Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses, their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following findings of fact: In order for Petitioner to obtain a license as a building contractor in Florida, he is required to successfully complete a certification examination. The examination is prepared by the ACSI National Assessment Institute arid administered by the Department of Professional Regulation (DPR). The questions on the exam are prepared from specific reference materials disclosed to the applicants, generally accepted industry procedures and standard field knowledge. Petitioner took the building contractor's examination administered by DPR in October, 1988. There were four parts to the examination. No evidence was submitted as to the scores an applicant was required to achieve and/or the number of sections an applicant was required to pass in order to be entitled to licensure. Petitioner did not receive a score on the exam sufficient to entitle him to licensure. However, no evidence was presented as to the grades Petitioner received on the various parts of his exam. Petitioner initially challenged seven of the questions on the Construction Administration part of the exam contending that they were unclear and ambiguous, and that, in any event, he correctly indicated the "closest" answer included for the multiple choice questions. However, for the reasons set forth in the Preliminary Statement above, only two of those questions (CA #19 and CA #24) are at issue in this proceeding. No evidence was of feared as to the value of each of the challenged questions and/or the number of questions Petitioner would have to succeed in challenging in order to obtain a passing grade. The first question challenged by Petitioner, CA# 19 required the exam taker to determine the latest time that a subcontractor could effectively serve a Notice To Owner under the Mechanic's Lien Law. The reference materials provide that the Notice To Owner must be served on the owner within 45 days from the time the lienor first performs labor or delivers material to the site. The reference materials also specifically provide that receipt of the notice on the 46th day is timely where the 45th day is a Sunday. A calendar was provided with the exam materials. The 45th day in question CA #19 fell on a Sunday (September 11). Therefore, the latest day that the Notice To Owner could be served was September 12. Both September 11 and 12 were listed as answers on the exam. Petitioner selected the answer corresponding to September 11. The correct answer was September 12. Petitioner's challenge to question 19 is without merit. Question CA #24 relates to AIA Document A201 and asks the examine taker to draw an analogy between a sub-contractor's responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as being the same as one of four listed choices. According to the Respondent, the correct answer 5 (C) which states that the sub-contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the contractor has to the architect and owner. Petitioner chose answer (A) which indicates the contractor has the same responsibilities and obligations to the contractor as the architect has to the owner. In support of its position, the Respondent cites paragraph 5.3.1 of AIA Document A201 which states that "by appropriate agreement, ... the Contractor shall require each Sub-contractor, to the extent of the work to be performed by the Sub-contractor, to be bound to the Contractor by terms of the Contract Documents, and to assume towards the contractor all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor by these documents assumes towards the Owner and Architect." Petitioner interpreted the question as asking the exam taker to draw an analogy between the relationship created by the sub-contract with the other relationships listed in the various answers. Viewed in this context, Petitioner reasoned that, while a contractual relationship existed between the sub- contractor and the contractor, AIA Document A201 specifically does not create a contractual relationship between the contractor and the architect. Therefore, he eliminated answer C and instead chose answer A because there clearly is a contractual relationship between the architect and the owner. Because the question was structured in the form of an analogy, it is misleading and ambiguous and Petitioner's interpretation was reasonable. Unfortunately, while the question was drafted to test the exam taker's familiarity with paragraph 5.3.1, it could also be read to be asking an exam taker to distinguish between the various relationships created through the contract documents. Significantly, the question does not specifically track the language of paragraph 5.3.1 which indicates that the sub-contractor must "assume" all the obligations and responsibilities which the contractor "assumes" towards the Owner and Architect. Therefore, the question is misleading and Petitioner's answer was reasonable under the circumstances.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's request that his October, 1988 examination for building contractor's license be regraded be GRANTED and that Petitioner be deemed to have correctly answered question CA #24. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. STEPHEN MENTON 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 9th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX Both parties have submitted Proposed Recommended Orders. The Petitioner's Proposed Recommended Order contains a number of paragraphs of mixed findings of fact and conclusions of law which have not been numbered throughout. To the extent that the proposed findings of fact can be isolated, they are addressed below. The Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The first two and a half pages of Petitioner's Memorandum simply sets forth question CA #24, the "correct" answer as determined by Respondent and Petitioner's answer. These facts are incorporated in Findings of Fact 8. The Remainder of Petitioner's Memorandum is deemed by the undersigned to constitute legal argument. The Respondent's Proposed Finding of Fact Proposed Finding Paragraph Number in the Finding of Fact of Fact Number in the Recommended Order Where Accepted or Reason for Rejection Adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 4. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Also adopted in substance in Findings of Fact 5. The first sentence is incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. The second sentence is subordinate to Findings of Fact 7 and 8. Incorporated in the Preliminary Statement. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 7. Subordinate to Findings of Fact 8. COPIES FURNISHED: Kenneth D. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Ste 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 E. Harper Field Deputy General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre, Suite 60 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Curtis A. Littman, Esquire Littman, Littman, Williams & Strike P. O. Box 1197 Stuart, Florida 34995 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Richard Eaton 2601 S. D. Miami Street Stuart, Florida 34997
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Clarence Kimball, is a professional engineer licensed to practice engineering in the State of Florida, holding license number PE 0009427. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing standards and principles of professional engineering practice imposed upon licensed professional engineers in Florida and enumerated in Chapter 471, Florida Statutes (1981), and with monitoring and regulating the licensure status of professional engineers in Florida. The Respondent was retained to draft engineering design drawings for a multi-family residential project known as Westwind Villas, to be constructed in Lee County, Florida. The project consisted of two two (2) story buildings each containing four residential units. The drawings depict the first floor of the two buildings as built in place out of concrete block. The second floor of the building as depicted in the drawings, would be built of prefabricated modular units mounted on top of the concrete block, first floor construction. The purpose of these engineering drawings was to define the scope of the work to be done by the building contractor, who would do the actual construction, and to define the materials to be used by the contractor and the manner in which those materials were to be assembled. These permit drawings contain an inconsistency as to which way the buildings are to face. Sheet 1 of the drawings depicts a plot plan and drainage plan for the Westwind Villas. That sheet indicates that the units are all facing west. Sheet 2 of the drawings also shows the units facing west. Sheet 5, however, depicts the units as both facing to the north. This fact was established by Petitioner and indeed, was acknowledged by the Respondent in his testimony. Sheet 2 depicts the elevation and design of the foundation of both buildings. There are a number of areas of the foundation design where the drawing depicts an increase in the width of the concrete slab involved, but with no indication of the Respondent's intent as to what the dimensions of the widened portion of the slab were to be. The Respondent acknowledged that the failure to indicate the width of the slab as widened with regard to the drawing on Sheet 2, was a mistake on his part. Sheet 2 also contains a note that says "number 5 bars in the concrete fill are indicated by a little square." Indeed there are numerous small squares on the foundation plan indicating that number 5 reinforcing bars are erroneously sticking out of the floor of the structure. The Respondent admitted that the filled squares indicate reinforcing bars out in the floor of the structure, as opposed to the foundation, and that those are mistakes. Sheet 2 also provides no indication or direction to the building contractor as to the degree of compaction of soil required, the grade of lumber to be used, nor the grade and type of reinforcing steel to be used in the concrete portion of the construction. Sheet 4 of the permit drawings contains details and cross sections. Section AA calls for an 8" x 16" concrete tie beam and in depicting the typical cross section of that same beam, the Respondent shows it as an 8" x 12" concrete tie beam, which would have less "shear load "or weight bearing ability. Section CC of Sheet 4 illustrates a section of the wall for which the Respondent indicates that a single wall is to be constructed of interior type wall materials. Due to the offset of the two units in their alignment arrangement with each other however, there should have been two "stud walls" designed with the exterior portions of those walls constructed out of exterior materials, since, as designed in an offset pattern, portions of the walls would indeed be exterior walls. The Respondent acknowledged here again that he should have designed the two walls providing for materials suitable for exterior wall construction. As Respondent admits, Section CC also does not indicate how the contractor is to anchor prefabricated units consisting of the second floor structure, to the beams on which they are to rest. There is no indication as to what material is to be used for the attic floor of the structures. Section 5 depicts cross sections, trusses and framing details. There is inconsistency between the elevation depicted on Sheet 2 and the roof rafter plans shown on Sheet 5. The roof after plan indicates that the prefabricated second story unit is 14 feet wide without overhang on the sides. The elevation drawing, however, shows an overhang of 1' 4" on each side. There is thus an inconsistency there, and also an inconsistency between the ceiling plan above the second floor and the truss detail both of which are shown in Sheet 5. The ceiling plan indicates that the ceiling joists are to be 2" x 6". In truss detail "A" the ceiling joists are shown to be 2" x 8". Additionally, the 2" x 6" ceiling joists are overstressed in that the attic was designed to have a pull down staircase and thus is clearly intended for storage use. The standard building code in effect for this structure, requires that an attic space to be used for storage should be designed with a live load capacity of thirty pounds per square foot. The Respondent designed this attic space with a live load capacity of fifteen pounds per square foot, and thus has failed to meet building code standards. Sheet 5 contains illustrations of "Sling and Jack Points" thus showing a method for lifting the fabricated units onto the concrete block first floor structure. The owner of the building ultimately decided not to use this method for lifting the prefabricated units atop the first floor, but the Respondent failed to notify the Lee County Building Department of this decision and did not file a revised sheet showing the elimination of the use of sling and jack points for lifting in the design. The drawing with regard to placement of the second floor units on top of the first floor concrete block structure was incomplete. The Respondent referred to a temporary support beam to be used during the lifting operation and indicated the specification for that beam "as depicted by reference on another sheet of the drawings. Respondent, however, did not indicate what other sheet the contractor was to refer to. The permit drawings for this project, signed and sealed by Respondent, are to some extent an amalgamation of drawings from other previously designed projects, some of which are inconsistent when an attempt is made to combine the drawings into a single new design. There are a number of construction problems the Respondent failed to resolve with his drawings, and while many of the errors and inconsistencies standing alone would not be significant, the sum total of all the inconsistencies, ambiguities and inaccuracies in the drawings result in a final product which would, if used to construct the building, result in a poorly constructed, and possibly unsafe building, because of the substandard and ambiguous nature of the drawings at issue.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered by the Board of Professional Engineers suspending the license of Clarence Kimball, the Respondent herein, for a period of four years, provided however, that if, within one year from the date of such final order, the Respondent, through enrollment and successful completion of appropriate continuing engineering educational courses, can establish that his engineering skills have been remediated and rehabilitated, then the remaining three years of suspension should be abated and his licensure reinstated to its former status. DONE and ENTERED this 27th day of June, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32391 (904)488-9675 FILED with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1984.
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
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.
The Issue The issue for determination is whether Arthur Signore committed the offenses set forth in the administrative complaints and, if so, what action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Arthur Signore (Respondent) was licensed by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Petitioner) as a certified general contractor. He received his license in 1969, qualifying Deluccia Construction. Respondent was issued license number CG CA01004. Subsequently, in 1976, Respondent qualified Construction By Scott (CBS). He was issued license number CG CB01004. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the qualifier of CBS, and the sole owner and president of CBS. At all times material hereto, Respondent's belief was that Petitioner permitted a general contractor to use his/her license to obtain building permits for construction projects for which the general contractor had no contracts through the business that he/she qualified. Respondent practiced his belief frequently by applying for and obtaining building permits for construction projects for which companies or individuals other than CBS had contracts. Collins Job (Case No. 97-1436) Sometime after Hurricane Andrew in 1992, Respondent made an oral agreement with Harold Bader to go into partnership with Bader and form a construction company, with Respondent qualifying the company. Respondent provided his name, his company's name (CBS), and his license number to Bader in order for the qualifying documents to be completed and submitted to the Petitioner. However, the company was not formed and the qualifying documents were never submitted. At no time material hereto was Bader licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that Bader was not licensed by the Petitioner. In March 1994, Thomas Sherry of American Building Industries, Inc. (ABI), began negotiating with Maria and Wayne Collins, husband and wife, for the remodeling of their home, located at 7417 SW 140th Court, Miami, Florida. On March 24, 1994, the Collins entered into a contract with ABI for the remodeling of their home at a cost of $12,500. Bader was the owner of ABI. Sherry was a salesperson for Bader. Sherry provided the Collins with a business card which showed, among other things, ABI's name, address and telephone number, and license number. The license number on the business card was Respondent's license number. All business cards were provided to Sherry by Bader. At no time material hereto, did Sherry talk with or meet Respondent. The records of the Metropolitan Dade County, Building and Zoning Department reflect, among other things, Respondent's name, his company's name (CBS) and license number on the building permit application for the construction to the Collins' home. However, the address listed for Respondent and his company was the address for ABI. Further, the said records reflect, among other things, that aforementioned information provided, as to Respondent, was used to obtain the building permit. Respondent did not complete the permit application for the building permit to remodel the Collins' home. The Collins paid $6,875 to ABI. Any and all checks were made payable to ABI. No money for the construction on the Collins' home was paid to or received by Respondent. In May 1994, problems developed on the job site between the Collins and ABI. The work performed by ABI failed numerous inspections. Mr. Collins wanted to talk with Respondent who was listed as the contractor on the permit and requested Bader to contact Respondent. Bader refused, indicating to Mr. Collins that all communication should be with him (Bader). Finally, in August 1994 the Collins fired ABI after more problems had developed. At that time ABI had completed some of the work. On August 29, 1994, Mr. Collins met with Respondent at Respondent's place of business. Prior to the meeting, Mr. Collins had called Respondent numerous times regarding his problems with ABI and Bader and requesting assistance from Respondent. Each time Respondent denied having any knowledge of the work being performed. When Mr. Collins met with Respondent, Mr. Collins discussed the problems that he had experienced with ABI and Bader. Respondent continued to deny knowing anything about the construction project but agreed to send his employees to examine the job and determine what could be done, if anything. The following day two of Respondent's workers came to the Collins' home and examined the work completed and the work remaining. Subsequently, Respondent contacted Mr. Collins. Respondent indicated to Mr. Collins that he could complete the job for $5,000. Mr. Collins refused to pay the additional monies since it would extend the remodeling cost beyond the contracted cost and since he was now directly paying the subcontractors. At no time did Respondent or his business (CBS) have a contract with the Collins. Until being contacted by the Collins, Respondent had no knowledge that Bader used his name, business name and license number to contract with the Collins and to obtain the building permit for the remodeling of their home. However, prior to being contacted by the Collins, Respondent had been contacted by other persons who had contracts with ABI, who had been informed by Bader that Respondent was the contractor for their jobs, who had problems with ABI, and who wanted assistance from Respondent. Furthermore, the building permits for the construction jobs of those persons reflected Respondent and Respondent's company as the contractor. At no time material hereto was Bader or ABI licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that neither Bader nor ABI was licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent was placed on notice of their unlicensed activity after the contacts by the homeowners prior to the contact by the Collins. Even with the knowledge of the homeowners' complaints prior to the Collins' complaints, at no time did Respondent notify Bader to stop using his (Respondent's) name, company's name and license number. Further, at no time did Respondent notify the Metropolitan Dade County, Building and Zoning Department of Bader's misuse of his (Respondent's) name, company's name, and license number or to no longer issue permits to ABI under his (Respondent's) name, company and license. Walsh Job (Case No. 97-1435) In the Fall of 1995, Patrick and Susan Walsh entered into an oral agreement with John Petracelli for an addition to and the remodeling of their home, located at 761 Glen Ridge Road, Key Biscayne, Florida. On October 16, 1995, the Walshes entered into a verbal agreement with Petracelli for an engineer to produce a set of plans at a cost of $2,250 for the construction to their home. The Walshes paid Petracelli the $2,250 on October 16, 1995. On December 7, 1995, the Walshes entered into a written agreement with Petracelli for the construction work on their home at a cost of $84,000. Pursuant to this written agreement, the Walshes paid Petracelli $16,800 on December 7, 1995. Petracelli contacted Respondent and requested Respondent to be the contractor for the construction work on the Walshes' home. Respondent and Petracelli had met one another previously when Petracelli was a salesperson for Bader. Petracelli informed Respondent that he (Petracelli) had already told the Walshes that Respondent was the contractor. To the contrary, Petracelli had not informed the Walshes that Respondent was involved in the construction to their home. Respondent agreed to be the contractor but informed Petracelli that, until a set of plans was approved by the Village of Key Biscayne Building Division (Building Division), he could not provide Petracelli with a cost figure for the construction work. Petracelli informed Respondent that the plans were being prepared, but did not inform Respondent that the Walshes had paid for the preparation of the plans. Respondent agreed further to submit the completed plans to the Building Division for a "dry run" only. After the dry run, Respondent would provide a cost figure for the construction work. A dry run is a process in which a contractor, who has a complicated job which requires an engineer, submits a set of plans, together with an application for a building permit, to the Building Division for approval. The plans may be subject to several modifications requested by the Building Division before they are approved. As a result, the contractor does not know the estimated cost of a job until the plans have gone through the requested modifications, if any, and approved by the Building Division. After the plans are approved by the Building Division, the contractor is notified to come to the Building Division and sign for and obtain the building permit. Pursuant to the agreement between Respondent and Petracelli, on or about December 11, 1995, Respondent completed an application for a building permit for the addition to and the remodeling of the Walshes' home and gave it to Petracelli. The application reflected, among other things, CBS (Respondent's company) as the contractor, and Respondent as the qualifier. Respondent provided the application to Petracelli for the dry run process only. Further, Respondent reiterated to Petracelli that, once the plans were approved by the Building Division, he (Respondent) would meet with the Walshes and agree on a cost for the construction work on their home and that, after agreeing on the cost he (Respondent) would sign for and obtain the building permit for the construction to begin. Respondent was not aware that Petracelli and the Walshes had a signed agreement for the construction work. Petracelli submitted the plans, along with the permit application, to the Building Division for approval. The plans were modified several times to meet the approval of the Building Division, but were never approved. The Building Division considered the plans submitted to be substandard. Since no plans were approved, no building permit was issued. On or about January 3, 1996, the Walshes met at the Building Division with some of the Building Division's officials, Petracelli, and the engineer who prepared the plans. As a result of the meeting, among other things, the Walshes were able to review the permit application and discovered that Respondent, not Petracelli, was licensed and the contractor for the construction work; concluded that the engineer's work was considered so substandard by the Building Division that any modification produced by the engineer would not be approved by the Building Division; and determined that they no longer wanted Petracelli to perform the construction work on their home. Within 24 hours of the meeting, the Walshes telephoned Petracelli and terminated his services. Also, the Walshes requested the return of all of the monies paid to Petracelli by them; however, Petracelli did not return any of their money. At no time material hereto was Petracelli licensed by the Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that Petracelli was not licensed by the Petitioner. At no time material hereto did Respondent or his company (CBS) have a contract with the Walshes. At no time material hereto did Respondent have any communication or contact with the Walshes. Biscayne Kennel Club Job (Case No. 97-2998) The Biscayne Kennel Club (BKC), located at 320 NW 115th Street, Miami Shores, Florida, was a track for greyhound racing. On October 30, 1995, the last race was run at BKC. In February 1996, the BKC sold its Pari-Mutuel license. On or about December 11, 1996, the BKC, by and through its representative, Carl Spitzer, entered into a written contract with Cuyahoga Wrecking Corporation (CWC), by and through its representative, Thomas Schwab, for, among other things, the removal of asbestos and the demolition and removal of BKC's grandstand structure and viewing area. The contract was prepared by Schwab, who had 25 years of experience in the demolition business, with 20 years of that experience in the State of Florida. All contract negotiations were between Schwab and Spitzer. At no time was the President and CEO of BKC, Kay Spitzer, involved in the contract negotiations. As to cost, the contract provided at Article 4 that the cost was $37,500 and that the $37,500 was "dedicated to the removal of the described ACM." Further, Article 4 provided that the "balance of the work to be paid for by the sale of the ferrous and non-ferrous metals by the contractor." In addition, the contract provided in Article 7 that, among other things, all permits were included in the contract price and that BKC and the "contractor" would share "equally all the proceeds of the non-ferrous metals minus whatever costs are incurred bringing it to market." The contract did not restrict or prohibit CWC from engaging the services of any individual or subcontractor to perform the work required in the contract. The grandstand structure and viewing area were one structure. Attached to the roof of the structure was a small building which was used by BKC personnel for viewing the races. The roof was the highest part of the structure, except for the small building. The distance from ground level to the top of the roof was 69 feet and 10 inches; and the top of the small building was approximately 15 feet higher than the top of the roof. CWC contracted with Sal's Abatement to perform the asbestos removal. Schwab was licensed by Dade County, Florida, as a specialty contractor. He was notified that the work for the BKC job was outside the scope of his license and that a contractor, licensed by the Petitioner, was required for the BKC job. Schwab contacted Respondent to be the general contractor. Schwab had worked with Respondent before on other, but smaller, jobs. Respondent agreed to be the general contractor in return for a percentage of the contract. Per the agreement, Respondent would obtain the necessary permits, provide the equipment necessary for the demolition, and supervise the workers on the job. On March 6, 1997, Respondent completed an application for a building permit with Miami Shores Village, Florida, for the demolition of the BKC grandstand. The application reflected Respondent's company (CBS) as the contracting company and Respondent as the qualifier. Carl Spitzer signed the permit application on behalf of BKC. On March 17, 1997, a building permit (permit number 41084) was issued by the Village of Miami Shores for the demolition of BKC's grandstand. On April 29, 1997, the cost of the permit, $566.50, was paid. At no time material hereto was Schwab or CWC licensed by Petitioner to engage in the practice of contracting. Respondent knew or should have known that neither Schwab nor CWC were licensed by Petitioner. At no time did a contract exist between Respondent or his company with BKC for the demolition job. Respondent supervised CWC's preparation of the grandstand for demolition. In preparing the grandstand for demolition, Respondent and Schwab met at the site at least 3 times to discuss the demolition and its progress. On May 16, 1997, the grandstand was scheduled to be demolished. On the morning of May 16th, as Schwab was leaving BKC, Respondent arrived. Shortly thereafter, the grandstand accidentally collapsed--the beams supporting the roof of the grandstand failed, and the roof collapsed. Two of CWC's workers were killed and three were seriously injured. After the collapse, BKC contracted with another company, Omega Contracting, to complete the demolition job. The Petitioner submitted documents reflecting that its costs of investigation and prosecution of the complaints against Respondent, excluding costs associated with attorney's time, to be $1,017.25. On May 22, 1997, pursuant to an Emergency Suspension Order, on May 22, 1997, the Petitioner suspended Respondent's license. Respondent has no prior disciplinary action taken against him by the Petitioner.
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: Dismissing all counts in Case Nos. 97-1435 and 97-1436. Finding that Arthur Signore violated Subsections 489.129(1)(c), (e), and (j), 489.1265(3), and 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1995). Revoking Arthur Signore's certified general contractor's license. Requiring Arthur Signore to pay all reasonable costs of investigation and prosecution associated with the Department of Business and Professional Regulation's investigation and prosecution of the charges set forth in the Administrative Complaint of Case No. 97-2998.3 DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ERROL H. POWELL 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of January, 1998.
