The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent signed and sealed negligent drawings for one single-family residence and provided plan review certification for two other projects designed by Respondent in violation of Subsections 471.033(1)(g) and 553.791(3), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001(6)(n).1
Findings Of Fact The Board of Professional Engineers (Board) is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. Section 471.038, Florida Statutes, authorizes Petitioner to provide the Board with administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services. Respondent is licensed in the state as a professional engineer pursuant to license number PE 54476. It is undisputed that Respondent is a private provider within the meaning of Subsection 553.791(1)(g), Florida Statues. On October 29, 2002, Respondent signed and sealed drawings for a single-family residence identified in the record as the Barnes residence. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings for the Barnes residence are deficient. The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive. The applicable standard of care does not require the relevant drawings to include multiple ridge heights in order to describe the nature and character of the work to be performed with sufficient clarity. It is less than clear and convincing that the ridge heights in the drawings are unequal. Additional ridge height information would have been non-critical information that may have been interpreted as specific construction requirements and lead to confusion, added costs, conflicting interpretations, and potential hazards in buildings. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings for the Barnes residence insufficiently show heights of the eaves or lintels and sills. The plans can be easily understood by tradesmen and inspectors. The typical wall section at page 4 of the plans addresses eaves, lintels, and sills. The ridge height requirements in Manatee County, Florida (the County), are intended to ensure compliance with maximum height restrictions. The mean heights in the drawings adequately address the maximum local height ordinances. It is less than clear and convincing that the roof entry plan provided insufficient clarity. The roof was constructed according to the local code requirements without apparent exception. The evidence does not support a finding that the roof entry plan, the ridge heights, lintels, eaves, and sills were insufficiently clear to describe the nature and character of the work to be performed. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that the wind uplift for roof trusses in the plans was incorrect or unclear. If the wind load calculations were found to be deficient, the specified fittings were sufficient to withstand wind loads that exceeded the calculations of Petitioner's expert by approximately 70 percent. Wind load calculations are intended to ensure a roof will sustain the load and will not blow off of the house. The fittings were sufficient to secure the roof against the projected wind load. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that the drawings failed to specify the applicable masonry inspection requirements. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that special masonry inspections are required for single-family residences of two stories or less. A masonry inspection is required for such structures when a building inspector finds a need for such an inspection. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings fail to adequately specify the splice lengths of the bond beam reinforcement for tension, compression, intersections, and corners. The requisite evidence does not support a finding that the plans deviate from the standard of care in the community. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that Respondent failed to comply with applicable soil condition requirements. The County did not require soil conditions on plans at the time Respondent drew the plans. From sometime in the 1940s through November 2003, the County permitted engineers to assume soil conditions with a ground load of 2000 pounds per square foot. Respondent drew the plans for the Barnes project in 2002. The testimony of Petitioner's expert does not relate to facts in evidence. The expert did not know County allowances for soil conditions at the time Respondent drew the plans. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the design of the concrete footings cannot be verified from the plans. Nor does the requisite evidence support a finding that the plans do not specify reinforcement of the thickened edge under a load bearing wood stud wall at the garage. The plans include two reinforcement specifications for the thickened edge under the load bearing wood stud wall at the garage. The specifications include welded wire mesh and reinforced steel bars. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that Respondent supplied or submitted the Barnes plans for permit. Without such a finding, Respondent was not required to prepare, submit, or seal a site plan. A site plan for the Barnes residence exists in the file of the County Building Department (Department). A Department representative confirmed that the site plan is sufficient and that an engineer of record is not required to prepare, submit, or seal a site plan unless the engineer of record actually submits the plans for a permit. On February 24 and March 7, 2003, Respondent signed and sealed drawings for respective projects at 14815 Coker Gully Road, Myakka, Florida (the Coker project), and 705 50th Avenue, Plaza West, Bradenton, Florida (the Yonkers project). Pursuant to Section 553.791, Florida Statutes, Respondent entered into a contract with an entity identified in the record as Griffis Custom Homes (Griffis) to provide either building code plans or inspection services, or both. Prior to the commencement of the two projects in question, the Department expressly permitted an engineer to provide building code inspection services involving buildings designed or constructed by the engineer. Respondent prepared private provider affidavits, obtained additional insurance, had forms made, and prepared to provide inspections services. Respondent immediately ceased his activities when Department officials objected to Respondent's stated intention of providing "private provider" building code inspection services for the Coker and Yonkers projects. The separate owners of the two projects withdrew their applications as "private provider" projects. The Department processed the projects, performed all inspections, and issued a certificate of occupancy for each project. Neither the Department, Petitioner, nor the Board, ever served Respondent with a Notice of Non-compliance. If it were found that Respondent committed the alleged violation, the violation was minor. There is no evidence of any economic or physical harm, or significant threat of harm, to a person or to the health, safety, or welfare of the public. There is no evidence that Respondent has any prior discipline against his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the alleged violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of May, 2006.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated to the following matters which are incorporated in and made a part of the Findings of Fact: The Respondent, Raymon Johnson, holds residential contractor's certificate Number CR C--4461. The Respondent entered into a written agreement with Gary J. Stearman and Michelle Talisman to construct a residence at 2911 NE 9th Street in Gainesville, Florida, for $32,000. The Respondent represented to the owners that the house would have a one-year warranty. On or about December 12, 1979, the Respondent was notified by Al Davis of the City of Gainesville that there were code violations involved with the property at 2911 NE 9th Street, and that based upon these violations a certificate of occupancy could not be issued. On or about June 5, 1980, the Board of Adjustment denied Respondent's appeal of the code violations and instructed Davis to provide Respondent with a list of all the code violations to be corrected before a certificate of occupancy could be issued. As of June 12, 1980, Respondent had not corrected all of the code violations. Johnson was initially advised of three code violations. These were improper wood siding, improperly attached roofing shingles, and improper holes and coverage of holes in the house's foundation. Johnson took steps to properly cover the holes in the foundation, had the subcontractor re-nail the roofing shingles, and controverted the allegation that the siding was improper. Subsequently, Davis refused to approve the roof on the basis that in raising the shingles to add the fourth nail the subcontractor had broken the seal on the self-adhering shingles, irreparably damaging the shingles. Eventually, the roof was completely replaced, although the roofing contractor could not fix the exact date. This was done without cost to the home owners. With regard to the siding, Davis based the determination that the wood was not suitable for siding on the determination that its moisture content exceeded the code requirements, which he in turn based upon the fact that the rough-sawn siding was not grade stamped. Lumber is grade stamped by lumber mills. The right to grade stamp is granted by independent manufacturer's associations to mills which cut and dry lumber to the specifications of such associations. Careful review of the Gainesville Building Code does not reveal any requirement that rough-sawn wood siding which is not structural or load-bearing to be grade stamped. See Section 1700.3 (page 17-2) and Section 1700.4 (page 17-4), Petitioner's Exhibit 3. The code does provide that lumber two inches thick or less will not contain more than 19 percent moisture at the time of permanent incorporation in a building. See Section 1700 6 (page 17-2), Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Johnson initially took samples of the siding from the four sides of the house to a lumber mill which graded lumber and had equipment for establishing moisture content. The results of the test of these samples were reported in a letter from Donald Carswell dated December 22, 1979. See Petitioner's Exhibit 5. Carswell testified at the hearing that he used the same test on Johnson's samples that was used on the lumber which the mill grade stamps. The samples from the house contained from 7 to 14 percent moisture content. Davis refused to accept this letter as proof that the wood was permissible for use as siding because the test showed the current moisture content and not the content as of the date it was installed on the house. Johnson then provided Davis with a letter dated January 21, 1980, from James Griffes, whose mill had cut the wood siding in question. See Respondent's Exhibit 3. Griffes also testified at the hearing that the lumber in question was rough-sawn heart yellow pine and had been stacked for four months prior to sale to Johnson. In Griffes' opinion the lumber was at least of utility grade. He testified that the lumber was dry enough to meet the standards in his opinion. Davis refused to consider the letter as proof of the moisture content because the lumber was not grade stamped. Rough-sawn lumber is not grade stamped, although it is graded, because the stamping operation is a part of the planing procedure. Johnson advised Davis that he was aware of rough-sawn lumber from Griffes' mill having been used in Gainesville. Davis indicated that when it had been used it was under circumstances in which an architect had approved the plans and accepted responsibility for its use. Johnson then provided Davis with a letter, Respondent's Exhibit 2, from H. J. Kelley, Professional Engineer, dated January 22, 1980. In this letter Kelley stated, based upon the two earlier letters, that the siding met the standards of the Southern Standard Building Code, Section 1706.7, for its intended use. Davis refused to accept this as proof of the siding's appropriateness. Johnson appealed Davis' determination to the city's Board of Appeals. This appeals hearing was held June 5, 1980. In April, 1980, the home owners obtained legal counsel, and he wrote Johnson a letter dated April 23, 1980, Petitioner's Exhibit 3. Various meetings were held between the parties during this period. One of these meetings resulted in preparation of a written agreement by the home owners' counsel, Petitioner's Exhibit 4. This agreement calls for replacement of the siding and roof as well as items not found by Davis to be in violation of the code. Johnson did not execute this written agreement. On June 5, 1980, the Board of Appeals held its hearing on Johnson's appeal of Davis' determinations. This appeal apparently limited to interpretation of Sections 1700.3, 1700.5, 1702.8.1 and 1302.5 of the Southern Standard Building Code. While all of these sections were not introduced at hearing, the minutes of that meeting, Petitioner's Exhibit 1, reflect that the Board of Appeals took up matters beyond those raised on appeal. This resulted in the Board of Appeals' direction to Davis to prepare a letter to Johnson setting out all violations of code which would have to be corrected in order for Johnson to obtain a certificate of occupancy The Board of Appeals took notice that it lacked authority to direct that the matters be corrected within a specific time. See Petitioner's Exhibit 1 (page 35). Prior to the June 5, 1980, meeting, the home owners had advised Johnson not to come on the premises or to do further work on the house. They had also commenced a suit against Johnson's contractor's bond. Johnson's attorney, Costello, wrote a letter to the home owners' attorney, Michael Davis, on August 13, 1980, which outlines the events subsequent to the Board of Appeals hearing. See Respondent's Exhibit 5. By letter of June 19, 1980, Costello advised Michael Davis that Johnson agreed to perform all repairs or corrections to comply with the code requirements on the condition that the home owners grant him access to the project and abate their suit. See Respondent's Exhibit 4. Michael Davis wrote Costello on June 30, 1980, advising that the home owners would not allow Johnson to complete the repairs. Meanwhile, the home owners continued their suit against Johnson's bond, in which they eventually received the monies necessary to replace the siding using another contractor.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that no action be taken against the Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of October, 1981. STEPHEN F. DEAN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles T. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Raymon E. Johnson Post Office Box 13981 Gainesville, FL 32604 Samuel Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been certified by Petitioner as a building code administrator in the State of Florida. On April 5, 1993, Respondent began his employment with Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, as the permit control division chief in the County's Department of Building & Zoning, now known as the Department of Planning, Development and Regulation. Carlos Bonzon was the head of the County's Department of Building & Zoning and also served as the County's Building Official. The Port of Miami is another department within Metropolitan Dade County. At all times material hereto, Carmen Lunetta was the head of that department. The County desired to expand Terminals 8 and 9 at the Port of Miami to accommodate a Carnival Cruise Lines mega-cruise ship, anticipated to arrive in March 1996. The County was concerned that if it could not offer the taller terminal required for such a large ship, the ship would utilize Port Everglades instead of the Port of Miami. For purposes of construction, Terminals 8 and 9 were "threshold" buildings. A threshold building is one which is of such magnitude or complexity that the construction requires continuous inspections. Those continuous inspections are performed by the on-site "threshold inspector," the engineer of record, who keeps a log of the on-going inspections. The expertise required of a threshold inspector is beyond that of most County field inspectors. When a threshold inspector is involved, the County's inspectors check to make sure the log is being kept up-to-date and on-site. On January 27, 1995, a pre-submittal meeting was attended by representatives of Dade County, of the architect, and of the engineer. Respondent was one of the attendees. The meeting was chaired by Jose Cueto, the "special assistant" to Bonzon. Saul Suarez, the project architect, explained the project, and Cueto advised the attendees that the construction needed to begin even without the County's approval of building plans and the issuance of a permit and that County inspectors would perform "courtesy inspections" to make sure the work was being performed according to the architectural plans. Further, the inspectors were not to stop the construction work although there were no approved plans and no permit. While the South Florida Building Code does not provide for courtesy inspections, it was understood that the courtesy inspections referred to by Cueto were the same as "field visits." In a field visit a County inspector will travel to the job site, observe the construction, and meet with the contractor, engineer, or architect to discuss any concerns they may have. A field visit is not an official inspection required by the South Florida Building Code. Construction work began on Phase I, the foundation for Terminals 8 and 9. By letter dated February 10, 1995, Port Director Lunetta wrote to Building & Zoning Department Director Bonzon, confirming Lunetta's understanding that Bonzon's Department had issued a "conditional permit" for the project, allowing the construction to proceed during the review of construction documents "for the work being performed at this time." By letter dated June 29, 1995, Port Director Lunetta again wrote to Director Bonzon, confirming Lunetta's understanding that Bonzon's Department had issued a "conditional permit" for Phase II of the project, allowing construction to proceed during the review of construction documents "for the work being performed at this time." There is no such permit as a conditional permit under the South Florida Building Code. In July 1995 Cueto conducted a meeting regarding Phase II, the superstructure, which was attended by Respondent and other Building & Zoning Department representatives, the architect, and Port of Miami representatives. Cueto acquainted the attendees with Phase II of the construction and advised that the work would exceed the drawings and approved plans. Cueto outlined the procedures which were set up by Director Bonzon and specified that, in addition to the threshold engineer's inspection, County inspections were to be performed only by the Chief Inspector in each of the trades since the chief inspectors would have the most experience. Cueto also advised that he personally would be in charge of coordinating inspections and plans review as a result of the procedures established by Director Bonzon for the project. As the head of the Department of Building & Zoning and as the County's Building Official, Bonzon had the authority to re-assign duties for the Department's employees. Although Cueto was not certified to review plans and had had no authority over the County's plans review and inspection processes, Respondent and the others attending the January 1995 meeting and the July 1995 meeting understood that Bonzon had delegated to Cueto the responsibilities for ordering inspections and overseeing the processing of the building plans for the project. On July 7, 1995, a building permit was issued for the project. The permit was restricted to "foundation only." Throughout 1995 County inspectors visited the job site. They viewed the construction and verified that the threshold inspection log was on-site and up-to-date. The inspections were not recorded as official inspections because the County's computer would not accept inspection entries before a permit had been issued. The inspectors kept notes regarding their courtesy inspections or field visits. All mandatory inspections under the South Florida Building Code were conducted, both before and after the issuance in July 1995 of the building permit with the restriction limiting construction to foundation only. At the end of 1995 the County re-organized some of its departments, including the Building & Zoning Department. Director Bonzon and his special assistant Jose Cueto were transferred to the transportation department, and Bonzon was no longer the County's Building Official. On January 10, 1996, Respondent was certified by the Secretary of the Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals, subject to approval by the Certification Subcommittee at the January 30, 1996, meeting, to become the County's Building Official. As of that date, Respondent considered himself to have assumed the duties of that office. He did not also become the head of the Department; he remained in his position as Permit Control Division Chief. In either the first or second week of January, Respondent went to the offices of Bonzon and Cueto, who were in the process of moving to their new offices, to say good-by. In Cueto's office, Respondent saw a set of building plans lying on Cueto's window ledge. He asked if those were the plans for Terminals 8 and 9, and Cueto answered in the affirmative. Respondent took the plans and personally delivered them to the Chief Construction Plans Examiner, Frank Quintana. He directed Quintana to do whatever was necessary to expedite the County's review of those plans. Quintana divided the required two sets of plans so two reviewers could be processing them at the same time and personally took them from reviewer to reviewer in order to expedite them as quickly as possible. The expedited review process Respondent directed to occur resulted in the foundation- only restriction being removed from the permit on February 6, 1996. On that date, the construction at Terminals 8 and 9 was 85 to 95 percent complete. Prior to the removal of the foundation-only restriction from the permit on February 6, subcontracting permits for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work had not been, and could not have been, issued. Respondent immediately reported his discovery of the plans in Cueto's office and his decision to expedite their review to his superiors, Guillermo Olmedillo and Ray Villar. Respondent did not order the construction stopped. He knew that the threshold inspector had been performing on-going inspections, the architect had been regularly on-site, and that County inspectors had been visiting the job site on a regular basis. He also knew that all mandatory inspections had been conducted on schedule. He had no reason to believe that any of the construction was unsafe or that there was any danger to the public as a result of the construction having proceeded without proper permitting. He believed that the work itself was in compliance with the South Florida Building Code. On January 18, 1996, the project architect forwarded to Respondent a request that certain mandatory inspections be made. On January 20, Respondent ordered those inspections to be made. Those were the only inspections which Respondent ordered to be performed. In early March shop drawings were reviewed for a pre- fabricated stairwell. Although the stairs were safe for use by the construction workers, the County reviewer questioned the adequacy of the stairs for use by the public using the terminals. Based upon his concerns, repairs were made to the stairs to strengthen them, and they were subsequently approved as complying with all requirements to insure the public's safety. On March 8, 1996, a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued for Terminals 8 and 9. There was never any danger to the public as a result of the construction of Terminals 8 and 9.
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 and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Snell Perera, Esquire Seymour Stern, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N607 Miami, Florida 33128 Gary B. Goldman, Esquire Law Offices of Gary B. Goldman 20700 West Dixie Highway, Suite 100 North Miami Beach, Florida 33180 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ila Jones, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent willfully violated local building codes and abandoned a job.
Findings Of Fact David Cobb is a registered general and registered roofing contractor with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The job in question was done in Gainesville, Florida. Gainesville has a local building code, having adopted the Southern Standard Building Code, but does not have a local competing board. Cobb entered into a contract with John Larramore for a room addition to Larramore's home. Larramore paid Cobb a total of $2,475.84 on the job which was priced as $4,080.24, an amount which included the price of floor covering which both parties acknowledged would be purchased by Larramore and deducted from the monies paid Cobb. Cobb began work on the project. Larramore was not happy with the craftsmanship on the job, which was overseen by Cobb's foreman. Eventually, Larramore contacted a friend who was a contractor. This friend indicated to Larramore that the job should be inspected by the building inspectors of Gainesville, and Larramore contacted the Building Department of Gainesville. Pending inspection by the Department, Larramore told Cobb to stop work until he was contacted again. The chief building official, Leslie Davis, inspected the Larramore job on May 4, 1979. He found several violations of the local building code. Davis was accompanied by the Board's investigator, Herman Cherry. Davis contacted Cobb and advised him to correct the code violations. Davis sent Cobb a letter on May 10, 1979, outlining the violations and giving Cobb 14 days to correct these violations. See Exhibit 5. Cobb tried to contact Larramore by telephone without success concerning correction and completion of the job. Eventually, Cobb wrote Larramore an undated letter, Exhibit 4, which was written after the inspection by Davis and Cherry on May 4, 1979. Larramore was uncertain of the date he received the letter but did acknowledge it was after the Davis/Cherry inspection. Larramore did not contact Cobb after he received Cobb's letter. Instead, he contracted with another contractor to complete the job. This contractor began work on May 17, 1979.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board take no action against David Cobb. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Mr. David Cobb Post Office Box 1306 16146 James Couzens Freeway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Detroit, Michigan 48221
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor holding license number CB CO24185. On or about March 14, 1983, Respondent, doing business as Duran Construction Co., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Butler of San Mateo, Florida, to construct a room addition and freestanding carport at their residence for $6,825. Subsequently, Respondent constructed an aluminum "roof- over" by rate contract for an additional $2,000. Respondent completed the freestanding carport and aluminum roof-over projects without apparent difficulty. However, he began the room addition without obtaining the required building permit from Putnam County. 1/ He obtained an after-the-fact permit about April 21, 1983, but was issued a "correction notice" by the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department on April 22, 1983, ordering all work to cease until the cited deficiencies were corrected. 2/ The chief building inspector arranged to meet Respondent on April 214, 1983, at the construction site. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the corrective measures required on the partially completed room addition. Respondent did not attend this meeting and did no further work on the project. His failure to attend the meeting or continue work was not explained to either the building officials or the property owner. At the time Respondent discontinued work, he had been paid $4,550 on a written contract which covered the finished carport as well as the incomplete room addition. He had also been paid $2,000 for the finished roof-over project which was the subject of an oral contract. Respondent would have been entitled to an additional $2,275 on the written contract had he completed the room addition. By letter of May 6, 1983, the Butlers' attorney advised Respondent that he would initiate legal action against him unless the project was completed by May 13, 1983. However, Mr. Butler had already applied to the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department for reissuance of the permit to himself in place of Respondent. The permit was reissued to Butler on May 6, 1983 and the project was completed without Respondent's further involvement.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(d), F.S., and suspending his contractors license for a period of four months. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 323301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1984. 1/ A building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Section 106.1(a), Putnam County Building Code (PCBC). The PCBC is the Southern Standard Building Code adopted by Putnam County Ordinance 83-2. 2/ See Section 103.2, PCBC. The cited deficiencies included insufficient girder support for floor joists and inadequate roof framing with respect to rafters and beam construction. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Dean Arturo Duran 11680 N.W. 15th Lane Ocala, Florida 32675 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, who is licensed as a Plans Examiner, a Building Inspector, and a Building Code Administrator, committed the offenses alleged in the three-count Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties if any that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate Building Code Administrators and Inspectors pursuant to Section 20.165, Chapter 455, and Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held licenses as a Standard Plans Examiner in Building and Mechanical; a Standard Inspector in Building and Mechanical; and a Building Code Administrator. Section 468.603(1), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: Building code administrator" or "building official" means any of those employees of municipal or county governments with building construction regulation responsibilities who are charged with the responsibility for direct regulatory administration or supervision of plan review, enforcement, or inspection of building construction, erection, repair, addition, remodeling, demolition, or alteration projects that require permitting indicating compliance with building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other construction codes as required by state law or municipal or county ordinance. This term is synonymous with "building official" as used in the administrative chapter of the Standard Building Code and the South Florida Building Code. . . . Section 468.603(2), Florida Statutes, provides the following definition relevant to this proceeding: (2) "Building code inspector" means any of those employees of local governments or state agencies with building construction regulation responsibilities who themselves conduct inspections of building construction, erection, repair, addition, or alteration projects that require permitting indicating compliance with building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other construction codes as required by state law or municipal or county ordinance. Section 468.603(6), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Categories of building code inspectors" include the following: "Building inspector" means a person who is qualified to inspect and determine that buildings and structures are constructed in accordance with the provisions of the governing building codes and state accessibility laws. * * * (e) "Mechanical inspector" means a person who is qualified to inspect and determine that the mechanical installations and systems for buildings and structures are in compliance with the provisions of the governing mechanical code. Section 468.603(7), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Plans examiner" means a person who is qualified to determine that plans submitted for purposes of obtaining building and other permits comply with the applicable building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other applicable construction codes. Categories of plans examiners include: (a) Building plans examiner. * * * (c) Mechanical plans examiner. Section 468.603(7), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Building code enforcement official" or "enforcement official" means a licensed building code administrator, building code inspector, or plans examiner. Ramon Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., was not licensed as a construction contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Melendez was not individually licensed as a construction contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., was not qualified as a construction business by any certified or registered contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. On or about March 20, 1998, Mr. Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., contracted with Pedro Camacho to re-roof the residence located at 3961 N.W. 170th Street, Miami, Florida, for the sum of $3,000. Mr. Camacho paid Mr. Melendez the agreed sum in cash based on the contract dated March 20, 1998. On or about June 3, 1998, Mr. Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., contracted with Santos Valentin to re- roof the residence located at 4412 N.W. 185th Street, Opa Locka, Florida, for the sum of $2,800. Mr. Valentin paid R.E.M. Roofing, Inc. the sum of $1,400 on June 8, 1998. Mr. Valentin paid Mr. Melendez the additional sum of $800 on June 10, 1998. Both payments, which were by check, were for the roofing work described in the contract dated June 3, 1998. On April 6, 1998, Respondent applied for and obtained a permit for the Camacho roofing work. This permit application was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning Development and Regulation. Respondent signed the permit application as “the contractor” and inserted his contractor license number and social security number on the application. The application submitted by Respondent on April 6, 1998, was a fraudulent sham. At no time was Respondent the contractor for the Camacho roofing work. Respondent’s action in obtaining the building permit aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting. On June 8, 1998, Respondent applied for and obtained a permit for the Valentin roofing work. This permit application was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning Development and Regulation. Respondent signed the permit application as “the contractor” and inserted his contractor license number and social security number on the application. The application submitted by Respondent on June 8, 1998, was a fraudulent sham. At no time was Respondent the contractor for the Valentin roofing work. Respondent’s action in obtaining the building permit aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting. Miami-Dade County Compliance Investigator Daniel Vuelta filed criminal charges against Respondent in two separate criminal cases. One case was for his involvement in the Camacho roofing project and the other was for his involvement in the Valentin roofing projects. These cases were brought in Miami- Dade County Court and assigned case numbers M99-57926 and M99- 57931. In each case, Respondent was charged with one count of Unlawful Application for Building Permit and one count of Aiding and Abetting an Unlicensed Contractor. All charges were first- degree misdemeanors. On February 22, 2001, Respondent entered into a plea agreement to resolve those criminal charges. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to each of the two counts in Case M99-57931, and he was subsequently adjudicated guilty of each count. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to nolle pross Case M99-57926. The crimes to which Respondent entered a guilty plea involved fraudulent building permits and, consequently, were directly related to building code enforcement. Petitioner’s investigative costs for this case, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, were $427.29.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the offenses alleged in Counts I, II, and III. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order revoke Respondent’s licensure and impose an administrative fine against him in the amount of $3,000. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner order Respondent to pay its investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, in the amount of $427.29. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 7th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this hearing is whether Respondent's license as a professional engineer in Florida should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers was the state agency responsible for the licensing of professional engineers in this state. Respondent, James B. Whittum, was licensed as a professional engineer by the Board under License No. PE 0027689, dated March 9, 1979. He is a consulting engineer dealing primarily in aluminum structures - mostly pool enclosures. Starting in 1990, Respondent did a number of designs, some thirty to fifty a year, for Paglino Aluminum, an aluminum contractor located in Tampa, which might also have had offices in Miami. The company is now out of business. Sometime in 1992 Respondent approved plans for Paglino for a residence for Mr. and Mrs. Marrero. These drawings were for an aluminum enclosure. He did not personally make the drawing which had been done by Mrs. Paglino. He did not know where the Marrero residence was but claims that at no time did he do or approve any drawings which he believed would be utilized for construction in Miami. In order to save clients money, Respondent had established a practice with Paglino and with a number of other clients by which he would train them in how to design and draw the pool cages. Respondent would provide the clients with a design booklet and instruction on how to use it. The client would bring drawings to the Respondent who would check them over to make sure that everything was done according to the design basis. A copy of the design guide was furnished to Paglino. Once Respondent received the drawings from the client, he would go through the whole design procedure himself to be sure that the drawings conformed to the code. In order to place his signature and seal on drawings, he had to have an identification of the site (either the name of the owner or the address of the site), the dimensions of the slab on which the structure is to be built, and the orientation of the structure with reference to the existing building to which it was to be attached. With regard to the specific plans in issue, Mr. Whittum did not know the structure was to be built in Dade County. The plans he saw bore the Marreros' name but not their address. He never spoke to the Marreros except for one call from Mrs. Marrerro, after the structure was built, complaining about it. Before signing the plans, Respondent checked in the Tampa phone book for listings for Marrero and found twenty-five or thirty listings for that name. He assumed the Marreros for which these plans were drafted were one of those families listed. It is not Respondent's practice to know the street address for every design he signs and seals. He inquired of several other engineers designing aluminum structures to see if they did the same as he proposed before signing and sealing these plans. He found that they have either the name of the owner or the street address, but not necessarily both. Included in those with whom Respondent spoke concerning this issue were engineers in Sarasota and Cape Coral. This testimony by Mr. Whittum as to the practice of other engineers is hearsay, however. Most counties in Florida, except Pinellas County, do not allow the use of standard plans as submittals for the purpose of permitting. However, an engineering firm has drawn a set of master drawings for the design of aluminum structures. These drawings were done for the Pinellas Chapter of the Aluminum Association of Florida, and each aluminum contractor in that county files them with the Pinellas Building Department. Thereafter, when plans are submitted, the Department official examines the plans with reference to the standard and decides whether or not to issue the permit. If the plans submitted by the contractor conform to the master design no engineer's signature or seal is required. This procedure has no bearing on any other county in Florida, however, and Respondent does not contend he believed at the time that the plans he signed would be used for construction in Pinellas County. It was not Respondent's practice to require a street address for the plans he signed and sealed for Paglino Aluminum. It was his understanding, however, that the instant structure was to be built in Hillsborough County because all the other jobs he had done for that company were, without exception, built in Hillsborough County. At no time did Paglino ever seek Respondent's permission to transfer these drawings to Dade County. By the same token, nobody asked him if the design he drew would be appropriate for Dade County. Had they done so, he would have told them the drawings were not suitable to meet the South Florida Building Code where the structural design standards are, in many ways, more stringent than in the Standard Building Code. As a result of this incident, Respondent has changed the procedure he follows. He now requires the drawings include a statement of who purchased the plans and who the proposed permitting authority is. This is not required by rule but is a precaution he takes. In his opinion, the drawings in issue were site specific. They showed the dimensions of the slab the structure was to be built on which determines the design for the size of the beams and their spacing. They also showed the orientation to the house where the structure would be connected. This was, he contends, all he needed to know to do the calculations for construction under the Standard Building Code. These calculations generally do not vary from county to county, with the exception of Dade and Broward County, where the South Florida Building Code is used. The plans Respondent signed and sealed did not indicate where the structure was to be built at the time he signed and sealed them. The plans called for a structure that could be put up anywhere in the state, except for Dade and Broward Counties. The fact remains, however, that at the time he signed and sealed these plans, Respondent did not know where the structure was to be built. His supposition that it would be built in Hillsborough County, while perhaps reasonable for a lay person, was not reasonable for a licensed professional engineer. According to James O. Power, a consulting structural engineer and expert in the practice of engineering, a structural engineer, in signing and sealing plans, accepts responsibility for the integrity of the design, certifies that the plans are good for their intended purpose, and asserts that the structure will be safe. A sealed plan may be necessary, depending on the building code and enforcement agency. The code leaves it up to the building official to require what he feels is necessary. Depending on the agency, permits may be issued on the basis of non-sealed plans. The seal carries with it the added imprimatur of the engineer's expertise. Properly sealed plans should: (1) identify the project; (2) identify the drafter; (3) identify the Code used; and (4) indicate limitations on responsibility the engineer has taken. Aluminum screen enclosures are generally similar and simple. Standard drawings can be developed for them. However, the standard plan, by itself, will not support a permit. To support the issuance of a permit, the plan must be site specific. This is a universal concept. For that purpose, additional drawings must be accomplished which consider and treat the specifics of that project. Frequently, plans are issued with a statement by the engineer limiting the degree of his or her responsibility, such as "only treating one issue" or "plans are standard and not site specific." No such limiting language was placed on the drawing in issue except, "This design is specific to this job. It is not valid if filed as a standard." In July, 1994, Mr. Power was contacted by the Department to evaluate the allegations against the Respondent in this case. In doing so, he reviewed the investigative report, portions of the transcript of the meeting of the Probable Cause Panel, the drawings in issue, and affidavits by Respondent and by the Dade County building official, but did not speak with any of them. Respondent's plans in issue bear the notation that the design is "job specific" and not valid if filed as a standard. This means that the plan should identify the job for which the plans were drawn and bear details pertinent to it. Here, the Respondent's plans refer to the "Marrero" job, and who the contractor was. In Power's opinion, this is not complete and it is not enough for the engineer to say he had the specifics in his mind. The plans must be complete and stand by themselves. Mr. Power admits he has not designed any pool enclosures. He also did not inquire whether Respondent had an office in Dade County or what the permit requirements of counties in the state are. However, in his opinion, it is universal that standard plans do not support the issuance of a permit. Respondent's design includes connection details, slab details and wind load requirements. However, the name of the owner, alone, is not site specific information. While the exact street location is not required, an identification of the area in which the project is to be built, at the very least by county, is. Respondent's expert, Mr. Sterling, is less critical of Mr. Whittum's performance. In his opinion, it is not common within the profession for signed and sealed drawings to have an address or a name or contractor's name on them. Having reviewed Respondent's drawings, Mr. Sterling does not see anything else he would need to know to properly design the structure. He does not agree with Mr. Power with respect to having the address on each and every drawing. To him, what is important in looking at the drawing from a structural point of view are the design criteria that were applied to that particular structure. To his knowledge there is no professional requirement, statute or regulation that would oblige one to provide additional information. He admits, however, that there may be different practices or rules being applied in Dade and Broward Counties with respect to structure of this type. By Final Order dated April 3, 1992, the Board disciplined Respondent's license for negligence in the practice of engineering by signing and sealing plans for an aluminum screened pool enclosure which the Hillsborough County Building Department found failed to meet acceptable engineering standards. The penalty imposed included an administrative fine of $500, a reprimand, and probation for one year under conditions designed to insure technical and professional enhancement.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be issued finding Respondent guilty of negligence in the practice of engineering; imposing a fine of $1,000.00 and revoking his license, but that so much of the penalty as provides for revocation be suspended for a period of two years. RECOMMENDED this 31st day of May, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 31st day of May, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on all of the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the parties to this case. FOR THE PETITIONER: 1. Accepted and incorporated herein. 2 - 11. Accepted and incorporated herein. 12. Accepted and incorporated herein. 13. - 15. Accepted and incorporated herein. 16. Accepted, but primarily a restatement of testimony. 17. - 22. Accepted, but these are primarily restatements of witness testimony. FOR THE RESPONDENT: - 4. Not Findings of Fact but statements of procedure followed. Unknown. - 9. Not Findings of Fact but comments of the evidence. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 13. Accepted. 14. - 17. Accepted and incorporated herein. - 21. Accepted and incorporated herein. Rejected as surmise of witness, not knowledge. - 25. Accepted. - 28. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the issue. & 31. Not Findings of Fact but restatements of testimony. Not a Finding of Fact but a comment on the evidence. - 37. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of the evidence. & 40. Not Findings of Fact but restatements of testimony. - 44. Accepted. Not a Finding of Fact but a restatement of testimony. More a comment by one witness on the testimony of another witness. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Mary Ellen Clark, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles S. Stephens, Esquire 1177 Park Avenue, Suite 5 Orange Park, Florida 32073 Lynda Goodgame General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
