Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein the Respondent, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, (Board), was the state agency in Florida responsible for the licensing of interior designers in this state. The Petitioner, Anne C. Pepper, is and was an interior designer whose application for licensure as such in this state was denied by the Respondent under the provisions of Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes, and Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. Petitioner, who is presently an employee of Jessup, Inc., an interior design firm, started her own design business, Weston House Interiors, in Connecticut in 1978. Her first project was a design of a floor plan for an apartment. During the early years of her practice, her work was primarily involved with floor planning and with selection of materials and colors. In 1980, however, she did a room for a show house in a designer showcase, also in Connecticut. In 1982, prior to her move to Switzerland with her husband, Petitioner designed a kitchen which involved the destruction of the old kitchen and a remodeling and reconstruction of a new one in an 18th Century house in Connecticut. During this period, between 1978 and 1982, she took on clients who remain her clients to this day. In 1982, she moved to Switzerland and, because of the work permit laws, while there could do only consulting work. In addition, however, she did independent study at museums and homes throughout Europe. On trips back to the Untied States, as will be seen later, she did take on work for clients which involved remodeling and reconstruction. In December, 1985, she returned to New York and worked for a design firm, under another designer, and also took on clients of her own. In 1986, she was selected to do a room in the Junior League Design Showcase. This project was a small room, almost a closet, which she turned into a yacht berth bedroom. This project involved more than merely the selection of colors, fabrics, and furniture, but included the actual design of built in sleeping accommodations and storage. In June, 1987, she was asked to come to Florida to Jessup, Inc.'s home office to see if she would like to live and work in the area. Due to the company's large resources and the opportunity this provided to work with the company's chief designer, she agreed to do so and has been doing design work for the firm ever since. Mr. McGinnis, president of Jessup, Inc. and himself a licensed interior designer, has known Petitioner since 1985 when she came to the company's New York office. He and the firm, as well as all other interior designers excluding the Petitioner, are licensed by the state. However, Petitioner does the same work, to the same extent and with the same complexity, that all the other licensed designers with the firm do. Mr. McGinnis felt Petitioner was needed in Florida because of her exceptional talent. As a part of her duties for the firm, Petitioner works with contractors, with architects, and with painters on the design and construction as well as the decoration of the facility upon completion. In one facility, the Bath Club, she performed all functions. In another project, a new residence, she designed all book casing and paneling, and did a redesign of hallways. She worked with the architect from the beginning of the construction on lighting and the placement of interior walls. In New York, while working for the firm, she did the design for the apartment she described previously, and in regards to her work with harmony House in 1989 and 1990, removed the kitchen and made it a combination kitchen/family room. Mr. McGinnes emphasized that Petitioner does the same work as the other licensed interior designers with the firm and has done so since 1985 when employed by the firm in New York. As part owner of the firm, he frequently travelled to New York and observed the work Petitioner was doing. The parties stipulated at the hearing that from the time Petitioner began working with Jessup, Inc. as an interior designer in December, 1985, and up to the present her work experience was of the type envisioned by the statute as qualifying interior design. The parties also agreed that the period from 1982 to 1985, when Petitioner was in Europe, cannot be considered as so qualifying. Therefore, the issue remains only as to that period of time prior to her departure for Europe, when she was in practice in Connecticut. With regard, then, to the time in issue, Petitioner asserts that in 1978 and 1979 in Weston, Connecticut, she did work for the Cochranes involving a 19th Century house. She worked on the layout of the living room which, admittedly, involved no movement of walls. Nonetheless, she remodeled the family room to break through the north wall and put in a bay window, and installed built-in book cases on the south wall. She also removed electrical outlets to compensate for the other changes. On the second floor and elsewhere in the house, however, the work was primarily decorative. Nonetheless, the above described remodeling would constitute interior design. When the Cochranes moved as the result of a fire prior to 1985, they again retained Petitioner to renovate the house. As a part of this job she changed the size of the dining room, designed a bathroom, and did some design work on the family room. Though this was done during the period of time she was a primary resident in Europe, nonetheless, the work on this renovation was accomplished on visits home from overseas and, notwithstanding the parties' agreement, mentioned earlier, as to the inapplicability of the period encompassed by the time in Europe, at least those times when she was back in this country would qualify and it is so found. Petitioner was also involved in the remodeling of the dining room in a small home owned by the Ittners in 1978. As part of this work she changed the windows and the doorways; she put in a breeze way and designed a miniature garden room. When the Ittners moved, she worked in the kitchen of their new house to move cabinets and rearrange appliances. In addition, in 1982, Petitioner worked with Mr. and Mrs. Kornfield in Connecticut on a late 19th Century house wherein she was involved in the fabrication of valances for window treatment and possibly installation of electrical units to accommodate a light fixture the owner had. She also designed furniture which was made to her specifications. Through much of the early years, Petitioner worked out of her home in Connecticut and during this period, she was also taking courses at the University of Connecticut, Stamford, in the interior design department. In the early 1980's the majority of her business involved the remodeling of old homes and new construction additions to older homes. As a part of this,. she would study the job site and do sketches of her proposals. She then did on-site consultation with clients and contractors. Mr. Brett, of Stroheim and Rohmann, a fabrics house, recalls praise for her space planning, design elements and the like during that period. Petitioner's work has changed very little in nature since she started in 1978 - only the magnitude of the projects and the volume has increased. Any increase in spectrum is related to the increase in experience, and this is to be expected. Taken together, it would appear, and it is so found, that even from the very beginning, Petitioner's work, for the most part, consisted of projects containing those elements which amount to interior design as opposed to interior decoration.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered in this case granting the Petitioner, Anne C. Pepper, registration as an interior designer in Florida without examination. RECOMMENDED this 3rd day of June, 1992, 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 3rd day of June, 1992. 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: None submitted. FOR THE RESPONDENT: & 2. Accepted and incorporated herein. First portion accepted and incorporated herein. The conclusions drawn regarding the characterization of the work is rejected. Accepted but not dispositive of any issue. Accepted but, again, not dispositive. Not a Finding of Fact but argument on the nature of the evidence. Accepted, but complication of the project is not required to constitute interior design. This is not dispositive of any issue even if accepted. The work, though not done continuously, was definitely design. COPIES FURNISHED: Anne C. Pepper 333 Seaspray Avenue Palm Beach, Florida 33480 John J. Rimes, III, Esquire Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation/Board of Architecture and Interior Design 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented is whether Petitioner's application for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer should be granted.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner was born in Europe. Since both her father and her brother were architects, she was exposed to a background of architecture and design. She received a bachelor of arts degree in fine arts in Holland, which included many drafting courses and interior design courses. She travelled extensively through Europe studying the many different architectural styles of many different time periods. She came to the United States twenty years ago. From January 1982 through September 1984 Petitioner was employed full- time by Lucido Brothers as a design consultant. Lucido Brothers is a manufacturer and seller of fine cabinetry, specializing in custom-made kitchens and bathrooms, including built-in wall-units and room dividers, storage cabinets, wet bars, bookcases, and entertainment centers. Lucido Brothers further specializes in new construction and renovations. During that employment, Petitioner consulted with customers, visited job sites, and took measurements. Although Petitioner worked closely with builders and architects, she did her own drawings, designs, and spacial analyses. She designed custom-made furniture, wall-units, and built-in dividers as non-structural walls. She designed kitchens and bathrooms and built-in window seats. She drew floor plans, reflected ceiling plans, and drawings for wall partitions. She supervised the construction and installation of the custom-made furniture, built-ins, and cabinets. She specified recessed lighting and the placement of light fixtures and electrical outlets. After leaving the employ of Lucido Brothers, Petitioner opened her own business, called Barbara's Interiors, on March 29, 1985. She obtained an occupational license which she still renews every year. She worked full-time as an interior designer in that business through December of 1986. Petitioner's husband is an electrical contractor. While at Barbara's Interiors, she did many jobs with her husband, as she has for the last twenty years. In conjunction with those jobs, Petitioner designed recessed lighting (indirect lighting), suspended ceilings, track lighting, soffit lighting, and spot lighting. Many of her customers at Barbara's Interiors were building new homes or renovating existing homes. However, Petitioner also designed interiors for offices and commercial buildings. At Barbara's Interiors, Petitioner consulted with customers, visited job sites, and took measurements. She reviewed blueprints with architects and builders. She analyzed space and did her own drafting and layouts. She drew reflected ceiling plans. She drew interior elevations, doorway locations, and window locations, and drew how they should be altered by enlarging to improve lighting or view. She selected floor coverings based on safety and functional criteria. She selected window treatments based on functionality, lighting, ventilation, and the alteration of window form and appearance. She drew floor plans, designed additional storage space, and re-designed lighting. She designed non-structural walls and room dividers to separate living areas. She assisted contractors in the remodeling of homes, converting a porch into a kitchen, and a dining room and kitchen into a larger dining room. She remodelled bathrooms. In addition to doing interior design work while at Barbara's Interiors, Petitioner also did work which can be done by interior decorators. The division of labor between designing and decorating was probably fifty percent each. From January of 1987 through May of 1990 Petitioner was employed full- time by Ethan Allen Galleries in West Palm Beach as an interior designer. Ethan Allen is a retail business, which manufactures its own furnishings and offers interior design services. At Ethan Allen Petitioner consulted with customers, visited job sites, and took measurements. Although she used blueprints provided by customers and worked with their builders and architects, she also did her own room layouts. She designed rooms according to the architectural style and period specified by her customers. She designed built-in furniture to be used as room dividers, designed recessed and soffit lighting, added partitions to existing rooms and enlarged windows, and supervised the manufacturing of custom-built furniture. She also supervised subcontractors implementing her selection of paint, wallpaper, and carpeting. She designed floor-to-ceiling shelves as a dividing wall and drew her own floor plans. She designed additional storage space and re-designed lighting. Working with architects and builders, she designed room additions. She designed changes to interior doorways and to windows. She performed spacial analysis, and she supervised installation. In addition to performing interior design services at Ethan Allen Galleries, Petitioner also performed interior decorating services. The division of labor between those things currently requiring licensure and those things not requiring licensure was 50/50. Prior to January 1, 1990, Petitioner had a total of seven years and five months of full-time interior designer experience.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting licensure to Petitioner, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Section 21(1)(b) of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of April, 1992, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 SC 278-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of April, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER DOAH CASE NO. 91-6759 Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 10, 11, 13-16, and 18- 21 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-9 have been rejected as being unnecessary to the issues involved herein. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 12, 17, and 22 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the competent evidence in this cause. COPIES FURNISHED: Ms. Isabella B. Gomulka 1663 Pleasant Drive Juno Beach, Florida 33408 Arthur R. Weidinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the following Findings of Fact are made: 3/ By application dated September 19, 1989, Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. Her application was received by the Board on September 25, 1991. The Board, by letter dated July 25, 1990, advised Petitioner of its intention to deny her application. The following explanation was given in the letter: A review of your application by the Interior Design Committee shows that you do not have 6 years of experience and you do not meet the definition of Interior Design. The Committee felt that it was impossible for you to have 6 years of full-time, full-scale Interior design experience since you were in school full time in 1983 and 1984. They also felt that being a librarian in a design firm, a show room manager, and assistant designer would not qualify as full-scale interior design. Prior to January 1, 1990, Petitioner used, and was identified by, the title "interior designer." Prior to January 1, 1990, Petitioner was employed by: Carriage House Interiors, d/b/a Eclectic International (Eclectic) for 13 months; Curzon Designs (Curzon) for five months; J.J. Chalk (Chalk) for 25 months; and Stevenson Design and Builders (Stevenson) for 5 months. These were all full- time positions which regularly involved the rendering of interior design services, including consulting with clients concerning the utilization of interior spaces and preparing for them blueprints and drawings containing Petitioner's recommendations regarding how these spaces should be utilized. For 14 months during 1984 and 1985, Petitioner was employed on a full- time basis by Petit Contract Interiors, Inc. (Petit), a design firm which also manufactured and sold furniture. During a typical workday, she performed the duties of an assistant designer, showroom manager and librarian. Approximately 60-70 percent of her workday generally was spent as an assistant designer, during which time she did interior design work similar in nature to the work she did at Eclectic, Curzon, Chalk and Stevenson. As a showroom manager and librarian, she also rendered interior design services on a regular basis. When she was acting in her capacity as the showroom manager, Petitioner met with walk-in clients and discussed their needs. Following such consultations and based upon the information provided by the clients, she prepared drawings depicting her plans as to how the clients could best utilize the interior spaces under discussion. She then assisted the clients in making their purchases. Petit had one of the largest design libraries in the southeastern United States. It was stocked with source materials utilized by the interior design community. As the librarian, Petitioner was responsible for organizing the library and updating its materials, tasks that she often had to perform during her overtime hours. In addition, Petitioner assisted those interior designers who used the library. The assistance that she provided at times involved consulting with clients and preparing drawings. It was essential for Petitioner to have a working knowledge of interior design to fulfill her librarian duties. Petitioner attended the Florida Art Institute (Institute) from March, 1982, until June, 1984, when she graduated with an Associate Arts degree in interior design. During her first two or three semesters at the Institute, she had classes from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Thereafter, her classes were scheduled only in the morning, from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon each weekday. While a student at the Institute, she was "head manager" of three student interior design projects. 4/ Petitioner was employed at least a portion of the time that she was enrolled as a student at the Institute. During this period of time, she worked for Roy F. Sklarin Interiors (Sklarin), Mark B. Meyer and Associates (Meyer), and the Good Wood Frame Shop (Good Wood). Petitioner worked for Sklarin for six months rendering interior design services under the supervision and direction of Mr. Sklarin. She held a part- time position. Typically, she had a 20 to 25 hour work week. Petitioner's employment with Meyer lasted 11 months. Her position was a full-time one. Meyer has a large showroom in which it displays carpeting, fabric, wall covering and furniture. Petitioner was the manager of the showroom. It was her responsibility to maintain the showroom and make sure all items were in their proper place. As the showroom manager, Petitioner consulted with interior designers and their clients and assisted them in selecting merchandise. This involved reviewing specifications, floor plans and other drawings. Petitioner was employed for 12 months at Good Wood. 5/ She served as a designer, appraiser and artistic consultant. Her duties included the appraisal of art work for clients. In addition, she consulted with clients and gave them advice regarding the display and placement of their art work. This involved the drawing of elevations and floor plans. Prior to attending the Institute, Petitioner worked at Pierre Deux, the Norton Art Gallery (Norton) and the James Hunt Barker Art Gallery (Barker). Pierre Deux is a boutique that sells specialized fabrics and antiques. Petitioner worked there on a full-time basis for 16 months as designer/sales person. In discharging her duties, she regularly met with clients and ascertained their needs. If they wanted window treatments, table skirts, bedspreads or other soft furnishings, Petitioner went to their homes to take the appropriate measurements and, based upon these measurements, prepared specifications and the design to be used in making these items. While employed at Norton and Barker, Petitioner assisted the curator in deciding where exhibits should be located. 6/
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a final order finding that Petitioner is qualified for licensure, without examination, as an interior designer pursuant to Section 21(1)(b) of Chapter 88- 383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of September, 1991. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1991.
Findings Of Fact On October 3, 1989, Maureen Timm filed with the Department of Professional Regulation ("DPR"), her application for licensure without examination as an interior designer. By letter dated December 18, 1991, Ms. Timm was informed that her application was being denied and that she was entitled to request a formal hearing to challenge the decision. Ms. Timm thereafter filed a request for formal hearing. During the period between October 3, 1989 and December 18, 1989, Ms. Timm filed supplemental information in support of her application. For the purposes of this Recommended Order, all information submitted by Ms. Timm has been considered without regard to the date of submission. Although there is evidence that Ms. Timm is currently capable of providing interior design services, the greater weight of the evidence fails to establish that, for the six year period prior to December 31, 1989, Ms. Timm's services met the statutory definition of "interior design". To the contrary, the evidence establishes that services provided by Ms. Timm during the referenced six year period, especially prior to the November of 1987, consisted primarily of interior decorating services provided first through a paint and decorating store and then through department store furniture sales. Ms. Timm's application states that she worked for Havco Paint and Decorating from July, 1979 to July 1980 as a "designer in wallcovering and window treatment department." During this time, Ms. Timm primarily assisted customers in selection of wallcoverings, window treatments and floor coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from July 1981 to December 1984, Ms. Timm was employed as a "designer in the furniture department" of an Ivey's department store unit. During this period, Ms. Timm assisted customers in selection and placement of furniture, window treatments and wall coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services as were related to the sale of furniture and related decorating services meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from January 1985 to January 1986, Ms. Timm was employed as a "designer in the furniture department" of a Robinson's department store unit. During this period, Ms. Timm assisted customers in selection and placement of furniture, window treatments and wall coverings. The evidence fails to establish that such services as were related to the sale of furniture and related decorating services meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from September 1986 to April 1987, Ms. Timm was employed as a "floral designer" for World Bazaar, during which time she designed flower arrangements for the store and individual customers. The services provided by Ms. Timm to World Bazaar customers clearly fail to meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from November 1987 to September 1988, Ms. Timm was employed as an "interior designer for "Midge Wright, The Wright Place." As set forth in the application, Ms. Timm "designed customer's homes, estimated cost of jobs, placed orders, followed through on completion of jobs." The evidence fails to establish that Ms. Timm's services to Ms. Wright's customers meet the definition of "interior design". The application indicates that from September 1988 to the present, Ms. Timm has worked as a "self-employed interior designer" during which time she has "designed U. S. Home models and customers homes and condos". Ms. Timm's file includes references from a number of customers who have utilized her services during this period. The greater weight of the evidence establishes that the services provided by Ms. Timm during this period meet the statutory definition of "interior design". Services such as color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments and furniture selection are interior decorating services. During the hearing, Ms. Timm asserted that her work during the six year period prior to December 31, 1989 met the definition of "interior design". Beyond the evidence addressed herein, there is no documentary support for Ms. Timm's testimony. Although Ms. Timm appears to be capable of providing some interior design services, the evidence is insufficient to establish that she has done so for the six year period ending December 31, 1989. Accordingly, she does not qualify for licensure without examination as an interior designer.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design enter a Final Order denying the application of Maureen Timm for licensure as an interior designer under the "grandfather" provisions cited herein. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 25th day of September, 1992 in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of September, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 92-0948 The following constitute rulings on proposed findings of facts submitted by the parties. Petitioner The Petitioner's proposed recommended order consisted of five unnumbered paragraphs which are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: Paragraph #1, Rejected, cumulative. Paragraph #2, Accepted, however, preparation of window treatments and wallcovering does not meet the statutory definition of interior design. Paragraph #3, Rejected, not supported by greater weight of credible and persuasive evidence. Paragraph #4, Accepted as to submission of additional material. Rejected as to discussions with DPR representative, irrelevant. Paragraph #5, Rejected, conclusion not supported by evidence. Respondent The Respondent's proposed findings of fact are accepted as modified and incorporated in the Recommended Order except as follows: 2-5. Rejected, unnecessary, subordinate. 13. Rejected, irrelevant. COPIES FURNISHED: Angel Gonzalez Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Jack McRay General Counsel Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Maureen Timm 12950 Iona Road Fort Myers, FL 33908 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esq. Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received in this case, the following relevant findings of fact are made: In October 1989, Petitioner applied to the Board for licensure as an Interior Designer pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes and Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida (commonly referred to as the grandfather clause), based upon six years of interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The application was timely filed and Petitioner paid the appropriate fee. During the application process, the Board required additional information from Petitioner, which was furnished, but on August 21, 1991, the Board issued its notice of denial stating that Petitioner had not shown sufficient evidence of compliance with the requirement of the grandfather clause of six years' interior design experience prior to January 1, 1990. The Board advised the Petitioner that her experience was in the nature of "a cabinet work detailer, not as an Interior Designer. Petitioner began designing custom furniture in 1978 when she and her husband started a business known as Village Woodworking. The business grew to include built-in furniture, cabinetry and related interior design services over the years. As early as 1981, Petitioner began consulting with clients directly on matters such as space utilization, lighting, kitchen design, bathroom design and fabrication of custom-made cabinetry and built-in furniture. Often Petitioner would prepare drawings to reflect her design concepts which were later incorporated into the client's homes or businesses. In 1982, Petitioner consulted on numerous interior design matters in the renovation of the Gardinier estate property. These matters included the design of custom made dining room furniture, space utilization throughout the estate buildings, lighting and the design, fabrication and placement of custom-made cabinetry and built-in furniture. These consultations went on over a period of approximately three years. From the early 1980s through the date of the hearing, Petitioner has consistently consulted with clients, architects and interior designers by reviewing architectural plans and specifications, suggesting modifications and changes, preparing shop drawings to incorporate her design concepts into construction and renovation projects and by designing and fabricating cabinets, furniture and built-in furniture. Some of the jobs where Petitioner performed all or part of these services were: (a) Steve Simon's office; (b) Central National Bank; (c) Wellscraft Marina; (d) Law offices; (e) Sarney Residence on Siesta Key and the Patterman Residence; and (f) the Gardinier Estate mentioned in Finding of Fact 3. These jobs covered a period from 1982 to 1987. Also, it was Petitioner's unrebutted testimony that she had been rendering interior design services such as those mentioned above for over six years prior to January 1, 1990. There is competent, substantial evidence to establish facts to show that Petitioner has been performing, and is qualified to perform interior design consultations and studies and to prepare drawings and specifications in connection with lighting plans, space utilization, furnishings and fabrication of nonstructured elements within and surrounding interior spaces of buildings, both residential and commercial, and has been continuously engaged in, and performing, this type of work in the normal course of her business for more than six years prior to January 1, 1990. There was insufficient evidence to show that Petitioner's work had been limited to that of a "cabinet work detailer" but there was sufficient evidence to show that the services described above constituted a large portion of Petitioner's business for at least six years prior to January 1, 1990.
Recommendation Accordingly, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a Final Order granting Petitioner licensure as an Interior Designer without examination under the provisions of Chapter 88-383, Section 21, Laws of Florida, as amended by Chapter 89-19, Laws of Florida. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of July, 1992, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 July, 1992. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER The following constitutes my specific rulings pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes, on the proposed findings of fact submitted by the parties in this case. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Petitioner Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(1); 3(2); 4(3); 5(4-5); 7(6); 8(6); and 9(6). Proposed finding of fact 2 is more of a restatement of the witnesses' testimony rather than stated as a proposed finding of fact, but see finding of fact 4. Proposed finding of fact 6 is not necessary in that the affidavits corroborates the testimony of Petitioner as set out in findings of fact 2-4. Specific Rulings On Proposed Findings of Fact Submitted by the Respondent Each of the following proposed findings of fact are adopted in substance as modified in the Recommended Order. The number in parenthesis is the finding(s) of fact which adopts the proposed finding of fact: 1(2); 2(2); 3-6(4); 9(2); and 11(3). Proposed findings of fact 7, 8 and 10 are not relevant to the conclusions reached in the Recommended Order. Rejected as not being supported by competent, substantial evidence in the record. COPIES FURNISHED: Philip N. Hammersley, Esquire TRAWICK HAMMERSLEY & VALENTINE Post Office Box 4019 Sarasota, Florida 34230 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Suite 1603 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture & Interior Design Northwood Centre - Suite 60 1940 N Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0751 Jack McRay, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 0792
