for iron at MW-2. See Dept. Ex. 6. A copy of the Department's report was provided to Respondent and EPT. Notably, the report indicated that background levels were lower than the down-gradient results. Under Department protocol, if the samples at the compliance locations exceed both the regulatory levels and the background, there is a violation of water quality standards. This accepted protocol differs from Respondent's suggested protocol that the background level should be added to the regulatory standard before a comparison with the sample results is made. In sum, except for the reported nickel value at SW-6, a violation which the Department now says it will not pursue, all exceedances shown on Department Exhibits 5 and 6 are violations of the standards. On April 1, 2014, EPT submitted a First Semi-Annual 2014 report. See Dept. Ex. 7. A Department engineer reviewed the report and noted that the surface water samples at one monitoring location, MW-2, did not meet water quality standards for iron; however, background levels for iron were much higher than downstream. See Dept. Ex. 8. No other exceedances were shown. Although the Department engineer considered the higher background level for iron to be an "inconsistency" since it varied from the prior reports, the reported iron value was treated as a violation when the Notice was drafted. In its PRO, however, the Department concedes that it did not establish a violation of standards for iron, as alleged in paragraph 7 of the Notice. While having no concerns with sampling taken at MW-2, Respondent's expert contends that the reported values for SW-6 are unreliable because the samples taken from that location were turbid and filled with large amounts of suspended solid matter. He noted that the well is located in a wetland area that is "clogged with vegetation." The expert estimated the turbidity at the site to be in the range of 480 to 500 Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTUs) and believes the sample was taken in a "high turbid sediment laden area," thus rendering it unreliable. However, at the time of the sample collection, turbidity was measured at 164 NTUs, or much less than the amount estimated by the expert. See Dept. Ex. 5, p. 147. There is no rule or procedure that disallows the use of turbid samples. In fact, they can be representative of actual water quality. Also, rule 62-302.500(2)(d) provides that if an applicant for a C & D permit believes that turbid samples are not representative of water quality, it may use filtered samples by establishing a "translator" during the permitting process. Respondent did not request a translator during the permitting process, nor is any such translator provision found in the Permit. The expert also criticized EPT for holding the 2013 sample for iron for 22 days after collection before reanalyzing it without providing any explanation for this delay. A reasonable inference to draw from the data, however, is that iron was present in the original sample at levels that required dilution and reanalysis. Respondent's expert testified that even though off- site stormwater is discharged onto the property, no offsite monitoring locations exist, and therefore any offsite exceedances would not be reported. He also criticized the sampling locations that were selected by EPT. In fairness to Respondent, a repositioning of the monitoring network and retesting of the samples might have produced more favorable results. But these are measures that should have been addressed long before this proceeding was initiated. Finally, Respondent's expert testified that the implementation of its RAP, now partially completed, will cure all of the reported exceedances. Assuming this unrefuted testimony is true, it should be taken into account in determining an appropriate penalty. Count II - Failure to Implement an RAP In this Count, the Department alleges that after the issuance of an RAP Approval Order on July 3, 2013, Respondent was required to implement the RAP within 120 days. The Notice alleges that as of July 31, 2014, the RAP had not been implemented. An RAP was first filed by Respondent on November 15, 2010. See Dept. Ex. 3. When the Department determined that changes to the RAP were necessary, the Consent Order imposed a requirement that an RAP addendum be filed within 150 days. The date on which the addendum was filed is not known. However, an RAP Approval Order was issued on July 3, 2013. See Dept. Ex. 4. The terms and conditions in the RAP were incorporated into the renewed Permit. The work required by the RAP consists of two phases, with all work to be completed within 365 days, or by early July 2014. Phase I related to the initiation of an active remediation system within 120 days, or by October 31, 2013. This phase requires Respondent to install a pump and treat system at the facility, which will withdraw contaminated groundwater through recovery wells, pump the water to aeration basins to treat the water, and then re-infiltrate the treated water back into the ground. As noted below, the system was not operational until the second week in December 2014. Respondent's failure to implement the approved RAP by the established deadline constitutes a violation of rules 62- 780.700(11) and 62-780.790 and Permit conditions, as charged in the Notice. While Respondent concedes that it did not comply with the deadline for implementing the RAP, it points out that work on Phase I was begun in a timely manner. However, on October 16, 2013, or just before the 120 days had run, a Notice of Violation was issued by the County. See Resp. Ex. 2. The effect of the Notice of Violation was to halt much of the work on Phase I until Respondent obtained a County stormwater permit. Respondent asserts that this was responsible for all, or most, of the delay. The record shows that the EPT consultant did not apply for the County permit until September 10, 2014, or almost one year after the Notice of Violation was issued. Additional information was required by the County, which was supplied on October 23, 2014, but final sealed documents were not filed by the consultant until around Thanksgiving. The permit was issued by the County "a week or so" before the final hearing. Respondent attributes the delay in applying for a County permit to its former manager and his failure to coordinate with the EPT engineers assigned to the project. It also claims that the County failed to process the application in an expeditious fashion. However, the facts suggest otherwise. Once the permit was issued, Phase I was completed on December 8, 2014, and it was operational at the time of the final hearing. Respondent's expert, hired in August 2014, has proposed a modification to the RAP that would avoid impacting the existing stormwater pond. However, the modification must be reviewed and approved by the Department, and as of the date of the hearing, it had not been formally submitted. The Department asserts that the only reason the modification is being sought is to reduce the cost of a performance bond. In any event, in its PRO, Respondent does not argue that the proposed modification excuses its 13-month delay in completing the requirements of Phase I, or the second phase of the project, which should have been completed by early July 2014. Count III - Failure to Provide Financial Assurance This Count alleges that Respondent failed to provide the required annual 2014 financial assurance mechanism that demonstrates proof of financial assurance for closure and long- term cost estimates of the facility. At the beginning of 2014, Respondent had an $836,000.00 financial performance bond in place for closure and long-term costs. The Permit requires that on or before March 1 of each year Respondent revise the closure cost estimates to account for inflation in accordance with rule 62-701.630(4). See § 2, Spec. Cond. F.2. Once the estimates are approved, the performance bond must be updated within 60 days. In this case, an increase of around $18,000.00 was required. The annual inflation adjustment estimate was not submitted until April 15, 2014. The Department approved the cost estimates the following day and established a due date of June 16, 2014, for submitting a revised financial assurance. Respondent did not have a revised performance bond in place until a "week or two" before the hearing. Other than Respondent's manager indicating that he had a new bonding agent, no evidence was presented to mitigate this violation. The failure to timely update its financial assurance for closure and long-term costs constitutes a violation of rule 62-701.630, as charged in the Notice. Count IV - Financial Assurances for Corrective Action In the same vein as Count III, the Notice alleges that Respondent failed to maintain a financial assurance mechanism to demonstrate proof that it can undertake the corrective action program required under the RAP. Respondent was required to submit proof of financial assurance for corrective actions within 120 days after the corrective action remedy was selected. On July 3, 2013, the RAP Approval Order selected the appropriate remedy. On August 8, 2013, the Department approved Respondent's corrective action program cost estimates of $566,325.85 and established a deadline of October 31, 2013, for Respondent to submit this proof. When the Notice was issued, a corrective action bond had not been secured, and none was in place at the time of the final hearing. This constitutes a violation of rule 62-701.730(11)(d) and applicable Permit conditions. Respondent's manager, Mr. Miller, concedes that this requirement has not been met. He testified that he was not aware a new bond was required until he took over management of the facility and met with Department staff on June 17, 2014. Due to the Notice, Mr. Miller says he has had significant difficulty in securing a bond. He explained that the bonding company is extremely reluctant to issue a bond to an entity faced with possible revocation of its permit, especially if such revocation might occur within a matter of months. Mr. Miller says the bonding company wants 100 percent collateralization to put a bond in place. Nonetheless, he is confident that a bond can be secured if only because its cost will dramatically drop when the RAP project is completed. However, even at hearing, he gave no timeline on when this requirement will be fulfilled. Count V - Objectionable Odors One of the driving forces behind the issuance of the Notice is the complaint about off-site objectionable odors. A considerable amount of testimony was devoted to this issue by witnesses representing the Department, County, Wedgewood community, and Respondent. The Notice alleges that during routine inspections in April, May, and July 2014, mainly in response to citizen complaints, Department inspectors detected objectionable odors both at the facility and off-site. The Notice further alleges that Respondent failed to immediately take steps to reduce the odors, submit an odor remediation plan, and implement that plan in violation of rules 62-296.320(2) and 62-701.730(7)(e) and section 2, Specific Condition E of the Permit. Notably, the Department has never revoked a landfill permit due solely to objectionable odors. Several Department rules apply to this Count. First, objectionable odors are defined in rule 62-210.200(200). Second, a C & D facility must control objectionable odors in accordance with rule 62-296.320(2). Finally, if odors are detected off-site, the facility must comply with the requirements of rule 62-701.530(3)(b). That rule provides that once off-site odors have been confirmed, as they were here, the facility must "immediately take steps to reduce the objectionable odors," "submit to the Department for approval an odor remediation plan," and "implement a routine odor monitoring program to determine the timing and extent of any off-site odors, and to evaluate the effectiveness of the odor remediation plan." These same regulatory requirements are embodied in the Permit conditions. See § 2, Spec. Cond. E. At least occasionally, every landfill has objectionable odors emanating from the facility. As one expert noted, "The trick is, how can you treat it." The technical witnesses who addressed this issue agree that the breakdown of drywall, wall board, and gypsum board, all commonly recycled at C & D facilities, will produce hydrogen sulfide, which has a very strong "rotten egg" type smell. The most effective techniques for reducing or eliminating these odors are to spray reactant on the affected areas, place more cover, such as dirt or hydrated lime, on the pile, and have employees routinely patrol the perimeters of the property and the active cell to report any odors that they smell. Although the facility has been accepting waste products for a number of years, the last seven by Respondent, there is no evidence that the Department was aware of any odor complaints before April 2014. While not an active participant in the operations until recently, Mr. Miller also testified that he was unaware of any citizen complaints being reported to the facility prior to that date. However, in response to citizen complaints that more than likely were directed initially to the County, on April 14, 21, and 24, 2014, the Department conducted routine inspections of the facility. During at least one of the visits, objectionable odors were detected both on-site, emanating from cell 2, and off-site on West Pinestead Road, just north of the facility. See Dept. Ex. 14. Because the inspector created a single report for all three visits, he was unsure whether odors were detected on more than one visit. After the inspection report was generated, Department practice was to send a copy by email to the facility's former manager, Mr. Davidson. A Department engineer who accompanied the inspector on at least one visit in April 2014 testified that she has visited the site on several occasions, and on two of those visits, the odor was strong enough to make her physically ill. On a follow-up inspection by the Department on May 22, 2014, the inspector did not detect any objectionable odors. See Dept. Ex. 17. In June 2014, however, a County inspector visited the Wedgewood Center area in response to a complaint that dust was coming from the facility. He testified that he detected a rotten egg type smell on the Wedgewood Center property. At a meeting attended by Mr. Miller and County and Department representatives on June 17, 2014, the Department advised Respondent of its findings and provided Mr. Miller with copies of the inspection reports. On July 1, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility. The inspector noted a hydrogen sulfide odor on the north, south, and west sides of the disposal area of the facility, and on the top of the disposal pile at the facility. See Dept. Ex. 18. Another inspection conducted on July 9, 2014, did not find any objectionable odors. See Dept. Ex. 19. On July 18, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection of the facility. The inspector again noted objectionable odors at the facility but none off-site. Id. On July 24, 2014, Department inspectors noted objectionable odors on top of the pile, the toe of the north slopes, and off-site on West Pinestead Road. See Dept. Ex. 20. An inspection performed the following day noted objectionable odors on top of the pile and the toe of the north slopes, but none off-site. Id. The Notice, which was already being drafted in mid-July, was issued a week later. In response to the meeting on June 17, 2014, Respondent prepared a draft odor remediation plan, made certain changes suggested by the Department, and then submitted a revised odor remediation plan prior to July 31, 2014. A Department engineer agrees that "in the strict sense it meets the requirements of the rule" and "could work," but there are "two or three things that still needed . . . to be submitted in order for it to be completely approvable." For example, she was uncertain as to how and when dirt cover would be applied, and how erosion would be controlled. Although the plan was filed, it was never formally approved or rejected, and the "two or three things" that the witness says still needed to be done were never disclosed to Respondent. Under these circumstances, it is reasonable to accept Respondent's assertion that it assumed the plan was satisfactory and complied with the rule. After the Notice was issued, Respondent set up a hotline for community members to call and report odors. A sign on the property gives a telephone number to call in the event of odors. At an undisclosed point in time, Respondent began requiring employees to walk the perimeter of the facility each day to monitor for odors; spreading and mixing hydrated lime to reduce the odors around the facility; and increasing the amount of cover applied to the working face of the facility. The parties agree that these measures are the best available practices to monitor and eliminate objectionable odors at a C & D facility. Despite these good faith measures, Mr. Miller acknowledged that he visited the facility during the evening a few days before the final hearing in December 2014 and smelled hydrogen sulfide around the ECUA sewer pipe and "a very mild level" by the debris pile. Respondent does not deny that odors were emanating from the facility during the months leading up to the issuance of the Notice. But in April 2014, the County experienced a 500- year storm event which caused significant flooding and damaged a number of homes. Because Respondent operates the only C & D facility in the County and charges less than the County landfill, it received an abnormal amount of soaked and damaged C & D debris, which it contends could have generated some, if not all, of the odors that month. Given the magnitude of the storm, this is a reasonable explanation for the source of the odors at that time. Respondent also presented evidence that an underground ECUA sewer pipe that runs on the eastern side of the property was damaged during the storm, causing it to rupture and be exposed. Although ECUA eventually repaired the damaged pipe at a later date, the pipe is still exposed above ground. Until the pipe was repaired, Respondent's assumption that it likely contributed to some of the odors detected by the Department appears to be valid. Finally, Respondent's expert attributes some of the odors to biological degradation from other sources both on-site and off-site, including a large wetland area running through the middle of the property. To a small degree, County testing later that fall confirms this assertion. The County has also been an active participant in the odor complaint issue. In response to complaints received from residents of Wedgewood, in July 2014 it began collecting hydrogen sulfide data using a device known as the Jerome 631X Hydrogen Sulfur Detector. This equipment is used to monitor for the presence of hydrogen sulfur. On July 21 and 22, 2014, samples were taken documenting that hydrogen sulfide was coming from the facility. In early September the County set up a fixed station at the Wedgewood Center, around 500 feet from the edge of Respondent's property, to continuously and automatically collect the data. During September and October 2014 the detector reported the presence of hydrogen sulfide at that location 64 percent of the days in those months, and this continued into the month of November. Seventy-five percent of the exceedances occurred when wind was blowing from the south, or when winds were calm. The data also reflected that when the wind was blowing from the meter to the facility, or to the south, hydrogen sulfide was still detected on some occasions. A resident of the Wedgewood community testified that on multiple occasions she has smelled objectionable odors in her home and yard and at the Wedgewood Center, and that these odors have been emanating from the facility for a number of years. Because of the odors, she says fewer citizens are participating in programs hosted by the Wedgewood Center.3/ The evidence establishes that before the Notice was issued, Respondent filed an odor remediation plan that was never rejected; therefore, the allegation that a plan was not submitted has not been proven. However, objectionable odors were detected off-site in June and July 2014, or after the April inspection reports were provided to the facility, and they continued throughout much of the fall. Therefore, the Department has established that the plan was not properly implemented. These same findings sustain the allegation that steps were not immediately taken to reduce the objectionable odors. Counts VI and VII - Disposal and Failure to Remove Unauthorized Waste Counts VI and VII allege that on April 14, 2014, the Department documented the disposal of prohibited or unauthorized waste, including waste tires; and that on July 18, 2014, the Department conducted a follow-up inspection that documented the disposal of unauthorized waste, including waste tires, clothing, shoes, and Class I waste, including one electronic item and a grill, in violation of rule 62-701.730(4)(d). The Permit specifies that the facility can only accept for disposal C & D debris. See § 2, Spec. Cond. C.2. Another condition provides that if unauthorized debris is spotted after a load is received, the unpermitted waste should be removed and placed in temporary storage in a bin at the sorting area. See § 2, Spec. Cond. C.3. The Operations Plan spells out these procedures in great detail. Photographs received in evidence show that during the inspection on April 14, 2014, the following unauthorized items were observed at the facility: tires, a basketball goal, Quiklube material, chromated copper arsenate treated wood, a toy, and a crushed electronic item. See Dept. Ex. 22. Photographs received in evidence show that during an inspection on July 18, 2014, the following unauthorized items were observed at the facility: blanket or clothing, a shoe, a bag of Class I garbage, several bags of household garbage, furniture, an electronic item and garbage, drilling mud, a suitcase, and tires. See Dept. Ex. 23. Respondent's expert, who has trained numerous spotters, including a current Department inspector, established that a de minimis amount of unpermitted waste, which is easily hidden in the debris, is not unusual and would not constitute a violation of the rule. For example, when a building is torn down, numerous thermostats containing mercury vile will be in a C & D container but very difficult to see. Also, workers at construction sites may throw small amounts of leftover food in the pile of debris that goes to the facility. However, he agrees that most, if not all, of the items observed during the two inspections would not be considered de minimis. Respondent does not deny that the unauthorized waste was present on two occasions. However, it contends that one would expect to find some of the items in a C & D dumpster. It also argues that the amount of unauthorized waste was minimal and not so serious as to warrant revocation of its Permit. The evidence supports a finding that on two occasions Respondent violated two conditions in its Permit by accepting non-C & D waste and failing to remove it. Therefore, the charges in Counts VI and VII have been proven. Count VIII - Facility Outside of Permitted Dimensions This Count alleges that on May 22, 2014, the Department conducted an inspection of the facility in response to a complaint that Respondent had disposed of solid waste outside its permitted (vertical) limit of 130 NGVD; that on July 25, 2014, the Department had a survey performed at the facility that confirmed this violation; and that this activity violated section 2.3 of the facility's Operation Plan and Specific Condition C.10 in the Permit. Section 2.3 provides that "the proposed upper elevation of waste at the [facility] will range up to 130-feet, NGVD, which is slightly above original grade[,]" while Specific Condition C.10 provides that "[t]he final (maximum) elevation of the disposal facility shall not exceed 130 feet NGVD as shown on Attachment 3 - Cell 2 Closure Grading Plan." Respondent admits that on July 25, 2014, the maximum height of the disposal pile exceeded 130 feet NGVD. However, it argues that, pursuant to Specific Condition C.10, which in turn refers to the Permit's Cell 2 Closure Grading Plan, the 130-foot height limitation comes into play only when cell 2 is being closed and is no longer active. This interpretation of the conditions is rejected for at least two reasons. First, a disposal pile in excess of the established height would trigger concerns about the integrity of the foundation of the facility. When the 130-foot ceiling was established by the Department at the permitting stage, it was based on calculations that the ground could support the weight of the waste. Second, the facility's financial assurance calculations are based on a set dimension of the site; these calculations would likely be impacted if there were no height restrictions. The Department's interpretation is more reasonable and limits the height of the pile to no more than 130 feet NVGD at any time when the cell is active. The Department has established that Respondent violated Permit conditions by disposing of waste outside its maximum permitted height of 130 feet NVGD. To Respondent's credit, its new consultant, Charles Miller, completed preparation of a height reduction plan on September 3, 2014. See Resp. Ex. 4. Although Mr. Miller says the plan was being implemented at the time of final hearing, it has never been formally submitted to the Department for approval. Under the plan, Respondent proposes to extract all of the existing waste from the pile in the next two years. To reduce the volume of new waste being accepted, Respondent recently purchased a Caterpillar bulldozer, low-speed grinder, and Trommel screener. New waste will be shredded, screened to separate sand and dirt from the material, and then ground and compacted. Mr. Miller anticipates that the facility can achieve up to an eight to one (or at a minimum a five to one) reduction in the size of the waste. This will dramatically reduce the height of the pile and bring it well below 130 feet at closure. But whether cell 2 is now below 130 feet NGVD is unknown. In any event, these proposed remediation steps should be taken into account in assessing an appropriate penalty.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order revoking Respondent's C & D Permit. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of March, 2015, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER 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 2nd day of March, 2015.
