Findings Of Fact On December 8, 1989, Petitioner's application for registration in Florida as an interior designer under the exemption provisions of the licensure law was received by the Board. The application was reviewed and found to be incomplete because the required documentation of 6 years experience was not included. Petitioner was so notified on January 5, 1990, and her application was held in abeyance until the requested documentation was received. On July 2, 1990, a second notice was sent to Petitioner. This notice explained that the client verification forms sent with her application did not span a 6-year period and they did not provide sufficient detail of design experience. Petitioner was asked to submit 3 more forms that span at least a six year period. Client verifications prior to 1984 and after 1987 were needed by a July 31, 1990 deadline. By October 16, 1990, two additional client verification forms were received. One form was for a project in 1983 and the other was for a project in 1989. The application submitted by Petitioner through October 31, 1991, did not contain sufficient material to demonstrate that she has six years of interior design practice as required by Section 21 of Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. Specifically, more detailed work experience was needed with supporting plans to show full scale design occurred. The evidence submitted by Petitioner in her application to the Board reflects work more in the nature of "interior decorating services" as defined by Section 481.229(6), Florida Statutes, as opposed to "interior design" as defined by Section 481.203(8), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a Final Order dismissing Petitioner's challenge to the determination that she is not qualified for licensure as an interior designer without examination. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of December, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. VERONICA E. DONNELLY 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 4th day of December, 1991. Copies furnished: TAMMY GREENE 105 W GENESEE TAMPA FL 33603 JOHN J RIMES III ESQ ASST ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPT OF LEGAL AFFAIRS THE CAPITOL TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 1050 ANGEL GONZALEZ - EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FL BOARD OF ARCHITECTURE AND INTERIOR DESIGN 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 JACK MCRAY ESQ - GENERAL COUNSEL DEPT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION 1940 N MONROE ST TALLAHASSEE FL 32399 0792
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Russell G. Brabec, filed an application for licensure as an interior designer on December 14, 1989, together with the applicable fees, with the Board on December 14, 1989. Within 30 days, the Board advised the Petitioner that it had not received the client forms and reference forms required to assess his application. After being placed upon notice that his application was incomplete, Mr. Brabec continued to have contact with the Board and its staff. Client forms and additional references continued to be filed on his behalf until March 1991. These materials are outlined in detail in the preliminary statement above, and incorporated by reference at this point in the Findings of Fact and amplified below. The record shows a continuing effort on the part of the Petitioner to perfect his application, and the Petitioner did not abandon his application. The Board received a client form from Ben H. Engbrecht indicating the Petitioner had consulted on the renovation of several areas of an educational building, developing a master plan for the entire building. The Petitioner was able to direct the completion of phases 1 and 2 of the renovation. Although the form does not indicate the institution at which the work was performed, the Petitioner's testimony clarified that Mr. Engbrecht's references were to Sioux Falls Teacher College where the Petitioner had been a member of the faculty. The information provided by Engbrecht establishes that the Petitioner consulted on design work between February of 1984 and July of 1985. The Board received a client form completed by Kate Christopulos on March 26, 1990, which indicated that the Petitioner had done three projects for the client. In 1983, the Petitioner was in charge of design and renovation of a restaurant and coordinated all contractors in interior design for the client who stated that the did a "great job." In 1985, the Petitioner assisted in the design of another restaurant. The client stated that he was easy to work with and "came up with great ideas." In 1986, the Petitioner designed the interior of the client's home. At the hearing, the Petitioner had photographs of the restaurants he had planned for the Christopulos' upon which he pointed out the walls, the ceilings and the serving fixtures which he had designed. The Petitioner's testimony is consistent with, and substantiated by, a letter dated June 27, 1990, from Kate Christopulos which is contained in the Board's file. Said letter reflects that the Petitioner's firm, Brabec Interiors, was first retained by the client in 1983 to complete their new home and their first restaurant, Chris' Grill. The Petitioner not only designed the interior, including the carpets, tables, chairs and draperies, but selected the tableware. The letter continues to point out that in 1986, the Petitioner designed the Time Out Restaurant, integrating a athletic theme which the client described as "looking great and being timeless." Kate Christopulos closes her letter by pointing out that the Petitioner had done six other projects for her, and that if the Board desires more detail, they can call her. The Board received an employment verification form completed by Valerie J. Putnam on January 19, 1990. The form indicates the Petitioner was employed as an interior decorator from 1975 until 1982. The Petitioner testified regarding work done for the Putnams, and clarified that they were clients as opposed to his having been employed within a business operated by the Putnams. The Putnams' response, albeit on the wrong form, substantiated that the Petitioner was holding himself out as an interior decorator between 1975 and 1982. Ms. Putnam indicated in her answers to the form's detail questions that the Petitioner had substantial experience in programming (consultation and analysis), design concept analysis, and specifying furnishings and materials, and adequate experience in preparing drawings, drafting, consulting with other contractors, and project management. Notwithstanding Putnam's terming the Petitioner an "interior decorator," the work she described is consistent with the activities of an interior designer. The Board received a client form from Dr. Jaako J. Hintikka on November 5, 1990. The form and its attachments indicate that between June and August of 1988, the Petitioner planned and supervised the complete redecoration of a 4500 square foot home on Tipperary Drive in Tallahassee, Florida. This project involved the creation of two libraries, extensive new flooring, extensive wallpapering and painting, the placement of furniture and the acquisition of new furnishing, and placement of works of art, et cetera. The Petitioner, referring to photographs of this project, pointed out details of the design work he performed to include lighting design and planning an environment with constant humidity. The form also addresses the period January to May 1990 when the Petitioner designed and supervised the interior construction and decoration of a new residence which the client had built for him by Gritsmill Construction Company in Marlborough, Massachusetts. Hintikka states that this project literally involved all aspects of the interior of the house from finalization of the floor plans through placement of works of art. The Board's file contains a xerox copy of pictures of the exterior of a home and interior of one room, together with notes by the Petitioner to the client discussing a range of issues from dehumidifiers to dutch tiles and the fireplace. It closes with an indication that the Petitioner had been in contact with a landscape designer, and was in the process of developing a long-range landscape plan for the new house. See transcript, pages 95 and 100, where the Petitioner details the work which he did for Dr. Hintikka on the two houses in which he designed the interiors. The Board received an employment verification form on July 31, 1990, from Collier Interiors in Tallahassee, Florida. This form indicated that Collier had employed the Petitioner from November of 1987 until July 30, 1990. The Board appeared to be satisfied with the nature of his practice while with Collier as no questions were raised concerning this period of time. The Board's file contains two submissions from Rayburn Blair, Pastor of the Temple Baptist Church in Tallahassee, Florida. Pastor Blair wrote the Board a letter dated January 3, 1990, in which he states that he has been acquainted with the Petitioner as a full-time practicing interior designer since 1989. Blair states that he met regularly with Brabec who was the church's chief consultant on matters of design and decoration at the church, at North Florida Christian School, and at W65BG Television Station. On March 25, 1991, Pastor Blair submitted the client form which stated that the Petitioner provided Temple Baptist Church with consultations and studies leading to drawings for the new platform. In the Petitioner's testimony he identified on a picture, which was introduced, the stage, wall units, lights, podium, microphones in the podium, and wiring for the podium lights and microphone which Petitioner designed, together with the stairs servicing the balcony. The Petitioner also completed plans for the baptistry and stair wells. The Petitioner's testimony is consistent with Pastor Blair's letter. In addition to his testimony about the clients above who responded to the Board, the Petitioner also produced photographs at the hearing of additional work in had done during the period 1980 through 1985. This included work for Bob Larson for whom the Petitioner developed an overall design and laid out of a restaurant, and supervised the installation of the electrical lights and plumbing, to include steam tables. Petitioner's work included graphics, design of menus, interior wall covers, et cetera. Petitioner also designed a second set of restaurants called "Rembrandt's" for the same client. See Transcript, pages 82 and 91. The Petitioner stated that he spent a year in graduate school at Florida State during which time he did a number of projects for churches, offices and homes in the area. Thereafter, he was employed as a designer with Collier Interiors. See Transcript, Page 91. In summary, the Putnam response covers the period between 1975 and 1982. The Christopulos letter and form cover the period 1983 through 1986. The Engbrecht form covers the period February 1984 through July 1985. The Collier form covers the period 1987 through December of 1989. The Blair letter and form covers the period from 1989 until 1991. The Hintikka form and letter covers the period June to August 1988 and January to May 1990. During the period from 1982 until present, the Petitioner has held himself out regularly as an interior designer based upon the responses received by the Board and Petitioner's testimony about the work done for the clients. His testimony is substantiated by the responses received by the Board, and is uncontroverted. Not a scintilla of evidence was introduced by the Board that the Petitioner did not perform the work about which he testified. On January 30, 1991, the Board sent the Petitioner a letter which the Petitioner received. This letter stated that the Petitioner's application was denied because the application did not show sufficient evidence that the Petitioner met the requirements of "Florida Statutes 481, Part I and Chapter Law 89-19, Section 21." The letter continues, A review of your application by the Interior Design Committee shows that you did not sufficiently document six years of Interior Design experience. In order to receive reconsideration you must submit three additional detailed client reference forms that span six years of experience. These letters must contain both the time and time frame and a detailed description of services provided. You must prove that you meet the definition of interior designer for a full six year period. The Committee has also requested that you send in samples of your interior design plans and drawings. On August 21, 1991, the Board sent the Petitioner a letter which the Petitioner received indicating that the Board deemed the Petitioner's application abandoned and advising the Petitioner of his right to a hearing on the denial of his application. The information provided by the responding clients and the Petitioner reveal that the Petitioner has been asked by several clients to perform additional projects for them. Clients for whom he did commercial work, engaged him to do work in their homes, and vise versa. One of his clients has transported the Petitioner from Tallahassee to Massachusetts in order that the Petitioner could continue to supervise completion of the interior of the client's home. These facts speak positively to the quality of the Petitioner's work. The record above shows that Mr. Brabec did not abandon his application, but sought to have clients provide the Board with the information sought until such time as this appeared to be a futile effort. Sufficient information had been provided to the Board by January 30, 1991 for it to make a determination of whether the Petitioner has the requisite experience. The information provided, as summarized above, reflects that the Petitioner has engaged in consulting, performing studies, drawing plans and providing specifications for space utilization of restaurants, churches, offices and homes in Florida, South Dakota and Massachusetts since 1982.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Board of Architecture and Interior Design license the Petitioner. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 10th day of April 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. Russell G. Brabec, pro se 2079 Cynthia Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Esquire Assistant Attorney General The Capitol, Suite 1603 STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 10th day of April 1992. Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Angel Gonzalez, Executive Director Board of Architecture & Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Jack McRay, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The central issue in this case is whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as an interior designer under the criteria set forth in Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony of the witnesses and the documentary evidence received at the hearing, the following findings of fact are made: The Petitioner, M. Sharma Bryant McAlwee, is an applicant for licensure as a registered interior designer. Petitioner sought licensure without examination based upon the procedure described in Section 21, Chapter 88-383, Laws of Florida. The Department does not dispute that Petitioner timely filed the licensure application pursuant to that section but has alleged that Petitioner failed to establish she meets the relevant criteria for licensure without examination. More specifically, the Department denied the Petitioner's application based upon a purported failure to show at least six years of interior design experience as a principal of a firm offering interior design services. Whether or not Petitioner has passed the examination administered by the National Council for Interior Design Qualifications is unknown. That qualification has not been stated to be at issue in these proceedings. The Petitioner received a master of arts degree from Western Michigan University in December, 1980. The course work undertaken by Petitioner while at that university included a number of interior design studies. Petitioner's B.S. degree was conferred by Grand Valley State Colleges in 1978. In March, 1980, Petitioner was employed by Altered Spaces, an interior design company. At that time, Petitioner represented herself to be an interior designer on business cards utilized in her work for that company. While employed by Altered Spaces, Petitioner prepared several kitchen remodeling designs for Mr. and Mrs. Tammer. Those designs considered the structural support of the existing room together with the windows, doorways and arch. After conferring with the client, Petitioner prepared drawings and sketches to demonstrate her suggestions for the proposed project. Those drawings considered such items as lighting, location of appliances, flooring, and the relocation of counters and sink. During her employment with Altered Spaces, Petitioner designed several projects where wiring, duct work, and plumbing had to be considered. Additionally, Petitioner proposed color, fabric, and lighting plans for that company's projects. Petitioner presented copies of bank records from the years 1981, 1982, 1983, and 1984 wherein the account was entitled in Petitioner's name with the designation "Interior Designer." Petitioner presented copies of occupational license records issued by the City of Indian Harbour Beach, Florida, which indicate Petitioner has been doing business in that community as an interior designer for the years 1989-90 and 1990- 91. The first of those licenses was issued on September 8, 1989. In 1984-85, Petitioner was associated with a company known as Bizarre Bazaar. The business card for that company indicated "Antiques-Uniques." Petitioner may have engaged in a limited amount of design work while with that company but not to the extent as with her prior association, Altered Spaces. In 1981, Petitioner worked with the builder of Chinatown Restaurant in Grand Rapids, Michigan. She made adjustments in the floor plans, reworked certain structural elements to facilitate the traffic plan, planned the arrangement of tables, designed a space divider, drew a reflected ceiling plan and designed certain decorative elements. In 1981, Petitioner designed a wall graphic for Wolverine Tractor Company. Sometime in 1980 or 1981, Petitioner did a feasibility study for a Middle Eastern restaurant and grocery store in Kalamazoo, Michigan. This project involved the redesign of the floor plan to accommodate the restaurant and store. Sometime in 1981-1982, Petitioner prepared plans for a basement T.V. room for Mr. Paccari in Michigan. In doing so, she prepared drawings and a color board with samples of carpet, formica and wallpaper. Petitioner worked on a kitchen project in Grand Rapids, Michigan. In that project, Petitioner drew plans for installing new cabinets, painting, wallpaper and designed some decorative rails. Petitioner's exhibit concerning this project did not include a date but it was probably performed in 1983. Petitioner's work in 1986 included graphics for a driveway design in Miami. In 1987, Petitioner drew a space plan for Layton Financial Enterprises.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, enter a final order approving Petitioner's application as it meets the criteria set forth in subparagraph (1)(b)1. of the licensure without examination section. DONE and ENTERED this 12 day of June, 1991, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JOYOUS D. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904)488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 1991. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER CASE NO. 91-0906 RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER: Paragraphs 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 are accepted. Paragraphs 3, 4 and 12 are rejected as recitation of testimony, comment, argument or irrelevant. The first sentence of paragraph 2 is accepted. The balance is rejected as recitation of testimony. The first three sentences of paragraph 8 are accepted. The balance is rejected as comment, argument or irrelevant. RULINGS ON THE PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT SUBMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT: Paragraphs 1 through 11 are accepted. The second sentence of paragraph 12 is rejected as irrelevant; otherwise the paragraph is accepted. The following paragraphs are rejected as argumentative, contrary to the weight of the evidence, a conclusion of law, or irrelevant: 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27. Paragraphs 13, 19 and 22 are accepted. COPIES FURNISHED: M. Sharma Bryant McAlwee 417 Entrance Way Melbourne, Florida 32940-1853 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr. Assistant Attorney General Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603--The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Patricia Ard, Executive Director Board of Architecture and Interior Design Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact On October 16, 1989, Donna Marie Johnson filed her application for licensure as an interior designer with he Department of Professional Regulation ("DPR"). According to the policy and practice of the DPR Board of Architecture and Interior Design, interior design licensing matters are addressed by the Interior Design Committee (comprised of two interior designers and one architect) which reports to the Board of Architecture and Interior Design. There is no evidence that Ms. Johnson's application was ever considered by the full Interior Design Committee or by the Board. Ms. Johnson's application was initially reviewed by Susan M. May, Professional Regulation Specialist I, for the DPR Board of Architecture and Interior Design. Ms. May is responsible for review of applications for completeness and for review of additional information provided. She has no formal education or training in interior design or decorating, and has received no formal training in review of licensure applications by the DPR. In this case, Ms. May determined that the application filed by Ms. Johnson was incomplete. Ms. Johnson was notified of the missing information and was provided an opportunity to complete the application. Ms. May also forwarded three "CLIENT REFERENCE FORMS" to Ms. Johnson. The forms, as well as other material was subsequently submitted to the Board by Ms. Johnson. 1/ The client reference form prepared by the DPR sets forth the definition of "interior designer" provided by statute and refers to the applicant as the "interior designer". The form, which includes three questions which are answered by the client related to the work that the "interior designer" performed, does not distinguish interior design from interior decorating and gives no indication any such distinction exists. The form requires each client to "describe the work performed by the Interior Designer" by making reference to the statutory definition. Each client must sign the form and have the signature notarized. Given the terminology of the form and the identification of the applicant as an "interior designer", an attestation by a client that the applicant is qualified to be an "interior designer" is of little meaning and is not persuasive. However, the attachments to the forms submitted by the clients are credited as accurate reflections of the services provided by Ms. Johnson. Such letters establish that Ms. Johnson primarily provided interior decorating services such as color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments, and furniture selection. By letter dated January 18, 1990, Ms. Johnson was informed that her application was being denied on the grounds that six years of interior design experience had not been demonstrated. The letter stated that Johnson could submit additional materials and seek reconsideration of her application. Subsequently, Ms. Johnson requested reconsideration and submitted additional material. The additional material was reviewed by Carl Gerkin, a member of the Interior Design Committee. Gerkin allegedly determined that her credentials did not warrant licensure under the referenced "grandfather" provisions. No other committee member reviewed the materials. By letter dated October 19, 1990, Johnson was informed that her application was again being denied on the grounds that six years of interior design experience had not been demonstrated and again provided that Ms. Johnson could request reconsideration. Ms. Johnson did so. By letter dated August 21, 1991, Johnson was informed that her application failed to demonstrate six years of interior design experience prior to December 31, 1989, as required by the "grandfather" provision under which Johnson had applied for licensure. Ms. Johnson was informed of her right to a formal administrative hearing which resulted in the subject proceeding. Ms. Johnson's application for licensure states that she has worked as a "design consultant" for a number of businesses and individuals. Ms. Johnson's resume, included with her application, lists her capabilities as color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments, furniture and space planning. Although there is evidence that Ms. Johnson 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. Johnson's services met the statutory definition of "interior design". To the contrary, the evidence establishes that services provided by Ms. Johnson during the referenced six year period consisted primarily of interior decorating services generally provided through the retail carpet and flooring business owned by Ms. Johnson and her husband, and through new home contractors who referred new home buyers to Ms. Johnson for decorating services. Ms. Johnson's application indicates that she worked for Mary Smith of Buckeye Homes during 1980-81 and describes her participation with Buckeye Homes as "[c]ustomers referred for interior design of their new home." There is no credible information which permits a determination that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Buckeye Homes customers meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson handled new customer referrals from Wesley Oben, Sr. of Cedar Homes Factory Direct, Inc. during 1987- 1989, for interior design of new homes. There is no credible information which permits a determination that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Cedar Homes customers meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Liz or Phil Vail of Edison Homes during 1988-1989, for interior design of new homes. No further information was provided. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Fred Nachbrun of FCN Builders during 1979-1989 for interior design of new homes. By letter of reference dated September 19, 1989, Fred Nachbrun wrote during a 12 year period, Ms. Johnson had worked with his customers "in the capacity of decorating advisor. Her knowledge of floor covering, wallpaper, and window treatments have enabled our customers to make their transition into their new homes a pleasant one....I feel as though Ms. Johnson's knowledge and capabilities surpasses those of any other decorator I have worked with in the past." There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to FCN Builders met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for "Julio or Pat" of Fairview Builders during 1986-1989. There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Fairview Builders met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Arlene Steinweg of R.A. Grant Construction during 1987-1989. By letter of reference dated September 18, 1989, James Matey of R.A. Grant Construction wrote that "R.A. Grant Construction has been using B & D Carpet for the past year. We have used their services in carpeting and interior color schemes. During this time we found their work to be satisfactory." There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to R.A. Grant Construction met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Phyllis Nelson of Mission Bay Homes, Inc. during 1980-1989. A letter of reference dated February 10, 1988, states that Ms. Johnson "has been our decorating advisor for the past five years" and attributes the sales of some homes to her interior decorating. There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Mission Bay Homes met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Lynn Kirby at Nu-Cape Construction, Inc. during 1979-1989, as a "design consultant for all their commercial jobs." By letter of reference dated September 18, 1989, Mr. Kirby wrote that he had worked with Ms. Johnson "in the capacity of interior design on all our commercial projects. The job was completed on schedule and was always done in a professional manner." Mr. Kirby opined that Ms. Johnson would be an asset to "your profession". There is no credible evidence as to the types of interior services performed by Ms. Johnson for Nu-Cape Construction which would establish that said services met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Raymond Scalero at Oyster Bay Homes, Inc. during 1983-1989. By letter of reference dated September 12, 1989, Mr. Scalero wrote that "[d]uring the past four years Donna Johnson has worked individually with all our customers. She helps our customers select their personal color needs from the roof to the flooring." The letter further states "Donna has just completed the interior designing of our new Vista model. She has detailed the interior, planning interior and exterior paint colors, window dressing, wallpaper, wall hangings, as well as utilizing space and placement of furniture. She coordinated all colors from the roof to the flooring, selected light fixtures, tile and plumbing fixtures. For our Lehigh Acres model, Donna put together several color boards for our customers to choose from." There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Oyster Bay Homes met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Peter Santos of Air Control Systems during 1989, handling the "[i]nterior of new office building." A subsequent client reference form completed by Mr. Santos states that in February of 1989, Ms. Johnson contracted with Air Control Systems to handle office space planning and remodeling, including wall relocations. Ms. Johnson also supplied drawings, dated in April of 1989, of the floor plan for the Air Control project. The Air Control Systems project meets the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked for Leland Ritter of Cape Coral Plumbing, Inc. during 1985-1989, handling "[i]nterior of offices, personal home, designed booth for Parade of Homes." A letter of reference dated August 31, 1989, states that during the previous five years, Ms. Johnson has been consulted on various occasions to address problems related to plumbing installations and that her response was always prompt. It notes that she has an excellent reputation among several local builders. It further notes that in 1987, her parade booth design won an award. There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Cape Coral Plumbing met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that during 1987-1989, Ms. Johnson handled the interior design of the Community National Bank building. By letter of reference dated February 2, 1988, Dave Gomer writes that Ms. Johnson and her husband "were selected to furnish the carpeting in our original bank building and most recently were engaged as the interior decorators for our branch bank building. They selected and furnished all floor coverings, window draperies and framed wall art." Mr. Gomer also states that he had engaged the Johnsons "to do interior decorating in my home". There is no credible evidence that the services provided by Ms. Johnson to Community National Bank met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson handled the interior design of the main office of First National Bank in 1988-1989, and was working on a bank branch at the time of the application. By letter dated September 7, 1989, Michael P. Geml, bank president/CEO, states that, in may of 1988, Ms. Johnson competed for and received the bid to "design a 15,000 square foot, two-story office building that was destined to be the focal point of Cape Coral for years to come." The letter state that "[t]he contract was awarded to Donna, and the results were magnificent. She brought her design boards, her carpet samples, but more importantly she brought with her expertise and her willingness to work with the design committee....I can recommend Donna Johnson of B & D Carpets, Inc. to anyone who may ask for a reference and feel with complete confidence she will deliver a product to be proud of." A subsequent client reference form completed by Mr. Geml states that from October 1987 to February 1989, her "recommendations on the lay-out of the teller line were beneficial; her collaboration with all sub-contractors was crucial in not only the structural aspect, but also keeping in mind that we don't deter from the basic concept." Beyond the specific reference to design of the teller line, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the services provided by Ms. Johnson meet the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson remodeled a branch office of First Federal Savings & Loan in 1989. No further information was provided. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson decorated offices and color coordinated all flooring at Cape Coral Hospital during 1979-1989. By letter of reference addresses to Mr. Bill Johnson from David R. Van Loon, vice-president, wrote "[i]n the past several years, B & D Carpets, Inc. has installed the floor coverings on all Cape Coral Hospital's major expansion and renovation projects. Carpet installation was completed on schedule and always in an extremely professional manner. The letter further acknowledges Mr. Johnson's personal assistance in addressing carpet seaming problems and advises that the Hospital may be used as a reference for B & D Carpets, Inc. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Ms. Johnson provided "interior design" services to Cape Coral Hospital. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson handled the design of the art studios at Savonna Art Consultants during 1988-1989. A letter of reference dated August 30, 1989, states that the writers "have worked with Donna Johnson of B & D Carpets, Inc. for several years in conjunction with the interior decorating service offered by Mrs. Johnson and have always found that she has superior ability in planning and designing difficult interiors as commissioned by her clients. The carpeting, furniture, window treatments, wall coverings and accessories are fully coordinated to achieve the specific ambience and function needed." The letter further states that Ms. Johnson "has always provided detailed drawings and elevations which are necessary to determine the size and number of pieces needed and has spent long hours with us in choosing the correct mats and frames to blend with the decor, and to best compliment the art selected by the client....We have furnished design boards with the total color schemes, furniture selections, wall and floor treatments, etc., as directed by Mrs. Johnson." The letter concludes by noting that Mr. and Mrs. Johnson were honest, trustworthy, and the writers' "most prompt paying customer". The evidence is insufficient to establish that Ms. Johnson provided "interior design" services to Savonna Art Consultants. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson worked with J.G. Steinweg, consultant to construction, during 1987-1989, assisting customers in color coordination of new homes. By letter of reference dated September 29, 1989, Mr. Steinweg states that he has known Ms. Johnson for three years and that he would "refer her to all those that I come in contact with who require a professional in the field of interior design." Mr. Steinweg's letter does not identify any specific projects on which Ms. Johnson has worked. The evidence is insufficient to establish that Ms. Johnson provided "interior design" services to J.G. Steinweg. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson designed the interior of Zak's Jewelry Store during 1985-1989. No further information was provided. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson designed the interior of the Law Offices of Robert Adamski, beginning at a date uncertain (the copy of the application in evidence is unclear) and continuing through 1989. By subsequent client reference form, Mr. Adamski states that he had worked with Ms. Johnson twice over a seven year period in two separate law office projects. He states, "Mrs. Johnson was able to accommodate my personal needs in utilizing the space designed for my office, as well as the secretarial office and the waiting area. She created a very functional environment for all concerned." A copy of a floor plan was attached to Mr. Adamski's form, however the copy identifies neither the name or date of the person who prepared the plan or the project depicted on the plan. The client reference form makes no mention of the attachment. Based on the information provided by Mr. Adamski, it is not possible to determine whether the services provided by Ms. Johnson met the statutory definition of "interior design". The application indicates that Ms. Johnson designed the interior of the Joseph Zeterberg Medical Office, during at an unidentified period (the copy of the application in evidence is unclear). No further information was provided. The application indicates that Ms. Johnson designed the complete interior of Powell's Restaurant and Robbie's Roadhouse Restaurant during unidentified periods (the copy of the application in evidence is unclear). No further information was provided. The client reference forms initially provided to Ms. Johnson by Ms. May were completed by three of Ms. Johnson's clients (Henri Lafenetre, Linda Hayward, and John M. and Julie A. Young) and submitted to the DPR. Attached to each form was a letter from each client providing additional information regarding services provided by Ms. Johnson. By letter dated December 1, 1989, Mr. Henri Lafenetre, former general manager for Oyster Bay Homes, wrote that he had been referred to Ms. Johnson when he first became employed by Nu-Cape Construction and "would refer my clients to Mrs. Johnson for all their decorating needs". As the general manager of Oyster Bay Homes, he undertook construction of three model homes. Ms. Johnson participated in the model home project. According to the letter, "she not only did a complete layout, but furnished me with color boards, which enabled me to see the model in its entirety." Linda Hayward wrote that Ms. Johnson's knowledge of "space management" permitted her to enlarge her office using "perception and color. Her ability to relax a given area with color stories has enabled my sales staff to double their sales in an extremly (sic) comfortable environment." Ms. Hayward notes that "Donna and I have just completed an addition to my home were (sic) a nursery and florida (sic) room were added" and closes by stating that she "would not consider making any decorating or space management decisions without Donna and her color boards, swatches, and instruments of her profession". The Youngs wrote that the primary reason for the purchase of a new Mission Bay home was "the innovative color and design of their models, created by Mrs. Johnson." The Youngs further state that, during the construction of their home, Ms. Johnson provided "space utilization, full interior and exterior selections, which were available per the builder's specifications. Color boards which included the furniture lay-out, wallpaper selections, window treatments, with the complete decor, were made available...." No dates were provided. By letter of reference dated September 12, 1989, John Wyatt wrote that during Ms. Johnson's 18 years in the Cape Coral area, she had "gained the knowledge and experience in color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments and furniture." Mr. Wyatt opined that Ms. Johnson was qualified to be a licensed designer. Testifying during the hearing, Mr. Wyatt stated that he has known Ms. Johnson for five or six years, not the 18 years referenced in his letter. His discussion of the distinction between interior design and interior decorating services failed to clearly indicate an understanding of the statutory definitions of the terms. Although Mr. Wyatt opined that Ms. Johnson was qualified for licensure without examination as an interior designer, his personal knowledge of Ms. Johnson's work over the referenced six year period was very limited and was not persuasive. By letter of reference dated September 29, 1989, Jack Thomas wrote that during Ms. Johnson's 18 years in the Cape Coral area, "[t]he knowledge and experience that she has gained, not only in flooring, but also in color coordination, wallpaper, window treatments and furniture, has definitely enable (sic) her to work more closely in the field of interior design." Mr. Thomas opined that Ms. Johnson was qualified to be a licensed designer. At some point in the application process, Ms. Johnson submitted floor plans for a remodeling of a kitchen. The plans are dated "2-24-88" and were prepared by Ms. Johnson for "Mr. & Mrs. Reeves". The floor plan indicates that Ms. Johnson was providing services meeting the definition of "interior design" to the couple. Although an interior designer may provide interior decoration services, such services as color coordination, flooring, wallpaper, window treatments and furniture selection are interior decorating services. During the hearing, Ms. Johnson asserted that her work during the six year period prior to December 31, 1989 met the definition of "interior design". Beyond the evidence addressed previously, there is no documentation which supports Ms. Johnson's testimony. As documented in Ms. Johnson's application and supplemental references, the services provided by Ms. Johnson were primarily interior decorating services such as selection of or assistance in selection of surface materials, window treatments, wallcoverings, paint, floor coverings, surface mounted lighting, or loose furnishings. Although Ms. Johnson currently appears to be capable of providing interior design services (and has cited several projects undertaken in 1988-89 which required design capabilities) the evidence is insufficient to establish that she has done so for the six year period ending December 31, 1989. As such, she does not qualify for licensure without examination as an interior designer pursuant to law referenced herein.
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 Donna Marie Johnson for licensure as an interior designer under the "grandfather" provisions cited herein. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 24th 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 24th day of September, 1992.
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether the Petitioner, Karen D. Mast, qualifies for licensure without examination as an interior designer as a result of the breadth of her experience consistent with provisions of Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the issues herein, the Respondent, Board of Architecture and Interior Design, (Board), was the state agency charged with the responsibility for the licensing and regulation of the interior design profession in Florida. At some time prior to 1975, when the Petitioner moved to South Florida from Long Island, she attended Nassau Community College, working toward an associate degree in fine arts. She was going to continue with her education when, in that year, she received a call from her brother to come to work with him and another brother who had started a furniture design and construction business in south Florida. As a result of the call, she moved to south Florida and started work with them on a full time basis, designing furniture pieces and the settings for their display. She also started taking her own clients in 1976. Petitioner's brother, Robert Sabin, with his brother, started a business called Cartel in Miami in 1970. Cartel manufactured furniture, upholstery, case goods and stainless steel furniture and distributed it throughout the United States. Though the company had hired a designer, J.S. & Associates, at the brothers' request, Petitioner came to work with the company in the early 1970's, initially starting with J.S. & Associates. By 1975, however, she was a full fledged designer both in conjunction with and independent of the company. When, at that time, the company outgrew its prior facility and purchased a new building, Petitioner designed not only the interior showroom but the facade of the building as well to increase its appearance. Primarily this involved the rearrangement of interior walls but little structural change. In 1980, the company bought a new building which required extensive redesign, and Mr. Sabin and his brother gave Petitioner the job of redesigning it. With regard to this change, Petitioner did everything from drawing the blue prints to final design. Her plan for the building involved gutting it, installing new walls consistent with her design, new windows, doors, display platforms, scenic displays and the like, and at the same time, she was hard at work designing new product. In addition to working for the company in the design of its product and building, she also designed outside projects for the firm, going to out of state showrooms to insure the company's product was properly displayed. This, however, appears to be theatrical design rather than interior design since it consisted of the design of backdrops, props and the like. In addition, she did an apartment for the owner of Carnival Cruise Lines, and a restaurant, and she assisted in the interior redesign of the Eden Roc Hotel, though she made no changes to the structure. She also worked on the Cricket Club as well, all of which involved major changes without going beyond the limits of her capabilities. Through all this time, Petitioner worked for her brothers' firm doing the design projects. Witness Sabin was in charge of production; his brother, now deceased, was in charge of sales, and Petitioner was the designer. Ms. Mast's primary design work was more intensive from 1981 on when the major reconstruction of the new building was under way. At this point, though the job was hers, she was not just a decision maker on design done by someone else. She, in fact, did the actual design work for the various construction segments. She knew her brothers' taste and could design what they wanted and she believed they would like. She designed it from the beginning and supervised it through its fulfillment. The concepts were hers, though they were based on the general thoughts conveyed to her by them. In 1983, Paul F. McCarthy, a resident of Vero Beach, met Petitioner and her brothers and has been friendly with her family since then. In fact, Petitioner helped him guide his daughter into the field of interior design. In 1987 Mr. McCarthy retained the Petitioner to redo a house he had bought in Vero Beach. As a part of her work, she redesigned the kitchen, the family room and the living room into a wide open great room. The result was "spectacular." She met the strict time constraints for all work done which included submitting renderings involving the removal of interior walls and board samplings and elevations, all before the work started, and when the work was completed, Mr. McCarthy classified it as no less than "outstanding." When he sold the property at a large profit, he believed his ability to sell at such a profit was due primarily to the work done by Petitioner. Because he was so satisfied with her work, Mr. McCarthy introduced Petitioner to two top interior designers practicing in Vero Beach, and has also recommended her to developers and builders. He feels she is extremely talented, straightforward and honest. She gives excellent service in a prompt manner and she recognizes and satisfies her client's needs in a warm, caring and friendly manner. He would recommend her to others and would use her on future projects. Donald Wright, a winter resident of Fort Lauderdale and a summer resident of Toronto, has known Petitioner since 1983 when he was referred to her by a realtor. Mr. Wright is in the business of purchasing and remodeling homes and condominium apartments and at that time, when he was considering a redoing a condo for resale in Toronto, he contacted Petitioner and requested she come there and work with him on the project. At that time, he did not know any suppliers and was very impressed with the work she had done in the past. The facility in question needed complete rehabilitation since it was an older building which he wanted to update and modernize. It required a redoing of the flooring, changing the floors, walls and counters in the kitchen, changing the laundry room, and adding a bathroom. Initially, Mr. Wright took Petitioner to the material suppliers with whom he had worked in the past, but once she agreed to do the job, she took over and ran with the ball. She got samples, made suggestions and completely redesigned the interior of the apartment. He was satisfied with her work which took approximately a month and a half. In 1988, Mr. Wright, who had been contacted by a foreign investor to convert three apartments in Toronto into one large apartment, retained Petitioner to work with him in the redesign of this project. He gave Petitioner the original plan for the three apartment, and in general described to her how he wanted them converted into one large apartment. This involved the movement of bathrooms, two kitchens, four bedrooms, a maid's quarters and a pantry. Having evaluated the project, Petitioner suggested changes to be done and gave Mr. Wright rough drawings of how the project would look when completed. Mr. Wright took these to the owner who approved them, after which Petitioner did the final drawings which were also approved by the owner. Petitioner and Mr. Wright worked together on this project. He gave her the sources of supply and got samples, and they worked together until the job was finished. She redesigned the complete interior of the new apartment, changing the layout of the bathrooms and the kitchen, not only with cabinets but counters as well, provided for tiling in both areas, obtained furniture samples and wall covering, and the like and the job was completed before the time allotted had expired. The owner of the apartment was very satisfied with the work done by Wright and the Petitioner. Sometime in 1986, Mr. Wright again retained Petitioner to work on the redesign of the interior of a 70 foot yacht, the owner of which wanted the interior gutted and replaced. This involved the redesign of the staterooms, bath and galley, and included new paneling, new furniture, new colors, new dimensions, and the like. The owner picked out the appliances he wanted, but Mr. Wright and Petitioner worked together in designing their placement and the placement of the lighting. She designed the cabinetry work and the layout of the kitchen and a sound system so as to get the most usable space out of the limited area available. The owner was extremely pleased with the result. Mr. Wright has been in the modification business for approximately 15 years and is not, himself, a designer. However, he has a very high opinion of the quality of the work performed by Petitioner. She has impeccable taste and knows how to lay out and utilize space. She knows the limitations that are placed on structural changes and is capable of redesigning space to conform to and comply with limitations on structural change. Ms. Mast is extremely proud of the work she has done and believes she has dedicated her life to her work. She limits her practice to high end clients and the majority come to her as the result of referrals from other clients. She is proud of the name she has developed in the interior design field over the years she has practiced. Petitioner presented a brochure of her brothers' furniture line and was able to point out some 15 or so individual pieces she had designed in addition to the showroom layout. As to her design of the building in which the company operates, she designed the tile work, the placement of interior walls, the use of glass block and the structure within the supporting walls of the building. In addition, she designed the interior of a restaurant in Bogota, Colombia, and the departure bar in the Aruba International Airport in the West Indies. With regard to those last two projects, the plans submitted by Petitioner as having been drawn by her reflect that the departure bar was designed in 1985 and the restaurant in 1989. Review of the plans indicates that the date on the drawing purportedly done by Petitioner appears to have been altered, since the figures, "85" do not seem to have been drawn by the same individual who inserted the "19". They appear different. Much the same appears on the chicken restaurant drawings where the Petitioner's initials appear to have been inserted over some other name, and not placed there at the time the plans were drawn. However, no evidence was submitted by the Department to contest the identity of the plans or that Petitioner drafted them, and as a result, they are accepted as offered. With regard to these facilities, Petitioner claims she did the floor plans, the tile detail and the interior design detail on both. She has been a member of the International Furniture and Design Association for several years. Petitioner's application for registration as an interior designer in Florida was received by the Department on January 5, 1990. Petitioner was requesting registration by exemption rather than by examination, and properly submitted the $50.00 fee at the time of her application. The application as initially submitted, reflected her experience from 1975 to 1982 with Cartel, Inc., her brothers' furniture firm, and from 1982 to the present as an interior designer with Rudolph Collections, also a design firm owned by her deceased brother, Paul. From November, 1989 to the present, she was an interior designer with Thomasville Showcase Interiors in Pompano Beach. It would appear from the application and the supporting documents that the Board did not consider the listed description of the nature of her work performed to fall within the criteria qualifying her for an exemption. Along with the application, Petitioner also submitted a statement from Mr. McCarthy, and one from the personnel administrator of Thomasville Showcase Interiors with whom she has worked since 1989, which indicated she was involved not only in layout, color coordination, furniture selection and the like, but performed the additional task of space planning as well. Petitioner also submitted several client reference forms which reflect that she performed the services of an interior designer for those clients in 1987 and two more from as early as 1983 and 1984. The one from Jean Craft, which relates to a 1984 employment, concerns Petitioner's activities in selecting fabrics, window treatments and the use of mirrors and wall covering. This is more the work of an interior decorator, however, than that of an interior designer. In 1983 and 1984, however, Petitioner worked for a Mrs. Nettie Effron in New York. In that operation, Petitioner prepared drawings showing elevations and concept details which involved structural changes and the introduction of skylights, glass panels and other interior changes. The Board, however, in reviewing Petitioner's application, concluded that the references submitted by Petitioner with her application did not sufficiently describe experience in interior design for the six years prior to January 1, 1990, which is required by the statute. The additional testimony presented at hearing, which includes a statement of Mr. Don Blumenthal, of Miller Construction, adds considerable to the history of interior design experience, however.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, therefore: RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered granting the Petitioner, Karen D. Mast, registration as an interior designer in Florida without examination. RECOMMENDED in Tallahassee, Florida this 27th day of January, 1992. 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 27th day of January, 1992. COPIES FURNISHED: Karen D. Mast 600 Parkview Drive, Apt. 527 Hallandale, Florida 33309 Arthur R. Wiedinger, Jr., Esquire Department of Legal Affairs Suite 1603 - 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 Board of Architecture and Interior Design 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
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
