Findings Of Fact Mr. George O'Green hired Len Berlin, who he thought was a registered architect, to prepare plans for a commercial building he desired to erect at Naples, Florida. After the plans had been completed O'Green learned that Berlin was not registered and the county would not accept his plans. Berlin thereafter presented O'Green with the same plans containing the seal and signature of Respondent. In his answer to the Administrative Complaint Respondent admitted that he checked, corrected, and signed the plans brought to him by O'Green so O'Green could get his building permit, although the plans were not prepared by Respondent or prepared under his supervision or control. O'Green testified that he did not meet Respondent until after the permit had been obtained. Martin Waxman, a draftsman, is a member of the First Assembly of God Church in Ft. Myers and volunteered to prepare certain plans as a contribution to the church for the proposed addition to the church. Waxman prepared Site Plan, Foundation Plan, Elevations, kitchen cabinet elevations and three wall sections. Waxman had no connection with Kimball and after preparing the plans be gave them to the pastor of the church. Thereafter Kimball, after checking the plans and making some minor changes, placed his seal and signature on these plans. In his testimony given before the Board (Exhibit 8) Respondent admitted that the structural plans for Pointe South Condominiums signed by him had been prepared by a draftsman who contacted Respondent to get his seal and signature on the plans, and that he was not contacted directly by the owners of the building. He further admitted that the foundation plans were done by a structural engineer not registered in Florida since he did not consider himself fully qualified in this field. However, these plans all contained Kimball's seal and signature. Respondent obtained his degree in electrical engineering and worked for a power company for 17 years before going into business for himself in 1968. He has had no training in structural design but has acquired certain experience erecting small waste treatment plants and two-story dwellings. He is familiar with various engineering manuals which contain tables used by engineers in determining design criteria for various structures. The Pointe South Condominium is a precast concrete masonry six-story structure containing 6500 square feet per floor with reinforced masonry bearing walls. The plans did not contain roof construction detail, provide design load for which the roof was to be designed, or indicate horizontal loads for which the roof was to be designed. Similarly the plans for the precast floor construction was lacking information on design requirements in that horizontal load requirements were not shown. Of more serious import in this building is the foundation details which show foundation to be less than 50 percent adequate. The gravity loads alone amount to more than the foundation was designed for and a safety factor of 2.5 to 4 is normally used in this type structure. The design plans for the church addition were also inadequate. There the second floor is supported by steel joists 4 feet apart without any bridging to increase the stability. The spacing of these joists is such that additional details are required on the plans approved by Respondent. Although designated as classroom on the plan it is large enough for an auxiliary assembly area and the plans do not provide adequate strength for this purpose, thus creating a hazardous condition. The roof design is not complete as to detail in the same manner as noted above for the condominium. A canopy attached to the building wall covering a walkway is inadequately supported by the 4" x 3/8" lag bolts provided on the plans to secure this canopy. Nothing in the canopy design was provided to resist distortion of the canopy in high winds. The additional stresses thereby created results in a hazardous situation. With respect to Charge III that Respondent was performing work constituting the practice of architecture, one witness opined that the plans for the Pointe South Condominium involved the practice of architecture as architects have traditionally performed this type of work. This witness considered it unauthorized practice of architecture for any engineer to design, plan, and build any church, multiple family housing or multiple storage structure. Respondent acknowledges that approximately 25 percent of the design of this condominium involves architecture but considers this as incidental to the major structural design that is performed by engineers.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent held himself out as a certificate holder in violation of section 468.629(1)(a), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the state agency charged with the licensing and regulation of building code administrators and inspectors pursuant to section 20.165 and chapters 455 and 468, Part XII, Florida Statutes. At all times material to the allegations in this case, Respondent was licensed as a standard inspector in Florida, having been issued license number BN 5106. Respondent also held provisional licenses as a plumbing inspector and a mechanical inspector. Both licenses expired on January 24, 2009. Respondent's license as a standard inspector did not permit him to perform plumbing or mechanical inspections. Therefore, after January 24, 2009, he was not authorized to perform them. From February 3, 2003, to October 20, 2009, Respondent was employed by Wakulla County as a building inspector. The Wakulla County Building Division uses inspection cards to track information related to permits and inspections on permitted building projects. While these information cards are not required by state law, the information is a useful tool for the building division and inspectors were expected to complete them. An inspector's initials next to a particular inspection on an inspection card indicate that the inspector identified by initials performed the applicable inspection. If an inspector fails to sign the card when an inspection is completed, the card might be updated by another inspector who, after confirming the inspection had taken place, would initial for the other inspector and then put his or her own initials in parenthesis. For example, if Respondent conducted a framing inspection, he would identify the type of inspection in the "type" column and in the column titled Inspect., would put OKRN. If he failed to sign the inspection card and someone confirmed that he had performed the inspection, the notation would read, OKRN (CI). A permit was issued for a mechanical upgrade at an existing church located at 953 Sopchoppy Highway. On April 23, 2009, Respondent signed the inspection card indicating that he had performed the re-inspection of the project. A permit was issued on March 31, 2009, to install plumbing in an existing commercial building located at 2500 Crawfordville Highway. Respondent signed the inspection card for two separate inspections: the rough slab on April 1, 2009, and the final inspection on July 29, 2009. On April 23, 2009, a permit was issued to install plumbing in existing restrooms at a building located at 1362 Old Woodville Highway. On April 24, 2009, Respondent signed the inspection card indicating that slab plumbing inspection had been performed and the work had passed inspection. On June 22, 2009, a permit was issued to install plumbing for a building at 71 Riverside Drive. On June 23, 2009, Respondent signed the inspection card indicating that the rough plumbing inspection had been performed and the work had passed inspection. Respondent's provisional mechanical and plumbing inspector licenses had already expired at the time that he signed the inspection cards identified above. Respondent did not advise his supervisor, Luther Council, when his provisional plumbing and mechanical inspector licenses expired. Mr. Council testified that he, rather than Respondent, actually performed all four of these inspections and that Respondent simply signed the inspection cards. Respondent's employment with Wakulla County was terminated on October 20, 2009. On November 25, 2009, a complaint was opened by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, alleging a possible violation of section 468.629(1)(a), Florida Statutes. The complaint was assigned DBPR Case Number 2009-061682. On December 1, 2009, Respondent was notified by letter of the complaint filed against him, and was given an opportunity to file a response to the complaint. A memo was generated on January 29, 2010, regarding the April 14, 2010 probable cause panel meeting. DBPR Case Number 2009-061782 was listed on this memo, under a category described as "Cursory Reviews." No evidence was presented to indicate what directions were given regarding the complaint by the probable cause panel, or whether the April meeting actually took place. Probable cause was found June 9, 2010.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Building Code Administrators and Inspectors dismiss the Administrative Complaint in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of December, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth F. Duffy, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 42 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Richard Larry Noles 62 Quail Run Crawfordville, Florida 32327 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Reginald Dixon, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, August T. Nocella, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (Board), is the agency within Pinellas County, Florida, authorized under Chapter 89-504, Laws of Florida, as amended, to regulate and discipline the licenses of, among others, certified aluminum contractors. Respondent, August T. Nocella (Respondent), is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified aluminum contractor in Pinellas County, Florida, having been issued license C-3197. At times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was doing business as Allied Aluminum, located in St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1997, Ms. Mary J. Pugh had a small screened porch added to her house located at 12855 Gorda Circle West. Approximately two years later, in July 1999, the porch was damaged or destroyed by a storm. Thereafter, Ms. Pugh requested and received a proposal from Allied Aluminum to repair or rebuild the screened porch. On September 1, 1999, Respondent entered into a contract with Ms. Pugh to repair or reconstruct the previously existing screened porch. The contract provided that Respondent would install a new aluminum roof to replace the damaged existing screened porch roof, install gutters and trim, replace 13 feet of valance, replace the screen, and install a new wall front. The contract noted that a riser wall was required for "proper roof pitch." The contract price was $2,300.00, with $1,000.00 to be paid as a down payment and the remaining $1,300.00 to be paid upon completion of the project. Ms. Pugh paid Allied Aluminum in accordance with the terms of the contract. She made the first payment of $1,000.00 on September 1, 1999, and made the final payment of $1,300.00 on September 22, 1999, upon Respondent's completing the job. On or about September 16, 1999, Respondent obtained a permit for the repair or reconstruction of the screened porch at Ms. Pugh's house. Respondent began the project on or about September 15, 1999, and completed the job on September 22, 1999. Section 105.6 of the Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, as amended,(Standard Building Code) requires local building officials, "upon notification from the permit holder or his agent," to make a final inspection of a building after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. In order to comply with the Standard Building Code, it was the responsibility of the permit holder, in this case, Respondent, to call local officials for a final building inspection. Upon completion of the inspection, a building official would then notify the permit holder of "any violations which must be corrected in order to comply with the technical codes." Respondent failed to notify building officials that the Pugh project was completed and ready for occupancy and, thus, ready for final inspection by appropriate building officials. As a result of Respondent's failure to call for a final inspection, building officials never inspected Respondent's work on Ms. Pugh's screened porch and made no determination as to whether the project complied with the applicable technical codes. In July 2000, during a storm, the roof of Ms. Pugh's screen porch collapsed. Relying on statements of unnamed contractors, Ms. Pugh believes that the roof collapsed because it did not have the proper pitch. Respondent attributes the collapse of the roof to the gutters being blocked with leaves. Despite these assertions no evidence was presented at hearing to establish the cause of the roof's collapsing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding that Respondent failed to obtain a satisfactory inspection as alleged in Count One, and is guilty of the offenses described in Chapter 89-504, Subsections 24, (2)(d), (j), and (n), Laws of Florida; (2) imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the foregoing offenses; and (3) dismissing Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 28th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Crowell, Esquire Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Rodney S. Fischer, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 August T. Nocella 1017 Robinson Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
The Issue Whether Petitioner should be granted additional credit for one or more examination questions answered by him during the June 1990 Certified Building Contractor Examination.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner sat for the June 1990 certified building contractor examination. On Part II, he received a score of 68.0. A minimum passing score is 69.01. On Part III, he received a score of 71.00. Minimum passing score is 69.01. Petitioner had previously passed Part I of the exam. Petitioner initially challenged question numbers 6, 13 and 14. Upon completion of the testimony, Petitioner withdrew his challenges to question numbers 13 and 14. The National Assessment Institute prepares licensure examinations for building contractors in the State of Florida under authority of the Office of Examination Services, Department of Professional Regulation. The Institute prepared question number 6 for the certified building contractor examination administered on June 26 and 27, 1990. Question number 6 tested the candidate's ability to calculate the time necessary for a crew to excavate, form and pour concrete for a reinforced concrete curb and gutter in a parking area and have it inspected. The candidate was asked to select the earliest date that concrete can be scheduled to be poured. Four dates were given: (A) June 11, (B) June 13, (C) June 15, and (D) June 18, 1990. The Institute determined that the only correct answer was: (D) June 18, 1990. The Petitioner selected: (C) June 15, 1990. Part of the instructions to the examination candidates stated: "The inspection request will NOT be called in the day the work is completed." The evidence was undisputed that preliminary calculations indicate with regard to question 6 the mathematical approach to the solution demonstrates that the work will take nine days (rounded up), starting June 1 and completed on June 13, and, therefore, the inspection is to be called in on Thursday, June 14, 1990. The third paragraph of the question states: Inspections have been taking one day from the time the inspection is called in until the time the inspection is completed. Inspections can NOT be called in or performed on Saturdays or Sundays." The first sentence of the fourth paragraph states: "The concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed." (Emphasis supplied) The Department's position is that the plain language of the question indicates that it would take one day or 24 hours from the date the request for inspection was called in (June 14) until the inspection was completed which would be June 15. Since the instructions were clear that the concrete cannot be poured on the same day the inspection is completed or on Saturdays or Sundays, then the earliest date that the concrete can be scheduled is Monday, June 18, 1990, or answer (D). The Petitioner argues that it is not uncommon in the construction industry to "call in" an inspection in the morning and have it completed on the same date (in one day). Therefore, since it is undisputed that the inspection is to be "called in" on Thursday, June 14, that it was reasonable and logical for him to conclude that the inspection would also be completed the same date. Since the question instructed that the concrete is to be placed the day after the inspection is completed, he selected answer (C), June 15, 1990 (a Friday) as the correct answer. The Department does not dispute that it is common practice in the construction industry for an inspection to be called for and completed in one day. The Department's determination that answer (D) was the only appropriate answer was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that: Petitioner be awarded four points for his answer to question number 6 of Part II of the Certified Building Contractor examination for June, 1990. Petitioner be awarded a passing grade for Parts II and III of the examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of March, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 28th day of March, 1991. APPENDIX The following constitutes my specific rulings, in accordance with section 120.59, Florida Statutes, on findings of fact submitted by the parties. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,10 Rejected as argument: paragraphs 8,9 Respondent's proposed findings of fact. Accepted in substance: paragraphs 1,2,3(included in Preliminary Statement), 4(in part),5. Rejected: paragraph 4(in part, as against the greater weight of the evidence and argument), 5 and 6(challenge withdrawn) Copies furnished: George Solar 1302 West Adalee Street Tampa, Florida Vytas J. Urba, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Petitioner should receive additional credit for his answers to questions 121 and/or 222 on the civil/sanitary engineer examination administered on April 18 and 19, 1997.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Board of Professional Engineers was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of professional engineers in this state and for the regulation of the engineering profession. Petitioner graduated from the University of South Florida in December 1990, with a degree in geo-technical engineering, a sub-specialty of civil engineering. He is not, nor does he claim to be, a structural engineer. He has practiced in the field of geo-technical engineering since his graduation and has taught soil mechanics at the master’s level at the university. He sat for the professional engineer’s examination administered by the Respondent in April 1997. Thereafter, by grade report dated July 29, 1997, the Department’s Bureau of Testing notified Petitioner that he had earned a score of 69.00 on the examination he had taken. Since a passing score for the examination which Petitioner took is 70.00, Petitioner failed the examination. Petitioner requested a formal hearing to challenge the grading of examination questions numbers 121 and 222, on each of which he earned a score of four. The maximum obtainable score on each question is ten. On question 121, the candidate is given a situation involving a sheet-pile wall section, and is asked to (a) sketch and dimension the earth pressure diagram acting on the wall after the proposed dredging has been completed; and (b) determine the factor of safety against the kick-out after the dredging. Scoring of the Petitioner’s examination was done by the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (Council). The Council determined that, with regard to requirement (a), Petitioner’s pressure distribution was of the correct form, but the labeling of the distribution had a major error. Petitioner assumed an incorrect factor which was deemed to be a major error calling for, under the approved scoring plan, a minimum four-point deduction. With regard to requirement (b), Petitioner chose not to solve for the factor of safety as he was required to do. This resulted in a minimum reduction of two additional points. This evaluation was concurred by Mr. Adams, the Board’s expert witness, in his testimony at hearing. Mr. Adams noted that where, as here, the engineer is dealing with soil mechanics, the at-rest conditions are one thing. The active and passive (A and P) conditions are the more dynamic, and here, where the problem calls for removal of soil from in front of a retaining wall, A and P pressures should have been used instead of at-rest pressures. Adams also concluded that Petitioner’s cited authority was not valid in this case. This authority used the at-rest pressure coefficient when all the authorities Mr. Adams could find used the A and P pressure coefficient. Petitioner admits that the coefficients utilized in determining earth pressures are A, P and at-rest (O). In this case, the whole problem must be considered. A tie-back system is presented, and in that case the sheet pile and the tie-back are assumed to hold the soil behind the wall in an at-rest condition so long as the sheet-pile wall does not move or deflect. Petitioner contends that Mr. Adams’ determination that removing the soil would destroy stasis and cause the wall to move is erroneous. In fact, he contends, the sheet-pile wall and the anchor system must move before the Board’s argument holds. He cites an authority in support of his position which was also cited to the Council scorer who, at Petitioner’s request, rescored his answer. The Council official who rescored Petitioner’s answer did not have access to Petitioner’s cited authority but rejected the citation as either incorrectly cited or incorrect in itself. Petitioner’s error called for a four-point reduction in score as to (a). Further, as to requirement (b), Petitioner, though asked to solve for the factor of safety against rotation, chose not to do so. This calls for an additional two-point reduction. Independent review of Petitioner’s answer, including an evaluation of his cited authority, and consideration of the other evidence pertinent to this issue, including his testimony, that of his witness, and the rescoring results by the Council, does not satisfy the undersigned that Petitioner’s answer merits additional credit. The score of four, as awarded, is appropriate. Question 222 deals with a cantilevered retaining wall with a wide foundation and piling in two rows, some in front and some in back, to support it. The candidate is required to determine the total lateral thrust per linear foot acting on the wall in issue; to determine the vertical load on a front row pile; and to explain possible ways that the pile foundation can resist the lateral thrust. According to Mr. Adams, Petitioner incorrectly calculated the lateral load by omitting the proper depth of the wall. With regard to the vertical loading, the Petitioner did not get to the proper vertical load on the front pile but received partial credit for other calculations he performed. As for the last requirement, one part of Petitioner’s answer was incorrect in that he did not explain passive pressures properly. What Petitioner mentioned was incorrect, and he did not mention battering of the piles, which was expected to be noted. According to Mr. Adams, Petitioner got two parts of the question correct, each of which is worth two points. Therefore, he received a score of four points. Petitioner contends that the Board and the Council are being too restrictive in their approach to the problem and not taking into account the whole problem. He claims that though he arrived at the wrong figure in calculating the lateral load, that does not justify his receiving no credit for that segment since the method he used for calculating the thrust was correct. He admits to having erroneously neglected the weight of the soil, but contends that his method of determining the solutions to resist lateral thrust is as good as that of the Board and the Council. Petitioner was given only partial credit for his use of the correct equation to calculate the lateral thrust because he used the wrong depth. His answer to the second part was wrong in that he completely neglected the weight of the soil and calculating the pile load, even though he used the correct figure to multiply the load per foot of the wall. His answer to the third requirement, dealing with lateral resistance of the pile, was insufficient to warrant a full award. Taken together, his answer, in the opinion of the Council’s scorer, merited only an award of four points. Petitioner did not show sufficient basis for increasing this award. The evidence presented by the Board clearly established that both questions in issue provided enough information to allow the candidate to answer them correctly, and both are questions that a candidate for licensure should be able to answer. The scoring plan for these questions was not shown to be inappropriate, and there is no evidence that it was not properly utilized.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order in this matter denying Petitioner additional credit for his answers to Questions 121 and 222 on the April 1997 Civil Engineer Examination. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of April, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK 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) 921-6947 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of April, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Henri V. Jean 3273 Tanglewood Trail Palm Harbor, Florida 34685 R. Beth Atchison, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Lynda L. 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 Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor should be disciplined for the reasons set forth in the administrative complaint.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the entire record, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, Raymond D. Simmons, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor having been issued license number RC 0055320 by petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). He has been licensed as a roofing contractor since November 1987. The Board's official records reflect that on July 1, 1991, the license was placed on the delinquent status for non-renewal and is now considered "invalid." 1/ When the events herein occurred, respondent was the qualifying agent for Simmons and Sons Plumbing and Roofing, Route 1, Box 191 (County Road 225), Waldo, Florida. Except for this action, there is no evidence that respondent has ever been disciplined by the Board. On May 3, 1988, respondent submitted a proposal to Charles and Thea Ansman to repair the roof on their home located at 5132 N. W. 29th Street, Gainesville, Florida. With minor modifications, the proposal was accepted by the Ansmans on May 10, 1988. According to the agreement, respondent was to perform the following services: Tear off old shingles dry-in with 15 lb. felt and replace with Corning Owens 20 year fungus resistant shingles. Replace all plumbing stacks and ease drips. Will replace back porch with 3-ply build-up roof will coat it with roof coating 10 year warranty on workmanship 20 year manufactor [sic] on shingles and build-up roof. Will replace all wood that needs to be replaced. Although the agreement does not specifically refer to ridge vents, the parties also agreed that respondent would install a ridge vent on the home. On May 16, 1988, respondent made application for a building permit from the City of Gainesville to "reroof" the Ansman's home. The permit was issued on May 20, 1988, in the name of Simmons & Sons Plumbing and Roofing. Respondent commenced work on the project on May 16 and continued the work over a period of several days. During this period of time, respondent was frequently on the job site overseeing the work. Indeed, Thea Ansman said respondent was at her home approximately half of the time while the repairs were being made. Thus, while respondent undoubtedly supervised the job, for the reasons stated in findings of fact 6 and 7, he nonetheless failed to "properly" supervise the work. On May 20, 1988, Thea Ansman paid respondent in full for the work. Although the job was not finished, respondent told Mrs. Ansman he would return the next day to complete the work. When respondent failed to return, the Ansmans repeatedly telephoned him during the next few months, but respondent either refused to speak with the Ansmans or told them he would return within a few days. However, the work was never finished and respondent never returned to the job site. While inspecting the roof one day, Charles Ansman noted that the roof trusses, an intregal part of the load bearing capacity of the structure, were cut at their peaks. The depth of the cuts was between one and two inches and was apparently the result of a saw-blade not set at the proper height when the ridge vent was installed. Sometime in July or August 1988 Charles Ansman discussed the damage with respondent and requested that respondent repair the same. Respondent refused to do so on the ground he was not responsible for the damage. Ansman then filed a complaint with the City of Gainesville Building Department. On September 9, 1988, a city building inspector inspected the home and confirmed that virtually every truss was cut and that the integrity of the roof was in jeopardy. He also observed that the soffits were improperly installed in some cases, and in others, were missing altogether. A notice of violation was then issued by the city on October 3, 1988, charging respondent with violating the Standard Building Code in two respects. More specifically, it was charged that respondent's workmanship violated sections 1701.1.1 and 1708.2.1 of the 1985 Standard Building Code, as amended through 1987. These sections pertain to the quality and design of wood trusses and the design of trussed rafters, respectively. At a hearing before the city's Trade Qualifying Board, respondent admitted his workers had violated the cited sections and caused the damage to the trusses. However, respondent denied liability on the theory that the workers, and not he personally, had negligently damaged the house. Respondent was thereafter issued a letter of reprimand for his actions. In order to recover their damages, which included the replacement of all damaged trusses, the Ansmans filed suit against respondent in Alachua County small claims court. On April 18, 1989, they received a judgment in the amount of $1,050. The judgment was eventually satisfied but only after the Ansmans threatened to levy on respondent's real property located in Alachua County. In preparation for the suit, the Ansmans obtained an engineering report which corroborates the findings made by the city building inspector concerning the damage and negligence on the part of respondent's work crew. By allowing the work to be performed in that manner, respondent was incompetent and committed misconduct in his practice of contracting. However, there is no evidence that respondent was grossly negligent during his supervision of the job. Respondent did not appear at hearing. However, prior to hearing he spoke to the city building inspector and acknowledged that the roof trusses were damaged as the result of negligence on the part of his crew. He also admitted this during the final hearing on the small claims action. At the same time, he denied that his workers had ever touched the soffits. This assertion, however, is rejected as not being credible.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of facts and conclusions of law, it is, recommended that respondent be found guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1987), and that he pay a $1000 fine and his license be suspended for one year. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of December, 1991.
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 presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent is guilty of misconduct, as is more Particularly alleged in an Administrative Complaint dated November 26, 1986, and which is more particularly set forth hereinafter in detail, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At times material hereto, Respondent was licensed as a professional engineer, having been issued License No. PE0014862. Philip Clark contracted with Gilbert Simm, the owner of Quality Foods, Inc., to prepare architectural plans depicting the interior finishing of the food processing area to be contained in an existing warehouse owned by Simm. Pursuant to his contract with Simm, Clark hired Respondent to prepare the mechanical-design portion of the plans. Respondent prepared said mechanical-design plans consisting of sheet M- 1 and affixed his seal and name thereto. Bernard Amangual, general contractor, applied for a building permit to commence construction of the food processing area based on the plans submitted by Respondent. (Petitioner's Exhibits 1 and 3) The building permit was rejected by the Metropolitan Dade Building Department on January 27, 1986. John Ariton, mechanical plans examiner for Dade County, prepared a mechanical processing comment sheet after reviewing Respondent's drawings which reflected several mechanical-design elements depicted by Respondent which failed to comply with the South Florida Building Code. Ariton further completed a design criteria sheet upon review of Respondent's plans. (Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5) Dade County enforces the South Florida Building Code, which has adopted the requirements and standards of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA). Petitioner retained the services of Berton Hufsey, received as an expert herein in the field of mechanical engineering, to examine Respondent's plans prior to the hearing and to file a report which was done contemporaneous with said examination outlining noted deficiencies in Respondent's design, several of which were checked on the Building Department's mechanical processing comment sheet. Among denoted deficiencies, Respondent's plans failed to provide for sufficient exhaust air for the hood as the capacity of the exhaust air shown on the mechanical plans was 7200 cfm and the Code requirement is 7500 cfm. Respondent failed to recite the dimensions of the cooking equipment under the hood on the mechanical drawing. Respondent only provided for one exhaust tap in the 15 foot hood design in violation of the South Florida Building Code, which required that there be one tap for every eight (8) feet. Respondent failed to note in his plans the description or indication of the wall adjacent to the hood, or of the roof above the hood, to indicate it was either of combustible material or whether or not the 18-inch required clearance had been satisfied. Respondent failed to provide any reference to the size of sheet metal ductwork that goes from the hood to the exhaust fan, which is in violation of the South Florida Building Code. When the plans were submitted by Respondent and were presented to the Building Department, there were no energy calculations made. The automatic extinguisher system shown on the mechanical plans as submitted by Respondent did not provide for an automatic means to ensure the shutdown of fuel or power upon system activation. The gas riser did not indicate an automatic shut-off valve to stop the flow of gas in the event of fire as is required by the South Florida Building Code. An engineer who affixes his seal and name to plans thereby indicates that the plans are complete and ready for submission. An engineer is required to date all plans bearing his seal and signature. Respondent acknowledges that he provided the wrong hood size in the mechanical drawings. He also acknowledged that the fire extinguisher system usually provides for a shut-off valve in the mechanical drawings, which was not provided. Aside therefrom, Respondent considered the other deficiencies noted above were merely technical deficiencies which he should have been afforded an opportunity to complete. In this regard, Respondent contends that the engineer, Philip Clark, did not give him the details to make the necessary energy calculations or details about various equipment items, and therefore, it was impossible for him to make the necessary calculations and provide the required details.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: Respondent pay an administrative fine of $1,000. Respondent's license be placed on probation for a period of six (6) months, during which time Respondent will be required to complete a study guide in a course in professionalism and ethics as required by Petitioner. RECOMMENDED this 1st day of July, 1987, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 2nd day of July, 1987. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 87-0034 Respondent's memoranda is in the form of a summary of the testimony which was considered by me in preparation of the Recommended Order. However, the following responses are provided to the summation given by Respondent. Item 3 Rejected as irrelevant to a determination of the issues posed. Items 4 and 5: Rejected based on other credible evidence indicating that the drawing does not contain the requisite sign, seal and date as is required by statute and rules and that there were numerous deficiencies as referred to by expert witness Berton Hufsey. Rulings on Petitioner's proposed findings of fact: FOF 23 Rejected as argument or a conclusion. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. Paul A. Poliquin 324 West Rivo Alto Drive Miami, Florida 33139 Honorable Van B. Poole Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph A. Sole, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Allen R. Smith, Jr. Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
