The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent signed and sealed negligent drawings for one single-family residence and provided plan review certification for two other projects designed by Respondent in violation of Subsections 471.033(1)(g) and 553.791(3), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001(6)(n).1
Findings Of Fact The Board of Professional Engineers (Board) is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. Section 471.038, Florida Statutes, authorizes Petitioner to provide the Board with administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services. Respondent is licensed in the state as a professional engineer pursuant to license number PE 54476. It is undisputed that Respondent is a private provider within the meaning of Subsection 553.791(1)(g), Florida Statues. On October 29, 2002, Respondent signed and sealed drawings for a single-family residence identified in the record as the Barnes residence. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings for the Barnes residence are deficient. The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive. The applicable standard of care does not require the relevant drawings to include multiple ridge heights in order to describe the nature and character of the work to be performed with sufficient clarity. It is less than clear and convincing that the ridge heights in the drawings are unequal. Additional ridge height information would have been non-critical information that may have been interpreted as specific construction requirements and lead to confusion, added costs, conflicting interpretations, and potential hazards in buildings. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings for the Barnes residence insufficiently show heights of the eaves or lintels and sills. The plans can be easily understood by tradesmen and inspectors. The typical wall section at page 4 of the plans addresses eaves, lintels, and sills. The ridge height requirements in Manatee County, Florida (the County), are intended to ensure compliance with maximum height restrictions. The mean heights in the drawings adequately address the maximum local height ordinances. It is less than clear and convincing that the roof entry plan provided insufficient clarity. The roof was constructed according to the local code requirements without apparent exception. The evidence does not support a finding that the roof entry plan, the ridge heights, lintels, eaves, and sills were insufficiently clear to describe the nature and character of the work to be performed. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that the wind uplift for roof trusses in the plans was incorrect or unclear. If the wind load calculations were found to be deficient, the specified fittings were sufficient to withstand wind loads that exceeded the calculations of Petitioner's expert by approximately 70 percent. Wind load calculations are intended to ensure a roof will sustain the load and will not blow off of the house. The fittings were sufficient to secure the roof against the projected wind load. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that the drawings failed to specify the applicable masonry inspection requirements. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that special masonry inspections are required for single-family residences of two stories or less. A masonry inspection is required for such structures when a building inspector finds a need for such an inspection. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings fail to adequately specify the splice lengths of the bond beam reinforcement for tension, compression, intersections, and corners. The requisite evidence does not support a finding that the plans deviate from the standard of care in the community. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that Respondent failed to comply with applicable soil condition requirements. The County did not require soil conditions on plans at the time Respondent drew the plans. From sometime in the 1940s through November 2003, the County permitted engineers to assume soil conditions with a ground load of 2000 pounds per square foot. Respondent drew the plans for the Barnes project in 2002. The testimony of Petitioner's expert does not relate to facts in evidence. The expert did not know County allowances for soil conditions at the time Respondent drew the plans. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the design of the concrete footings cannot be verified from the plans. Nor does the requisite evidence support a finding that the plans do not specify reinforcement of the thickened edge under a load bearing wood stud wall at the garage. The plans include two reinforcement specifications for the thickened edge under the load bearing wood stud wall at the garage. The specifications include welded wire mesh and reinforced steel bars. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that Respondent supplied or submitted the Barnes plans for permit. Without such a finding, Respondent was not required to prepare, submit, or seal a site plan. A site plan for the Barnes residence exists in the file of the County Building Department (Department). A Department representative confirmed that the site plan is sufficient and that an engineer of record is not required to prepare, submit, or seal a site plan unless the engineer of record actually submits the plans for a permit. On February 24 and March 7, 2003, Respondent signed and sealed drawings for respective projects at 14815 Coker Gully Road, Myakka, Florida (the Coker project), and 705 50th Avenue, Plaza West, Bradenton, Florida (the Yonkers project). Pursuant to Section 553.791, Florida Statutes, Respondent entered into a contract with an entity identified in the record as Griffis Custom Homes (Griffis) to provide either building code plans or inspection services, or both. Prior to the commencement of the two projects in question, the Department expressly permitted an engineer to provide building code inspection services involving buildings designed or constructed by the engineer. Respondent prepared private provider affidavits, obtained additional insurance, had forms made, and prepared to provide inspections services. Respondent immediately ceased his activities when Department officials objected to Respondent's stated intention of providing "private provider" building code inspection services for the Coker and Yonkers projects. The separate owners of the two projects withdrew their applications as "private provider" projects. The Department processed the projects, performed all inspections, and issued a certificate of occupancy for each project. Neither the Department, Petitioner, nor the Board, ever served Respondent with a Notice of Non-compliance. If it were found that Respondent committed the alleged violation, the violation was minor. There is no evidence of any economic or physical harm, or significant threat of harm, to a person or to the health, safety, or welfare of the public. There is no evidence that Respondent has any prior discipline against his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the alleged violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of May, 2006.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, John W. Hull, held certified building contractor license number CB CO28961 issued by petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). When the events herein occurred, respondent was qualifying agent for, and doing business as, John W. Hull Construction in Inverness, Florida. On September 15, 1990, respondent entered into a contract with Robert and Mary E. Griggs to construct a single-family residence at 7118 East Gospel Island Road, Inverness, Florida, for an estimated cost of $130,000. The contract called for respondent to be responsbile for all materials and work on the project and to build the residence in compliance with the county building code. In this regard, respondent pulled the permit for the job and was the supervising contractor. The project was completed around mid-May 1991 and a certificate of occupancy was issued by Citrus County (County). After the Griggs paid for the work in full, they took occupancy of the premises on May 17, 1991. On September 21, 1993, the Griggs noticed a water leak in the guest bathroom. Mary Griggs immediately contacted respondent and was told to call the subcontractor who installed the roof, Lloyd Vann. She did so and Vann came to the house the next morning and acknowledged the shingles were installed "incorrectly." He returned on October 4, 1993, and placed some tar under the shingles. While doing so, Griggs says that Vann "ripped a lot of the shingles." When the leaks persisted, including at least seven separate leaks during a single rain storm, Mary Griggs requested two other roofers to inspect her roof. They corroborated Vann's acknowledgment that the roof was "incorrectly" installed. On January 18, 1994, Griggs again contacted respondent and told him she needed a new roof since it violated building code requirements. He responded that there were no building code standards applicable to the roof. Mary Griggs persisted with her complaint and eventually arranged a meeting with a County building inspector, Henry Pann, respondent and Vann on September 30, 1994. However, Griggs was told not to speak at the meeting but rather to listen to the other participants. As a result of that meeting, Mary Griggs was contacted by respondent just after a heavy rain on October 3, 1994, to see if she still had any roof leaks. Not surprisingly, she responded in the affirmative and respondent visited the premises the next day. After concluding that the leaks were caused by water seeping through the sides of the chimney, respondent sealed and repainted the chimney area the following day. On November 15, 1994, the Griggs again experienced "heavy leaks" in their home during a heavy rain storm. After unsucessfully attempting to contact respondent, Mary Griggs finally reached Vann, who eventually replaced some shingles on November 23, 1994. However, as of the time of hearing in late July 1995, the Griggs still had water leaks in their home every time it rained, some of which were "worse" than before any repairs were made. Photographs received in evidence, and deposition testimony by inspector Pann, confirm numerous water stains throughout the house. Inspector Pann established that the roof violated the County's building code in at least four respects. First, the roof was in violation of section 103.2.4 by having inadequate fastener lengths, that is, respondent's agent had used staples instead of large head galvanized nails as required by the code. Thus, the fasteners could not penetrate through the shingle and into the lumber deck. Second, section 103.2.3 was contravened because the rakes and eaves were not cemented. Third, section 100 was violated because the drip edge was applied over the felt topping, a procedure which also contravened the manufacturer's specifications. Finally, the roof workmanship violated sections 100 and 100.1 by having an improper staple installation. The manufacturer of the asphalt shingles used on the Griggs' roof, Georgia-Pacific, has published a brochure containing easily understood instructions on how to install asphalt shingles. Even so, Vann ignored these plain instructions in a number of respects when he installed the Griggs' roof. For this reason, it can be reasonably inferred that respondent, through his agent Vann, deliberately violated local building codes. To correct the code violations and eliminate the leaks, and to make the roof comparable to that which the Griggs contracted for, it will be necessary for the Griggs to replace the roof, which will cost $7,020.00. In addition, it will cost the Griggs $500.00 to seal and paint the ceiling areas discolored by the leaking water. Respondent says that when the roof was installed in 1991, he followed applicable building codes "as much as they were being followed" at the time. While he defended his roofing subcontractor as being "a very reputable roofer," respondent nonetheless took the position that the roof was Vann's responsibility "to make good," and not his. He does not deny that the Griggs' roof is leaking, but says the leaks are "very small" and suggests that the Griggs' claims are exaggerated. At hearing, respondent suggested that the problem could be resolved by Mary Griggs calling Vann, who would "be there within a day or two" to make the repairs, a claim belied by the record. In any event, respondent is unwilling to replace the entire roof, a measure deemed to be necessary by the County inspector and other contractors. In light of respondent's continued failure to take appropriate measures to fix the roof, it is found that respondent is guilty of misconduct in the practice of contracting. Through a late-filed affidavit, petitioner established that it incurred $3,012.18 in costs in prosecuting this action. This amount was not challenged. By law, the Board is entitled to recover this amount from respondent should it prevail in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d) and (m), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), imposing an administrative fine of $2,250.00, requiring that he pay restitution in the amount of $7,520.00, and requiring that he pay $3,012.18 for costs incurred by the Board in investigating and prosecuting this action. The fine, restitution and costs shall be repaid by a date certain to be established by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0541 Petitioner: The proposed findings submitted by petitioner have generally been adopted in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Mr. John W. Hull 95495 Berkshire Avenue Inverness, Florida 34452-9005 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint 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 a licensed standard building inspector, license number BN 0001750. 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 the residence. She retained a contractor to perform the work and returned to her second home in Ohio during the time of the construction. When Ms. Edwards returned to Florida in December of 1996, she was dissatisfied with the quality of the construction work performed on her home. Mr. Joyce, Ms. Edwards' friend, stated that they had expressed a desire for, and had requested, 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 an unlicensed building inspector, James L. Brown. This led the homeowner to suspect that the work performed did not meet inspection code standards. Building code inspections are to verify that the work performed by contractors meets certain minimum standards set forth in adopted building code regulations. By implication the highest quality of construction performance would generally exceed code requirements. One inspection item in particular concerned Ms. Edwards' friend, Mr. Joyce. This homeowner believed the new addition did not have a proper footer. All of the inspections listed on the permit card for this project occurred prior to December 17, 1996. The footer/slab inspection was performed on October 4, 1996. The Respondent asserts that at the time he performed the footer/slab inspection, the structures were in place to assure that the poured foundation would meet minimum code requirements. The Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Brown, an unlicensed inspector in training, initialed the permit card and transmitted by radio the inspection results. Mr. Brown was assigned to work with the Respondent during his training period prior to receiving licensure from the state. Mr. Brown ultimately received his provisional license on or about December 17, 1996. The Respondent asserts that a final inspection was not performed on Ms. Edwards' home. Consequently, no final verification was completed to assure the home addition was constructed in accordance with the plans and the forms on the ground for the footer/slab foundation. In this case there is no allegation that the construction plans for the addition for the Edwards' home failed to meet minimum code requirements. Presumably the footer/slab foundation as reflected on the plans would have specified at least a minimum compliance with code mandates. The footer/slab inspection was performed with the forms and reinforcements in place according to the approved plans. The Respondent maintains that the forms and reinforcements met minimum code requirements and that if such forms were altered after inspection he would not have known. Typically, once the footer/slab foundation forms and reinforcements are approved by an inspector the contractor calls for the delivery of concrete to be poured into the foundation forms. The date the concrete was poured for the subject footer/slab is unknown. Whether there was a delay between the footer/slab inspection date and the construction date is unknown. In any event when Ms. Edwards and Mr. Joyce returned from Ohio to view the addition the foundation did not appear adequate. Efforts were then pursued to attempt to ascertain whether the footer/slab did meet code. In this case the record is inconclusive as to whether the footer/slab foundation as constructed at Ms. Edwards' addition meets minimum code requirements. The pictures in evidence do not clearly establish the depth of the slab. Some of the photographs suggest that the minimum depth was achieved. A visual inspection performed at the site did not verify the depth nor compare the interior finished grade with the exterior measurements. The final grading of the exterior of the home around the addition was never completed. As a result the photographs may have a distorted view of the foundation and portions should have been back-filled along the edge of the slab. In any event, no definitive measurements have been offered into evidence.
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 enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. 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 Bobby T. Chambers 3520 Northeast Linda Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 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 The Respondent is a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0034898. He operates a business known as B & P Roofing at 244 Tollgate Trail, Longwood, Florida. The Respondent has appropriately qualified the business name of "B & P Roofing" with the Petitioner. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, with regard to licensure of building contractors, the regulation of their licensure status and methods of operation and practice. During June of 1981, the Respondent, doing business as B & P Roofing, contracted to perform a re-roofing job with Mr. Jack Mewhirter, whereby he was to put a new roof on a residence at 137 Variety Tree Circle, Altamonte Springs, Florida. The construction of the roof was contracted for and completed during June, 1981. The Respondent failed to obtain a building permit before or during construction of the roof and also failed to obtain a final inspection of the roof when it was finished in June, 1981. The Respondent's testimony establishes that the Respondent was familiar with the building code adopted in Seminole County and familiar with the requirement that he was responsible as the contractor, to obtain a permit before commencing construction of the roof and that he was also responsible for obtaining a final inspection by the Seminole County Building Official. In response to a complaint from Mr. Mewhirter, the owner of the residence, the Seminole County Building Officials, Mr. Flippent and Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer became aware that no building permit had been obtained for the re-roofing job and that no final inspection had been obtained pursuant thereto. Accordingly, Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer inspected the roof in November, 1981, and Mr. Flippent informed the Respondent of the necessity to obtain a building permit and a final inspection. Thus, on November 10, 1981, the Respondent obtained the building permit and called for the final inspection. Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer was unable to sign the final inspection document as "satisfactory" because he was unable to adequately inspect the roof once it was finished. He had been unable to inspect the method by which it was installed during its construction due to the Respondent failing to inform him or his superiors that the roof was under construction and that inspections were needed at that time. hen the Respondent entered into the contract with Mr. Mewhirter, he informed Mr. Mewhirter that he would not obtain a building permit because that would "drive the cost up." The Respondent, in his testimony, denied that he made such a statement, but Mr. Mewhirter's testimony is here found more credible because of the facts established by Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer's testimony that a random check of the roof after he finally was able to inspect it in November, 1981, revealed that all the shingles he examined were nailed with only three nails and were nailed too high up near the upper edge of the shingle, which is a substandard method of installing the roof and which permits storm winds or rain to raise the shingles, causing possible damage to the roof. The fact that the roof was installed in this fashion and that fact that the Respondent admittedly knew of the requirements of the building code and the requirement that a permit be obtained and inspections be made during the course of and at the conclusion of the job, indicated that the Respondent was knowingly trying to avoid the necessity of obtaining a permit and a final inspection and thus lends sufficient credibility to Mr. Mewhirter's testimony regarding the reason the Respondent obtained no permit. In any event, the roof was shown to not be constructed in accordance with the building code. In summary, it was established that the Respondent knew of the appropriate building code, was thoroughly familiar with it and and indeed had installed an excess of seven hundred roofs since he entered the business. He was aware, in connection with the need for obtaining a building permit, that he should also obtain inspections during the construction and a final inspection when the roof was finished, which he failed to do until reminded of his violation by the building department five months after the roof was completed, at which time it was too late to perform the appropriate inspections. Thus, the roof could not be approved by the building department of Seminole County. The Respondent admitted to only being present on the subject job site for approximately an hour and a half during the entire construction of the roof and he admittedly did not bother to look to see if a permit was on the job site at that time, or any other time. Finally, although the Respondent remonstrated that his failure to get a building permit at the appropriate time was inadvertent and due to his assumption that other office personnel had taken care of the obtaining of the permit, that testimony is not found to be credible since it was established, through the testimony of Mr.. Mewhirter, that the Respondent consciously decided not to obtain a permit prior to starting construction of the roof.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, George G. Vincent, be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and that an administrative fine of $1,000 be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, 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 23rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Siegel, Esquire 292 U.S. Highway 17-92 P.O. Drawer 965 Fern Park, Florida 32730 James A. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, v. DPR Case No. 0017669 DOAH Case No. 82-1341 GEORGE C. VINCENT B & P Roofing RC 0034898 244 Tollgate Trail Longwood, Florida 32750, Respondent. /
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaint and, if so, the penalty which should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Harry Bradshaw, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RC 0033812. On August 26, 1986, Respondent's license as a registered roofing contractor was suspended by Petitioner. Respondent's license remained suspended at all times material to this case. On December 16, 1987, Respondent contracted with the Moose Lodge located in Hialeah, Florida, to reroof the Moose Lodge building. The proposal submitted by Respondent contained representations that Respondent was licensed as a registered roofing contractor and that he was insured. Respondent knew that his license as a registered roofing contractor was under suspension. Respondent had no insurance. The contract between Respondent and the Moose Lodge provided that Respondent would perform the work and supply the materials for the sum of $6,200.00. The sum of $3,200.00 was paid to Respondent in advance of his beginning the job. Respondent used the sums advanced to purchase materials and supplies. The remaining $3,000.00 was to have been paid upon Respondent's completion of the job. During the negotiations that resulted in the contract between Respondent and the Moose Lodge, Respondent represented that the job should be completed in time for the functions scheduled for New Year's Eve. While Respondent had purchased the materials needed for the job and had done a substantial amount of work on a portion of the roof, he was unable to complete the work by the New Year. Respondent was ordered to stop work on the job on January 26, 1988. Respondent did not abandon the job. Although he was slow in performing the work, a part of Respondent's delay in performance was caused by rain. There was no evidence as to what would have been a reasonable period of time for Respondent to have completed the job. On January 26, 1988, the administrator for the Moose Lodge complained to the Building Inspection Department for the City of Hialeah, Florida, because the administrator was not pleased with the progress that Respondent was making toward completion of the job. The administrator was told by a representative of the Building Inspection Department on January 26, 1988, that Respondent had no license and that the required permit had not been pulled. The administrator was told to prohibit Respondent from working on the roof. Immediately thereafter, the administrator instructed Respondent to do no further work on the roof. The members of the Noose Lodge completed the job started by Respondent for less than $3,000.00, the balance of the amount that would have been owed Respondent if he had finished the job. Respondent knew that a permit was required for this work. Respondent also knew that only a licensed roofing contractor could pull the required permit. Respondent proceeded with the job when he was unable to persuade a licensed roofing contractor to pull the permit for him. Petitioner filed an administrative complaint against Respondent alleging that at the time he contracted with the Moose Lodge, Respondent's license was suspended, thus violating the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, and the provisions of Section 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes. The administrative complaint also alleged that Respondent failed to perform in a reasonably timely manner and/or abandoned the job in violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes. Respondent denied the allegations of the administrative complaint and timely requested a formal hearing. This proceeding followed. Respondent was previously disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board, and his license remained under suspension at the time of the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated Section 489.127(1)(e), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes. It is further recommended that the final order revoke Harry Bradshaw's license in the State of Florida as a registered roofing contractor. DONE and ENTERED this 31st day of October, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of October, 1989. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry Bradshaw 5590 East Seventh Avenue Hialeah, Florida 33013 David M. Gaspari, Esquire Adams, Coogler, Watson & Merkel, P.A Suite 1600 NCNB Tower 1555 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, Florida 33402-2069 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered roofing contractor in Miami, Florida, having been issued license no. RC 0047352. Respondent is the qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. In May 1986 All Central Roofing, Inc., entered into a contract with Richard Crisonino to perform certain roofing work on Crisonino's residence in Miami, Florida. The contract price was $3,374. All Central Roofing, Inc., thereafter began the roofing work on Crisonino's residence without obtaining a permit for that work from the local building department and without posting a permit on the job site. All Central Roofing, Inc., failed to obtain the required inspections by the local building department. After completing part of the work involved and after receiving substantial payment under the contract, All Central Roofing Company, Inc., ceased work on the Crisonino residence and failed or refused to complete the work, thereby abandoning the job. By her own admissions at the final hearing in this cause, Respondent does not possess a working knowledge of roofing or roofing contracting. She lacks even a basic fundamental understanding of roofing construction to the extent that it is impossible that she is fulfilling any of her responsibilities as a qualifying agent for All Central Roofing, Inc. Further, Respondent does not even know the number of employees working for All Central Roofing, Inc. Respondent has been disciplined by the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board, and Respondent's personal and business certificates have been revoked by that Board.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is, RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against her and revoking Respondent's registered roofing contractor license. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 14th day of December, 1987, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of December, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 G. Vincent Soto, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry E. Geissinger, Esquire 415 West 51st Place, Suite 201 Hialeah, Florida 33012 Tom Gallagher, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
