The Issue This is an appeal from Resolution No. P60-99 of the Monroe County Planning Commission ("Planning Commission"), in which the Planning Commission approved the decision of the Monroe County Planning Department ("Planning Department") denying two applications for building permits submitted by the Appellants, Robert and Ruth Stoky ("the Stokys"). One application requested a building permit to reconstruct a screened porch and to build an elevated deck in the rear of the Señor Frijoles/Cactus Jack's restaurants, which are located at 103900 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, Florida; this application was assigned building permit number 99-3-857 ("permit number 99-3-857"). The second application requested a building permit to reconstruct a trellis as a separate structure associated with the Sundowner restaurant, also located at 103900 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, Florida; this application was assigned building permit number 99-3-858 ("permit number 99-3-858"). The instant appeal was forwarded by the Planning Commission to the Division of Administrative Hearings pursuant to Article XIV, Monroe County Code, the Hearing Officer Appellate Article, and Monroe County ("the County") has appeared as Appellee in this case. In their Initial Brief, the Stokys abandoned their appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission approving the Planning Department's denial of their application for permit number 99-3-858; therefore, the ultimate issue presented in this appeal is whether the Planning Commission's Resolution No. P60-99 should be affirmed, reversed, or modified with respect to the its decision approving the Planning Department's denial of the Stokys' application for permit number 99-3-857.
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating building code administrators and inspectors. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was either an applicant for licensure or held a building inspector license, license number BN 0002765. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Martin County Building Department as a Building Inspector. Harriet R. Edwards owns a residence located at 2595 Hickory Avenue, Jensen Beach, Florida. This home is located in Martin County, Florida. At some point in early 1996, it became Ms. Edwards' desire to construct an addition to her residence. She retained a contractor to perform the work and returned to Ohio during the time of the construction. When Ms. Edwards returned to Florida she was dissatisfied with the quality of the work. Mr. Joyce, Ms. Edwards' friend, expressed that they had expressed a desire for, and requested only, a high quality of work for the addition to Ms. Edwards' home. Upon investigation it was discovered that the permit card located at the construction site had been initialed by the Respondent. All of the inspections listed on the permit card occurred prior to December 17, 1996. The Respondent was issued a provisional license to perform building inspections on or about December 17, 1996. All of the inspections initialed by the Respondent had been performed by another inspector employed by the Martin County Building Department, Bobby T. Chambers. Mr. Chambers was fully licensed at the times of the inspections and acted as the Respondent's training supervisor. The Respondent accompanied Mr. Chambers during a training period during which time Mr. Chambers was to instruct the Respondent in the procedures and practices of the Martin County Building Department. At all times material to the allegations of this complaint, the Martin County Building Department allowed unlicensed employees to assist its inspectors at construction sites. Such employees were authorized to initial permit cards and to radio to the main office the information regarding inspections performed at the job sites. Because of this informal and haphazard reporting system the official records maintained by the County falsely reflected that the Respondent had performed the inspections listed in this Administrative Complaint. He did not. The records were maintained inaccurately. By initialing the permit card and transmitting the information to the County, the Respondent was performing his duties as an employee-in-training and as directed by his supervisors. The Respondent did not intend to mislead officials and did not intend to file a false report required by law. As a result of the flawed training system used by the Martin County Building Department, this Respondent initialed permit documents prior to licensure.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against this Respondent. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorota Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Michael A. Rodriguez, Esquire County Attorney's Office 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996 Leif Grazi, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF GRAZI & GIANINO, P.A. 217 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 34995 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact From May 1, 1985, through June 30, 1987, Respondent, John Gonzalez, was a registered general contractor and qualifying agent for Le-Go Developers, Inc., license-number RG-A02757. On his application for qualification of Le-Go Developers, Inc., respondent was required to list his individual address and the address of the business entity. To this end, respondent provided an individual address of 8435 Crespi Boulevard, Miami Beach, Florida, and a business address of Le-Go Developers, Inc., of 9840 S.W. 81st Street, Miami, Florida. On March 25, 1986, Ms. Selma Roberts contracted, through respondent, with Le-Go Developers, Inc., for certain repairs to an apartment complex owned by her, and located at 8415 Crespi Boulevard, Miami Beach, Florida. At the time, respondent was a tenant of Ms. Roberts. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Le-Go Developers, Inc., was to repair an existing dock for $700 and paint the railings in the apartment complex for $400. Ms. Roberts paid Le-Go Developers, Inc., $1,100 in advance for the work. At no time did Ms. Roberts and respondent discuss the need for a building permit to undertake the agreed upon work, and no permit was secured for the project or posted on the job site. The building regulation pertinent to this case provide: PERMITS REQUIRED It shall be unlawful to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove or demolish any building structure, or any part thereof. . . without first having filed application and obtained a permit therefor, from the Building official.... EXCEPTION: No permit shall be required, in this or any of the following sections, for general maintenance or repairs...the value of which does not exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) in labor and material as determined by the Building official. Permits, to be issued by the Building Official, shall be required for the following: (a) The erection or construction of any building or structure, the adding to, enlarging, repairing, improving, altering, covering, or extending of any building or structure. Respondent repaired the dock and painted the railings in the apartment house. The work was not, however, apparently to Ms. Roberts' satisfaction and she paid a third party $100 to correct the deficiencies she perceived. While the work may not have satisfied Ms. Roberts, there is no competent proof that respondent did not comply with the terms of the agreement, that the work was not performed in a workmanlike manner, or that the work did not conform to existing building codes. At some point during the spring of 1987, respondent moved from the apartment at 8415 Crespi Boulevard to a new residence, and permitted his license to lapse. Respondent did not notify petitioner of his new residence address until he applied to reinstate his license in April 1988, as discussed infra. The petitioner's records demonstrate that respondent's license was on a delinquent status for non-renewal from July 1, 1987, until his application to change the status of his license and reinstate his license was approved May 23, 1988. In his application, dated April 4, 1988, respondent listed his residence address as 8440 Byron Avenue, Miami, Florida.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered imposing a reprimand and administrative fine in the sum of $250 against respondent. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 15th day of August, 1988. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of August, 1988. APPENDIX Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are addressed as follows: 1. Addressed in paragraph 3. 2 & 4. Addressed in paragraph 4. 3. To the extent pertinent, addressed in paragraph 1. 5-7. Addressed in paragraphs 7 and 8. 8-9. Addressed in paragraph 5 and paragraph 2 of the Conclusions of Law. 10. Addressed in paragraph 9. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda H. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Mr. John Gonzalez 8440 Byron Avenue, #1 Miami, Florida 33167 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following findings of fact: Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified building contractor, a registered mechanical contractor and a certified air conditioning contractor in the state of Florida having been issued license numbers CB-CA09793, RM-0031246 and CA-C024348, respectively. At all times material hereto, Respondent's building contractor and air conditioning contractor licenses qualified George E. Bonsino and Associates, Inc., Jacksonville, Florida. In February 1984, Respondent contracted with Carl and Patricia Powers of 4530 Victor Street, Jacksonville, Florida for the construction of a room addition. The contract was presented to the Powers by Peter Stamires. Mr. Stamires was, at the time, acting as sales manager for George E. Longino and Associates, Inc. The contract price was approximately $13,000.00 and construction of the Powers' room addition was estimated to be completed by March 30, 1984. On March 20, 1984 Respondent received from Carl and Patricia Powers a payment of $6,850.00 on the contract. On May 4, 1984 Respondent received from Carl and Patricia Powers an additional payment of $5,000.00 on the contract. The contract called for a "dry-in room" only, i.e., the room was to be put to a stage where water would not penetrate it. The contract also included: (1) covering the existing asbestos shingles with a cut brick and stone veneer; (2) the installation of aluminum windows; (3) the installation of aluminum gables and eaves; (4) re-roofing the entire home; and (5) the installation of overhead lights, light switches and electrical outlets. Respondent's contract with the Powers contemplated that electrical work would be done, but did not include any plumbing. Respondent sub-contracted the Powers' project to two (2) individuals, Mr. Walker and Mr. Todd. Respondent did not know what type of license Mr. Walker or Mr. Todd held and was never shown a license by either individual. Mr. Walker agreed to obtain permits for the Powers' project, to submit building plans and specifications, and to request the mandatory building inspections. Neither the Respondent nor the sub-contractors obtained a City of Jacksonville building permit prior to commencing construction of the Powers' room addition. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractors submitted building plans and specifications for approval by the, City of Jacksonville Building Department prior to commencing construction at the Powers' residence as required. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractors requested the City of Jacksonville Building Department to perform any type of building inspections during the process of construction, as required. On June 11, 1984 Respondent obtained building permit no. 7048 from the City of Jacksonville Building and Zoning Inspection Division for the Powers' project. Shortly after construction commenced, the Powers became concerned with the quality of work being performed. Respondent, while at the project site near the end of March, told Mr. Powers that a building permit had been obtained for the project. However, at that time, no building permit had been obtained. Mr. Theron Brannan, a building inspector for the City of Jacksonville, became involved with the Powers' case when Mrs. Powers called in May 1984 and complained about ;he work being performed by Respondent. Mr. Brannan checked and found that no permit had been issued. He then went out and inspected the construction site. Mr. Brannan found that the walls were approximately 3 or 4 inches out of alignment and that the floor was spongy and needed repair. Major work would have been required to straighten the walls. In Mr. Brannan's opinion, the work was well below average and was of very poor quality. Electrical and plumbing work was performed at the Powers' project site. Ten (10) electrical outlets, six (6) overhead lights and six (6) light switches were installed. The electrical work also included a 220 volt outlet for a clothes dryer. Mrs. Powers is a housewife and was present during the time the electrical work was performed. The individual performing the electrical work told Ms. Powers that he worked for Respondent and was being paid on an hourly basis. The plumbing work performed at the Powers' project included: (1) installation of hot and cold water lines for the bathroom sink, which were tied into the existing water supply; (2) a water line to the toilet, and (3) a drain pipe from the toilet to the existing septic tank. The individual performing the plumbing work told Ms. Powers that he worked for Respondent on an hourly basis and that he was a licensed plumber. When Respondent was advised of the problems at the construction site, he immediately obtained the necessary permits and offered to correct some of the building problems. The Powers refused Respondent's offer to correct the problems because they were concerned as to whether the remedial measures proposed by Respondent were actually feasible. From an appearance standpoint, the measures contemplated by Respondent were not feasible. In April 1984, Respondent contracted with Glenn and Debora Blanchard of 521 Astral Avenue, Jacksonville, Florida for the construction of a room addition. The total contract price was $6,780.00. Respondent received $3,390.00 as a down payment on the contract; the balance was due upon completion. The contract called for the construction of a room addition between the existing home and the garage. The room addition was to be completed to the "dry-in" stage only. The contract also included re-roofing the entire residence. The Respondent sub- contracted the Blanchard project to a person by the name of A. Rhoden. Mr. Rhoden agreed to obtain all permits, draw all plans and specifications and obtain all required inspections with the exception of the roofing aspects of the project. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractor obtained a building permit prior to commencing construction at the Blanchard's residence as required. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractor submitted building plans and specifications to the City of Jacksonville Building Department prior to commencing construction. Neither Respondent nor the sub-contractor requested the building department perform any type of building inspections during the process of construction In May 1984, Ms. Blanchard became concerned because the concrete slab appeared uneven and had developed a crack. She contacted the City of Jacksonville Building Department because she was concerned with the quality of the work being performed. On May 30, 1984 the City of Jacksonville Building Department and Zoning Inspection Division issued a stop work order on construction work being performed at the Blanchard residence. The Notice of Violation cited the failure to submit building plans and failure to obtain a building permit prior to commencing construction at the project site. On June 11, 1984 Respondent obtained building permit no. 7047 from the City of Jacksonville Building and Zoning Inspection Division for the construction work at the Blanchard residence. Such Permit was obtained after commencement of the project. Shortly after commencement of construction, Respondent met with Mr. Blanchard at the project site to discuss a few changes to the original plans. In late April, 1984, Respondent told Mr. Blanchard that a building permit had been obtained, when in fact, no building permit had been obtained. Respondent told Mr. Blanchard that the permit needed to be kept at his office. The construction of the room addition included the forming and pouring of a monolithic slab. The City building department inspects the excavation of the slab prior to the pouring of concrete. A tie-beam inspection is required after the foundation is poured and the masonry walls are erected. Neither inspection was performed nor requested. The Respondent told Mrs. Blanchard that two (2) inspectors had inspected the property, when in fact no inspectors had inspected the property because no building permit had been applied for at the time Respondent made such statement. Unless a building permit is obtained, the City is generally not aware that a construction project is being undertaken and, therefore, does not conduct building inspections. Lewis D. Franks, an expert in residential construction inspected the work done at the Blanchard's home on behalf of the City of Jacksonville Building Department. Several problems existed in regard to the Blanchard project. There was a large crack in the concrete which resulted from the settling of the southeast corner of the building. The settling of the southeast corner resulted from either an inadequate footing or none at all. Also, the roof rafters were not centered properly and were about fourteen (14) feet off. The Blanchard project was of very poor workmanship, the construction was not structurally sound, and the project failed in several respects to meet requirements of the City of Jacksonville Building Code. When Respondent found out that no permit had been obtained he promptly drew up plans and specifications and obtained a permit from the City of Jacksonville Building Department. The Blanchards, thereafter, refused to allow Respondent to continue working on the project. The roofing portion of the Blanchard project was sub- contracted by Respondent to Richard Davenport. Mr. Davenport holds a state license as a roofing contractor and a local occupational license. Mr. Davenport's sub-contract called for him to tear off the existing roof, carry off the rotten wood and put on a new roof. Respondent was not satisfied with the roofing job done by Mr. Davenport and failed to pay him for such roofing job. Thereafter, Mr. Davenport demanded payment from the Blanchards but they also refused to pay him. Mr. Davenport filed a Claim of Lien against the Blanchards' property. However, the Blanchards hired an attorney and the Claim of Lien was dismissed. Respondent's failure to pay Mr. Davenport was based on his good faith belief that the roofing job was not done in a satisfactory manner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent be found guilty of failing to supervise the construction activities of the company which he qualified and incompetence in the practice of contracting as alleged in Count One of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that all other alleged violations contained in Count One of the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. That Respondent be found guilty of failing to supervise the construction activities of the company which he qualified and incompetence in the practice of contracting as alleged in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint. It is further recommended that all other alleged violations contained in Count Two of the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed. That Count Three of the Amended Administrative Complaint be dismissed, the Petitioner failing to introduce any evidence in regard to Count Three and requesting that it be dismissed. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent's building contractor's license be suspended for a period of 6 months and that an administrative fine in the amount of $500.00 be assessed. DONE and ORDERED this 30th day of October, 1985 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. W. MATTHEW STEVENSON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of October, 1985. * Count Three of the Administrative Complaint was voluntarily dismissed by Petitioner and, in any event, was not established by the evidence. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas Beason, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 M. Carolyn Givens 8741 Free Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32211 Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esq. General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 APPENDIX Pursuant to Section 120.59(2), Florida Statutes (1983), the following is submitted in response to Petitioner's and Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: Paragraph Ruling (general finding) Accepted; see paragraph 1, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 2, R.O. (DPR Case #0049083) Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 5, 6 and 7, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4 & 11 Petitioner's proposed finding "the individual performing the electrical work was Respondent's employee and was being paid on an hourly basis" is rejected on the basis that the evidence presented on that issue consisted of uncorroborated hearsay which did not fit within any recognized exception to the hearsay rule. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 4, 7, 11 and 12, R.O. Petitioner's finding that "the plumbing work was performed by Respondent's employee" is rejected on the basis that the evidence presented on that issue consisted of uncorroborated hearsay. Accepted; see paragraphs 9 and 10, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 10, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 13, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 13, R.O. (DPR Case #0049788) Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 15, 16, 17 and 23, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 17 and 22, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraph 17, R.O. Facts not covered by paragraph 17are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted; see paragraphs 18 and 19, R.O. Partially accepted; see paragraphs 21 and 23, R.O. Facts not covered therein are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted; see paragraph 24, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 24, R.O. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Finding: Ruling: Accepted; see paragraph 3, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 4 and 5, R.O. Accepted; see paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 13. Partially accepted; see paragraph 13. Findings not covered therein are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Accepted; see paragraph 13, R.O. Rejected as a conclusion of law. Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O. Respondents claim that the contract called for the construction of a dry-in addition and not a "room addition" is considered immaterial. Accepted; see paragraph 14, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 26, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 25, R.O. Accepted; see paragraph 25, R.O. Rejected as irrelevant. Accepted; see paragraph 25, R.O. Rejected as a conclusion of law. ================================================================ =
The Issue At issue is whether an order recommending denial of the subject permits and variance should be rendered.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing statement of the case and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission enter a final order reversing Monroe County's decision to issue the subject permits and variance. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 29 day of January 1992. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 29 day of January 1992.
