The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to be certified by endorsement as a standard building inspector.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is the agency of the State of Florida that certifies standard building inspectors pursuant to the provisions of Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes (consisting of Sections 468.601 - 468.633). By application dated November 7, 1996, Petitioner applied for certification as a building inspector. This application contemplated that Petitioner would sit for the certification examination. Respondent determined that Petitioner was qualified to sit for the Principles and Practice portion and the Technical portion of the certification examination. Petitioner did not achieve a passing score on the certification examination. Consequently, his application for certification was rejected. By application dated December 22, 1997, Petitioner applied for certification as a building inspector without having to take the licensure examination. This was properly construed by Respondent to be an application for certification by endorsement. Petitioner requested Respondent to waive the certification examination pursuant to the provisions of Section 468.613, Florida Statutes, which provide as follows: The board shall examine other certification of training programs, as applicable, upon submission to the board for the consideration of an application for certification by endorsement. The board shall waive its examination, qualification, education, or training requirements to the extent that such examination, qualification, education, or training requirements are determined by the board to be comparable with those established by the board. By his application dated December 29, 1997, Petitioner sought certification based upon his qualifications1 and upon what his counsel referred to as "substantially equivalent" exams. The "substantially equivalent" exams to which counsel for Petitioner referred were to the examinations Petitioner passed in order to be licensed as a general contractor and as a roofing contractor. Petitioner's application reflects that he passed licensure examinations during 1983 in Broward County and in Dade County in the general contractor category. Petitioner passed a similar examination in Palm Beach County, Florida, in 1986. Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, was created by Chapter 93-166, Laws of Florida. Prior to 1993, there was no state-wide certification of building inspectors. There was no evidence as to the contents of the examinations Petitioner passed in 1983 and 1986, and there was no evidence as to the contents of the certification examination administered by Respondent to candidates for certification as building inspectors. Consequently, there is no basis upon which a comparison of these examinations can be made.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner's application for certification by endorsement be denied. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of April, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 21st day of April, 1999.
The Issue Whether or not upon inspection conducted by the Petitioner on February 26, 1976, the Respondent failed to have installed exit lights, signs, and globes for the first and second floors, in violation of Section 509.211(2), Florida Statutes and Rule 7C-1.04(3), Florida Administrative Code. Whether or not upon inspection conducted by the Petitioner on February 26, 1976, the Respondent failed to provide a handrail installation from the second to the first floor in violation of Rule 7C-1.03(1), Florida Administrative Code.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent now holds, and on February 26, 1976, held license no. 23-893H, with the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulation, Division of Hotels and Restaurants. An inspection conducted by inspectors for the Petitioner on February 26, 1976, done at the Florence Apartments, 710 Northeast 127th Street, North Miami, Florida, revealed globe lights in the areas of the exits of the first and second floors. These lights were white in color and did not indicate by writing that the areas illuminated were in fact exits. There were no other signs or apparatuses indicating the areas as exits. Inspection on that same day, to wit, February 26, 1976, and in the same location revealed that the rear stairwell within the subject building, within the first and second floors of the building, did not have a handrail presently installed on that rear stairway as called for in Rule 7C-1.03(1), Florida Administrative Code. There had been a handrail there before, but it was removed prior to the inspection. The rear stairs were flanked on one side by a full wall running from the floor to the ceiling, and by a parallel waist high wall opposite the full wall, which may be described as a banister. This banister wall was approximately 4" thick, running the length of the stairs, with a flat surface atop the banister. The flat surface spoken of does not serve the function of a handrail. The subject building was constructed prior to January 1, 1970 and is an apartment house within the meaning of Chapter 509,F.S.
Recommendation It is recommended that a fine in the amount of $100.00 be imposed in lieu of suspension or revocation, for the violation as established in count two of the complaint. DONE and ENTERED THIS 8th day of October, 1976, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 530 Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: George A. Frix Owner 365 Northeast 125th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Division of Beverage The Johns Building 725 Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32304 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS REGULATION DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS STATE OF FLORIDA, DIVISION OF HOTELS AND RESTAURANTS, Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 76-1727 FILE NO. 23-893H ROBERT J. GROVER, TRUSTEE, t/a THE FLORENCE APARTMENTS, Respondent. /
The Issue The principal issue in this case is whether certain local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by the Broward County Board of Review and Appeals (BORA) comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). As to Broward County, there is the additional issue of whether Broward County is a proper party to this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, and upon the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Findings about status of Broward County Respondent Broward County is a county created pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Broward County became a charter county effective on January 1, 1975, by a referendum approved by the voters of Broward County in November of 1974. In 1976, the Broward County Charter was amended to add a new Section 8.18, which the legislative history for the charter describes as establishing BORA as “an arm of Charter government.” Broward County has not voted to adopt any local amendments to the Florida Building Code. Findings about status of BORA Respondent BORA, is a board created under the provisions of the Charter of Broward County (the “Charter”). BORA was originally created in 1971 by a special act of the Florida legislature, 71-575, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1971. That special act adopted the South Florida Building Code, as the applicable building code for Broward County and included within the South Florida Building Code as Section 203 the following language, which created BORA: 203. Board of Rules and Appeals. In order to determine the suitability of alternate materials and types of construction, to provide for reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code and to assist in the control of the construction of buildings and structures, there is hereby created a BORA, appointed by the appointing authority, consisting of twenty-four (24) members who are qualified by training and experience to pass on matters pertaining to building construction. Findings about status of Petitioners Petitioner, TRG-Aquazul, Ltd. ("TRG"), is a Florida limited partnership and is the developer of a high-rise multi- family residential building project located in Broward County (“Project”) which is subject to the Florida Building Code, as amended, in Broward County. Petitioner, Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, is a principal of Initial Engineers. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga and Initial Engineers are the mechanical engineers of record on the Project. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga's firm has designed other high-rise residential buildings in Broward County in the past and plans on doing more such projects in the future. Petitioners allege that they will be materially and adversely affected by the application of the Broward County local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code in that the application of said technical amendments to the Project will require a redesign of the mechanical systems of the Project to comply with those technical amendments and undertaking such redesign will cost significant time and money. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga submitted plans to the Broward County Building Department for approval in connection with the Project. The plans submitted included plans for smoke control measures. The smoke control measures were not approved by the chief mechanical official because in his estimation they did not comply with the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code enacted by BORA on March 1, 2002. Despite the Broward County Building Official’s suggestion that Mr. Fernandez-Fraga appeal the Building Official’s decision interpreting the applicable code, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga decided not to appeal that decision. Rather, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga chose to challenge the validity of the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by BORA, a different appeal than the one discussed with the Building Official. TRG, through its engineer and its architect of record on the project, attempted to comply with option four of the local technical amendments at issue here, which allows one to achieve an understanding with the local building official on an alternative method for smoke control. TRG could not, and did not, reach that understanding with the Broward County Building Official. The building that TRG proposes to build is over 75 feet high, which makes it subject to the local technical amendments at issue here. At the time the local technical amendments at issue here were being adopted, Petitioners were not concerned with such developments because at that time they did not have any projects in Broward County. Findings about BORA's amendment process Once it was clear that Florida was going to have a new statewide Florida Building Code, BORA embarked upon a course of action to adopt several local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code. Such amendments were allowed, with certain qualifications and requirements, by the then-new statutes providing for the implementation of a new Florida Building Code. On March 1, 2002, BORA adopted the local technical amendments that are at issue here. Those two local technical amendmants, Sections 412 and M403.6.4, contained standards for the application and testing of smoke control systems for high-rise buildings. The two amendments were more stringent than the corresponding requirements in the Florida Building Code. Each of these local technical amendments had been part of Broward County’s local building code in effect prior to the adoption of the Florida Building Code, and as set forth in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. BORA sought to maintain the status quo within Broward County with respect to the adoption of these two local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code, a status quo that had been in effect since the mid 1980's. The two local technical amendments at issue here did not introduce any new subjects that had not previously been contained in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. The process leading up to the adoption of amendments on March 1, 2002, began several months earlier with the appointment of a committee and a sub-committee to discuss and draft proposed amendments. The chairman of BORA’s Mechanical Committee appointed a subcommittee which reviewed materials and made decisions with respect to the Local Amendments and made recommendations to the Mechanical Committee which, in turn, made recommendations to BORA The meetings of BORA’s Mechanical Committee and its Smoke Control Subcommittee were not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper of general circulation. No findings or determinations made by BORA’s Mechanical Committee or Smoke Control Subcommittee with respect to the local need to enact the Local Amendments are reflected in the minutes of their meetings. On December 13, 2001, BORA held a hearing to receive and consider information from the subcommittee and the committee regarding the pending proposed amendments. BORA’s December 13, 2001 hearing was not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. Final BORA action to adopt the proposed amendments was eventually scheduled for March 1, 2002. The March 1, 2002, BORA meeting was the only BORA meeting pertaining to the local technical amendments at issue here that was publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. BORA did not make any findings or determinations at the March 1, 2002, meeting. There was no discussion or determinations made at the March 1, 2002, hearing regarding whether there was a local need justifying the subject local technical amendments. There was no discussion at the March 1, 2002 hearing regarding the subject local technical amendments. At the March 1, 2002, meeting, BORA determined that what its Mechanical Committee presented was acceptable and BORA therefore voted to adopt it without any meaningful discussion. BORA did not make any other determinations with respect to the local technical amendments at that hearing. The members of the Florida Building Commission’s Mechanical and Technical Advisory Committee, which drafted and/or made recommendations with respect to the Florida Building Code, are presently considering the possibility of putting more stringent smoke control measures into the Florida Building Code for statewide application. Findings about the challenge process Broward County does not have, and has never had, an interlocal agreement establishing a countywide compliance review board for the purpose of reviewing any challenges to local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code that may be challenged by a substantially affected party. Neither Broward County, per se, nor any of the municipalities in Broward County, is authorized to exercise any authority over the building code in Broward County. In light of this situation in Broward County it appears to have been the concensus of the members of BORA that it was simply not necessary to structure any interlocal agreement nor create any county-wide compliance review board as otherwise generally provided for in the applicable statutory provisions. Thus, when Petitioner Fernandez-Fraga advised BORA that he wished to challenge the validity of two of the local technical amendments adopted by BORA, it was initially unclear where the challenge should be filed and where it should be heard. Following discussion with Commission staff, BORA advised that the challenge should be filed with BORA and would be heard by BORA. On or about March 20, 2003, Petitioners filed an appeal with BORA challenging the validity of the subject amendments. BORA scheduled a hearing on the challenge for April 10, 2003. BORA was apparently of the initial view that it was hearing the Petitioners' appeal in the capacity of a statutory "countywide compliance review board" because BORA originally noticed the April 10, 2003, hearing as being held by “the Board of Rules and Appeals sitting as a Countywide Compliance Review Board pursuant to Florida Statutes 553.73(4)(b) to hear challenges to Broward County Local Amendments to Sections 412 and M403.6.4 by Mr. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, P.A.” Notwithstanding the notice and agenda of the April 10, 2003, BORA meeting/hearing, during the course of the hearing BORA took the position that Broward County does not have a countywide compliance review board as described in Section 553.73(4)(b)8, Florida Statutes. Counsel for BORA stated, on the record, that BORA “has exclusive authority over the building code in Broward County.” Counsel then advised the Board: That statutory section which refers to an interlocal agreement applies to counties where the county and municipalities have the authority to amend the code. In Broward County, the municipalities and the county do not have that authority. Therefore, we don’t have a Compliance Review Board in Broward County because it’s just not authorized because we operate on a different procedure here. The Board of Rules and Appeals has the sole authority to amend the code, so we’re hearing this appeal tonight really as an appeal to reconsider whether the action of this board in March of 2002, when you passed these amendments, were done properly, and that’s the sole issue. The appeal was heard by BORA on April 10, 2003. BORA voted unanimously to deny the appeal. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga promptly received a letter from James DiPietro advising him that the appeal had been rejected. Thereafter the Petitioners timely filed their petition seeking relief from the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Building Commission issue a final order which concludes that, for the reasons set forth above, the local technical amendments adopted by BORA which are challenged in this case fail to comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2001), and are invalid local technical amendments, and further concluding that Broward County is not a necessary or appropriate party to this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. 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 30th day of June, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto, Respondent, Benjamin J. Eigner, held certified general contractor's license number CG C001534 issued by Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board. In 1980, Respondent was employed by the City of Tamarac as its chief building official. In that position his major function was to administrate and supervise employees who enforced the South Florida Building Code and the Code of Ordinances of the City of Tamarac. (Respondent's Exhibit 2). His duties included, inter alia, the review of qualifications and issuance of certificates of competency to contractors who wished to work within the City. On or about February 7, 1980, the Broward County Grand Jury issued a true bill or indictment against Respondent charging him with having solicited a bribe in his capacity as chief building official for the City of Tamarac. On or about July 3, 1980, Respondent entered a plea of nolo contendere in Broward County Circuit Court to the charge of bribery. Adjudication of guilt and imposition of sentence was withheld, and Respondent was placed on probation for a period of five years. As a special condition, Respondent was also required to spend one year in the Broward County Jail. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Because of health problems, Respondent was medically discharged from serving the remainder of his one year incarceration on January 26, 1981.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent be found guilty as charged in the Administrative Complaint and that his certified general contractor's license be suspended for a period of nine months from the date of the final order entered herein after which time it shall be automatically reinstated. DONE and ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 22nd day of October, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Myron B. Berman, Esquire P. O. Box 1113 North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Mr. Benjamin J. Eigner 7850 Beechfern Circle Tamarac, Florida 33321
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaints filed against him? If so, what discipline should he receive?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: General Information Edward Ryan is now, and has been since October, 1973, licensed as a Building Contractor by the State of Florida. He holds license number CB 0006481. Ryan has previously been disciplined by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). In July, 1987, prior to the issuance of the instant administrative complaints, he received a letter of reprimand from the Board. The Department of Professional Regulation has recently received additional complaints concerning Ryan. These complaints are currently under investigation. Ryan has been the qualifying agent for Gulf Chemical Contractors, Inc. (Gulf) since August, 1982. All ten of the instant administrative complaints involve projects undertaken by Gulf in Dade County, Florida. The South Florida Building Code (Code) has been adopted as the building code for both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Dade County. The Code provides in pertinent part as follows with respect to the requirement of permits: It shall be unlawful to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove or demolish any building structure, or any part thereof; or any equipment, device or facility therein or thereon; or to change the Occupancy of a building from one use Group to another requiring greater strength, means of egress, fire and sanitary provisions; or to install or alter any equipment for which provision is made or the installation of which is regulated by this Code; without first having filed application and obtained a permit therefor, from the Building Official, validated by payment there for. EXCEPTION: No permit shall be required, in this or any of the following Sections, for general maintenance or repairs which do not change the Occupancy and the value of which does not exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) in labor and material as determined by the Building Official. The Code further requires that the permit holder or his agent notify the Building Official of the completion of the project and call for an inspection of the work completed. Another requirement of the Code is that products such as air vent systems receive official approval from the appropriate Building Official prior to their installation. An experienced building contractor like Ryan doing business in Dade County should be aware of these requirements and should know that it is the responsibility of the general contractor of a project to make sure that these requirements are met. Case No. 89-2204 On May 2, 1987, Helana Lau and her husband entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to perform work on the Lau residence located at 2400 S.W. 15th Street in Miami, Florida, for which it was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $11,450.00 by the Laus. The work that was to be performed on the structure included, among other things, the replacement of the roof and "any rotted wood on facia and soffits" and the installation of a "filter vent system." Gulf installed an aluminum air vent system for the Laus. The product used by Gulf had not received official approval prior to its installation as required by the South Florida Building Code. Furthermore, it posed a potential safety hazard. No official inspection of the contract work performed by Gulf on the Lau residence has ever been requested, notwithstanding that Gulf has long since terminated its work in connection with the project and vacated the jobsite. Case No. 89-2205 On December 29, 1986, Marvin Lichtenstein entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to texture coat Lichtenstein's home located at 2080 N.E. 171st Street in North Miami Beach, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Gulf was to be paid $4,000.00 by Lichtenstein for performing this work. The contract contained a handwritten notation that "finances will be appr 10-11%" and that therefore Lichtenstein would have "a monthly payment of appr $71 or less" on the unpaid balance, which was $3,900.00. The contract also contained the following provision, which unlike the aforementioned notation was printed: This is an agreement by the parties mentioned herein to enter into an installment loan contract. The Purchaser requests that the Seller and the Seller's agents make the appropriate inquiries into the Purchaser's credit history and into the condition of the Title of the Property to be encumbered. The purpose of these inquiries is to see if the Seller may be able to arrange financing of the unpaid cash balance and what the terms of that financing may be. The purchaser agrees to accept any Home Improvement Contract presented by or thru the Seller, that has an interest rate less than the maximum current interest mentioned in the Florida Retail Installment & Sales Acts. The Purchaser agrees that all cost incurred by the Seller in connection with the payment plan will be paid by the Purchaser if the Purchaser refuses to accept that Home Improvement Contract. The work was performed by Gulf on the Lichtenstein home during the second week of January, 1987. Although a permit was required under the Code, it was not obtained prior to the commencement of the project or at any time thereafter. Furthermore, no official inspection of the work completed by Gulf has been requested. Following the completion of the work, Lichtenstein received from AmSav Financial, Inc., an Advance Notice of Acceptance and Intent to Purchase an FHA Title I Note. The document, which was dated January 14, 1987, provided Lichtenstein with the following information: We have found your credit to be satisfactory for a loan in the amount of $3,900.00 for a period of 60 months. Interest at a rate of 14.50% will be charged on the unpaid principal balance. Monthly payments will be $92.82. It is our intention to disburse the funds to the above mentioned dealer [Gulf] when all necessary documents, including a completion certificate indicating the work has been satisfactorily completed are received in proper order; but not earlier than six days from this date. It is not our policy to inspect all improvement projects we finance, so we want you to know that the selection of the contractor and the acceptance of workmanship and materials is your responsibility. You should insist on a copy of all instruments you sign and you should not sign the completion certificate until the contract has been fulfilled to your satisfaction. Contractors are not permitted to give cash rebates from the proceeds of this transaction nor are they permitted to make any payments for you nor any other type of incentive to buy. This commitment is good for 60 days only. If you have any questions regarding this transaction, or if we can be helpful in any way, please let us hear from you within six days from this date. Lichtenstein refused to accept this financing arrangement and, because he was dissatisfied with the work Gulf had done, withheld payment. He eventually settled this dispute with Gulf and paid the company $2,500 in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Case No. 89-2206 On or about July 11, 1987, Al Childress, the supervisor of the Code Enforcement Section of the Dade County Building and Zoning Department, received a complaint regarding work purportedly done by Gulf on the Rojas residence located at 18105 N.W. 5th Court in Dade County, Florida. Childress thereafter inspected the premises and discovered that a three-ton air conditioning unit had been installed without a permit first having been obtained. He further ascertained that no formal inspection of the installed unit had been requested. Childress subsequently issued Gulf citations for "unlawfully commencing work on a[n] air conditioning installation without a permit" and "unlawfully contracting for work outside the scope of the certificate of competency." Case No. 89-2207 On January 12, 1987, Bryan Bitner entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to remodel and renovate the kitchen and other parts of the Bitner residence located 571 N.E. 175th Terrace in North Miami Beach, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Gulf was to be paid $10,216 by Bitner. Work on the project began on February 14, 1987, and ended on April 20, 1987. Although given the opportunity to do so by Bitner, Gulf failed to finish the work it had agreed to perform and, without justification or notice, abandoned the project after having completed only 70% of the kitchen cabinetry work specified in the contract. Neither before nor after the commencement of work on the project were the required building, electrical and plumbing permits obtained. No official inspections of the work done in connection with the project have been requested. Case No. 89-2208 On December 19, 1985, Anthony and Anna Rabeck entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to perform roofing work on the Rabeck's home located at 447 East 7th Street in Hialeah, Florida, for which it was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $2,792.00 by the Rabecks. Gulf thereafter subcontracted with Louis Rusty Gordon of Rusty's Roofing to perform work on the project. Gordon performed the work, but was not paid the $600.00 Gulf had agreed to pay him. He therefore filed a lien on the Rabeck's residence in the amount of $600.00 and filed a complaint against Gulf and the Rabecks in Dade County Circuit Court seeking a $600.00 judgment against them. Gordon was ultimately paid the $600.00 by the Rabecks. A roofing permit was never obtained for the work that was done on the Rabeck residence. Furthermore, no official inspection of the work has ever been requested. Case No. 89-2209 On February 21, 1987, James Cox entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to texture coat and to add a screened porch to the Cox residence located at 11621 S.W. 183rd Street in Dade County, Florida. For this work, Gulf was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $5,700.00 by Cox. The texture coating was completed in late March, 1987. The screened porch was finished in early April, 1987. Upon completion of the entire project, Cox paid Gulf in full in accordance with their contractual agreement. Although a permit was necessary to commence the work on the Cox residence, it was never obtained. In addition, no one requested that the completed work be officially inspected. The screened porch was constructed by a subcontractor, Steve Buzzella. Prior to his undertaking this project, Gulf had agreed to pay him $2,200.00 for such work. Although he satisfactorily completed the project, Gulf did not pay him for his work. Consequently, he filed a lien on the Cox residence in the amount of $2,200.00. Buzzella has yet to be paid the money he is owed by Gulf and the lien remains in effect. Cox has retained legal counsel to assist him in connection with this matter and has already paid $175.00 in legal fees. Case No. 89-2210 On June 30, 1986, Adele Spiegel and her husband David entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed in the contract to, among other things, texture coat the Spiegels' residence located at 7380 S.W. 116th Terrace in Dade County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Gulf was to be paid $4,500.00 by the Spiegels. The contract further provided that the Spiegels were to receive a "15 year warr[anty] on [the] tex[ture] coat[ing]" work. It also contained the following provision: Contractor guarantees that all materials furnished by it will be of standard quality, type and condition, free from defects, and will be installed, built or applied in a good workmanlike manner; said labor and materials guaranteed against structural and material defects. Gulf completed the project without obtaining the required permit. Furthermore, no official inspection of the completed project was ever requested. The Spiegels paid Gulf in full for the work it had done. The last of their payments was made on July 10, 1986, following the completion of the project. After this final payment was made, "dark stains" appeared on portions of the texture coating that had been applied to the gable end of the Spiegels' roof. In addition, some of the texture coating started to peel and crack. These problems were caused by the improper application of the texture coating. The Spiegels have advised Gulf of these problems. They have made numerous efforts to have Gulf honor its fifteen-year warranty and correct these problems. These efforts have been to no avail. Gulf has yet to take any corrective action, notwithstanding its obligation to do so under the warranty it gave the Spiegels. Case No. 89-2211 On February 18, 1985, Angelo Bertolino entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to texture coat Bertolino's residence located at 11730 S.W. 175th Street in Dade County, Florida. For this work, Gulf was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $3,000.00 by Bertolino. Bertolino received from Gulf, as part of their agreement, a fifteen-year warranty on the texture coating similar to the one that the Spiegels were given. Assurances were given to Bertolino that any warranty work that was necessary would be done by Gulf. The Bertolino home was texture coated shortly after the contract was signed. In July, 1987, the texture coating began to crack and peel. Bertolino immediately contacted Gulf to apprise it of the situation and to request that it perform the necessary repairs in accordance with the terms of the warranty it had given him. Receiving no response from Gulf to this initial request, he telephoned the company's offices on almost a daily basis until September, 1987, when a Gulf representative came to his home and did some corrective work. A month later, the area that had purportedly been repaired started to again crack and peel. Bertolino has made Gulf aware of the situation and has sought on numerous occasions to have the company perform the warranty work necessary to correct these problems. Gulf has ignored these requests and failed to honor the warranty it gave Bertolino. Case No. 89-2212 On January 6, 1988, Edward Baum entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to texture coat Baum's residence located at 10921 S.W. 120th Street in Dade County, Florida. For this work, Gulf was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $3,200 by Baum. The project was completed on January 13, 1988. Upon completion of the work, Baum paid Gulf in full. Textured Coatings of America, Inc. (TCA) supplied Gulf with $583.28 of materials that were used to complete the project. The materials were supplied on credit. Because it had not received payment for these materials, TCA, on March 4, 1988, after giving due notice to Gulf and Baum, filed a lien on Baum's residence in the amount of $583.28. TCA has yet to be paid for these materials and the lien is still in effect. Case No. 89-2213 On February 17, 1987, James Harris entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to install new windows in Harris' residence located at 9730 S.W. 167th Street in Dade County, Florida, for which it was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $2,503.20 by Harris. The windows were installed in one day. Although one was needed, no permit was obtained prior to the completion of the project. Furthermore, no official inspection of the completed work has ever been requested. The windows were not installed properly. As a result, they do not close and lock as they should. Harris must put cement blocks on the outside ledges in front of some of the windows and then tape these windows shut to prevent them from falling open. Harris has unsuccessfully sought to have Gulf repair the windows.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations described in paragraph 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 16-24 of the foregoing Conclusions of Law; (2) revoking his license as punishment for these violations; and (3) dismissing the charges against Respondent discussed in paragraphs 9, 10, 13, and 15 of the foregoing Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of September, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 89-2204 THROUGH 89-2213 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Department: 1-12. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence inasmuch as it suggests that Lichtenstein was obligated to, and did, make monthly payments of $92.82. Rejected for the same reason as 13, second sentence, above. 15-16. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence to the extent that it asserts that Rojas "had hired Gulf to install an air conditioning unit." Insofar as it describes the complaint received by Childress, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence inasmuch as it indicates that the work on the Rojas residence was performed by Respondent. First and second sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact. First sentence: Rejected for the same reason as 18 above; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected for the same reason as 18 above. 22-28. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges to the extent that it addresses the quality of the work that was completed. In all other respects, this proposed finding has been accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 31-32. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 33-34. Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence inasmuch as both of these proposed findings are based upon the premise that the Rabeck's paid Gulf in full. 36-44. Accepted and incorporated by reference. 45. Rejected as unnecessary, except for the last sentence, which has been accepted and incorporated in substance. 46-62. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 63. Rejected as unnecessary except to the extent it references the lien filed against the Baum residence. Insofar as it addresses said lien, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. 65-66. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 67. First sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; second and third sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance. 68-71. Accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Victor, Esquire Jan L. Darlow, Esquire William Burke, Esquire Bayview Executive Plaza 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Edward Ryan 169 Lincoln Road Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
Findings Of Fact By Stipulation of the parties, it is found that Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CC-C015772. He is also known as Tony Gory, and was the qualifying agent for Roofing Technology, Inc., at all times material hereto. On or about August 16, 1982, Respondent submitted a proposal, on behalf of Roofing Technology, Incorporated, to Lillian Perper for roofing work to be done on her residence at 3616 Flamingo Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. Mrs. Perper accepted the proposal on August 17, 1982, and testified that the written proposal contained all terms and conditions of her agreement with Respondent. Respondent obtained the permit for this job on August 23, 1982. Mrs. Perper made timely payments to Respondent, under the terms of their agreement, totaling $11,057.00. Respondent completed the work in late September, 1982 and Mrs. Perper made her final payment on October 8, 1982. Respondent's agreement with Mrs. Perper included a warranty stated as follows: All workmanship and material to be guaranteed against defects for a period of ten (10) years; except for fire, termites, windstorm, or damages caused by acts of God. Within two months after completion of the reroofing, Mrs. Perper noted leaks in her livingroom and bedroom ceilings. She called Respondent, and-he came right out and 3 inspected her roof. He then sent a crew to Mrs. Perper's house and they attempted to locate and fix the leaks. However, they were not successful and the leaks continued. Mrs. Perper made several additional attempts to reach Respondent, but was not able to personally talk with him again about her roof. She did leave messages at his office that she was continuing to have leaks in her roof. In June, 1983, Respondent sent a crew of two men to Mrs. Perper's house to work on her roof. However, she denied them access to her roof because Respondent was not present, although they did identify themselves as roofers who Respondent had sent to repair her roof. Mrs. Perper was concerned that this crew would tear her roof off without Respondent being present to supervise the job. No additional attempts were made by Mrs. Perper to reach Respondent, or by Respondent to repair her roof, after she refused access to the roofing crew in June, 1983. The South Florida Building Code has been adopted as the building code of the City of Miami Beach. Regarding roof coverings, the South Florida Building Code provides that the building official shall be notified by the permit holder upon completion of the roof covering (Section 3401.1(b)(4)), nails should not be driven through the sheathing between supports (Section 3401.1(c)), mortar used to secure roof tile shall be sandwiched between all laps at all butts and along the sides of barrel tile (Section 3403.2(e)), roof tiles shall be secured to resist uplift forces (Section 3403.2(f)) and such tile shall extend beyond roof sheathing at the eaves (Section 3403.2(h)). An inspection of Mrs. Perper's roof conducted on February 25, 1985, by Robert B. Hilson, who was accepted as an expert in roofing and the installation of Spanish-S tile, indicates there were violations of several of the above provisions of the South Florida Building Code when he made his inspection, but there is no evidence that these violations were willful or deliberate, or that they were the result of work completed by Respondent in September, 1982. Between June, 1983, when Mrs. Perper denied access to Respondent's crew and February, 1985, when Hilson made his inspection, Mrs. Perper allowed a painter to go on her roof to see about her leak problem and to repair some flashing around her chimney. There is conflicting evidence concerning whether Respondent called for a final inspection after completing the roofing of Mrs. Perper's residence. Respondent testified that he did call for the inspection, but could offer nothing to substantiate his testimony. Petitioner called Oswald Ferro, building inspector, who testified that in the limited time he had available to him he could only find a record in the City of Miami Beach building department of one inspection on this job, but this was not a final inspection on this job. He had no personal knowledge about inspections on this job or whether Respondent had failed to call for a final inspection. Based upon the conflicting evidence presented and considering the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Petitioner has not established that Respondent failed to call for a final inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Frank A. Gory. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Errol H. Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin G. Brooks, Esquire 300 Hollywood Federal Building 4600 Sheridan Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1,2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant. 7,8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 13,14 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5,7. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. 17,18 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected in Finding of Fact 13. 21-28 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Respondent did not timely file proposed findings of fact by August 26, 1986 as required by Order entered August 6, 1986, and therefore no rulings can be made relative to any proposed findings which may be submitted by Respondent.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a Certified General Contractor should be suspended or revoked, or the licensee otherwise disciplined, for alleged violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as set for the in the Administrative Complaint dated July 17, 1981. This case arises from an administrative complaint filed by the Department of Professional Regulation, seeking to take disciplinary action against Respondent Lawrence M. Stoner, a certified general contractor, for alleged derelictions in connection with the construction and subsequent collapse of a condominium at Cocoa Beach, Florida in March, 1981. Although this case was consolidated for hearing with the case of Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board v. Bruce Alles, Case No. 81-2057, the parties announced at the commencement of the hearing that they had elected to hear this case separately. This case was originally noticed for hearing to be held on November 2, 1981. Petitioner filed a motion for continuance of the hearing on October 23, 1981 based on additional information that had been received subsequent to the filing of the Administrative Complaint. However, the matters sets forth in the motion were not considered to constitute good cause for continuance and the motion was denied. The petition alleges that although a firm named Univel, Inc. entered into a contract with another company, Palm Harbor West, Inc. to construct the condominium project in question, Univel hired Respondent to pull the building permit in the name of the corporation for which he was the qualifying agency, Dynamic Construction Company, Inc. It further alleges that Univel supervised the construction of the building and that Respondent exercised no such function. Further, it alleges that Univel supervised the construction of the building and that Respondent exercised no such function. Further, it is stated that the building collapsed in March, 1981 killing eleven persons and injuring twenty- three others, and that violations of the Southern Standard Building Code in the improper placement of steel rebars in columns, and inadequate thicknesses of floor slabs contributed to the collapse. Thus, the petition alleges grounds for disciplinary action against Respondent for acting as a contractor in the name of another, failing to notify Petitioner of his affiliation with another business organization, and failure to supervise the project. It also predicates discipline upon willful or deliberate disregard in violation of the applicable building codes in covering reinforcing steel without an inspection and deviating from approved plans and drawings. In his answer to the complaint, Respondent averred that pursuant to an agreement between his firm and Univel, Inc., his services were provided to Univel to serve as the general contractor for the project and that he did so, exercising proper supervision over construction, and that the building was built according to its engineering plans and drawings and applicable codes. The parties entered into a pre-trial statement of the issues as follows: Was there a duty under Florida Statutes 49.119(3)(b) for LAWRENCE M. STONER to notify the Department of Professional Regulation that he intended to affiliate with Univel, Inc. to do the Harbor Cay job? Did LAWRENCE M STONER act in the capacity of a contractor under any name other than the names set forth in his contractor's certificate? Did LAWRENCE M STONER have a duty to supervise and be responsible for the Harbor Cay project and, if so, did he supervise it and was responsible for that job? Did LAWRENCE M STONER willfully or deliberately disregard Section 108.2 of the Southern Standard Building Code by covering steel in concrete columns on the Harbor Cay job prior to inspection, or did he willfully and deliberately disregard Section 114 of the Southern Standard Building Code by failing to follow plans and specifications calling for an eight inch slab thickness and/or by improperly placing the steel rebar in the concrete columns? At the hearing, Petitioner presented the testimony of fourteen witnesses and submitted fourteen exhibits in evidence. Respondent called three witnesses and submitted five exhibits. Respondent's Exhibit 5 is a late-filed exhibit received by agreement of the parties. A Proposed Recommended Order filed by the Petitioner and Respondent's Summation have been fully considered and those portions thereof which have not been adopted herein are considered to be either unnecessary, irrelevant, or unsupported in law or fact.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Lawrence M. Stoner, is a certified general contractor holding license numbers CG C005313 and CG CA05313, and was so licensed at all time pertinent to this proceeding. He is the qualifying agent for Dynamic Construction Company, Inc., and Atlantic Contracting, Inc., Cocoa Beach, Florida (Testimony of Respondent, pleadings, Petitioner's Exhibit 4) Respondent has been the president of Dynamic Construction Company, Inc. since 1973. He formed Atlantic Contracting, Inc. in 1980, but it has been inactive and has never done business as a general contractor. Respondent is the sole employee of Dynamic Construction Company, Inc. Dynamic occupies one office in the offices of Univel, Inc., a general contracting firm in Cocoa Beach, Florida. Dynamic does not pay rent for the office, does not display company signs, nor does it have a telephone in its name. For the past three or four years, Dynamic has been associated with Univel according to an arrangement between Respondent and Kenneth Alles, Vice President of Univel, whereby Dynamic provided Respondent's services to Univel for the general supervision of construction projects. Under their oral agreement, the owner of a particular project would pay Dynamic a weekly sum through Univel for Respondent's services, and bonuses upon completion of a particular job for good performance. Respondent and Alles considered this arrangement to constitute a joint venture between the two general contracting firms. During the period Respondent was affiliated with Univel, he devoted his full time to its work which consisted of about a dozen projects. After approximately the first year of their association, Respondent began pulling the construction permits for the various jobs in the name of Dynamic Construction Company, Inc. Univel had a certified general contractor, David Boland, as its qualifying agent during that period until some time in late 1979. Additionally, Bruce Alles, a certified general contractor who is the son of Kenneth Alles, became a qualifying agent for Univel in the summer of 1979, but was inactive from about April, 1980 to April, 1981. In fact, from the time he became the qualifying agent, Bruce Alles did not perform any work as general contractor for Univel except one small remodeling job. Respondent has been in the construction business for approximately twenty years. The records of the Construction Industry Licensing Board fail to reflect that Respondent ever applied to be a qualifying agent for Univel, Inc., nor did he ever inform the Board of any intended affiliation with that firm. (Testimony of Respondent, K. Alles, B. Alles, Petitioner's Exhibits 4, 8) On November 1, 1980, Univel, Inc. entered into a contract with Palm Harbor West, Inc., whereby Univel agreed to construct a 118-unit condominium project to be known as Harbour Cay Condominiums at Cocoa Beach, Florida. The work was to be conducted in three phases, the first phase consisting of 45 units, the second 55 units and certain villas, and a third phase consisting of 18 villas. Completion of the work was scheduled for April 30, 1982. The contractual cost of the Phase I portion of the project was set forth in the contract as $2,283,670, including a contractor's fee of 12% of such cost. The contract provided that payment of the contractor's fee was contingent upon provisions for payment of Towne Realty, Inc. under a separate agreement between that firm, Palm Harbor West, Inc., Ken Alles, and Scott Alles. Article 16 of the contract provided that each party shall approve the cost of the other to be charged to the project and in the event one party objected to such cost, the objecting party should be allowed to substitute its subcontractor, personnel or material supplier at a lesser cost, provided it did not delay completion of the project. On February 27, 1981, Dynamic and respondent as "Contractor" entered into an agreement with Palm Harbor West, Inc., Kenneth Alles, individually, and other corporations as "Developers" wherein it was agreed that the "Developers" would hold the "Contractor" harmless from third party claims arising from work performed by the Developers; personnel or agents on various projects, including Harbour Cay. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, Respondent's Exhibit 5, Testimony of K. Alles) On October 28, 1980, Respondent applied to the City of Cocoa Beach, Florida for a building permit in the name of Dynamic Construction Company, to construct a five-story, 45-unit condominium whose owner was listed as Palm Harbor west. The listed project name was "Harbour Cay" and the architect or engineer was shown to be William Juhn. The building department, City of Cocoa Beach, issued the requested permit number B5263 on December 5, 1980. Permit conditions included the statement "All construction shall conform to the Southern Standard Building Code and other requirements of the City of Cocoa Beach, Florida." (Testimony of Respondent, Straub, Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 11) By Ordinance No. 608, dated October 18, 1979, the City of Cocoa Beach adopted the Standard Building Code as promulgated by the Southern Standard Building Congress International in 1979. Section 1601 of the Standard Building Code provides that all structures of reinforced concrete shall be designed and constructed in accordance with he provisions of Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete, ACI 318 issued by the American Concrete Institute. Although Section 114 of the Standard Building Code purports to make it a misdemeanor for any person to violate the code or construct a building in violation of a detailed statement or drawing submitted and approved under the code, the Cocoa Beach Building Code, Article 1, Section 6-3 provides for penalties under a separate city ordinance for violating provisions of the standard building code or of the city building code. (Testimony of Straub, Petitioner's Exhibits 5B-C, 6, 14) Section 106.5 of the Standard Building Code provides that whenever the work to be covered by a permit involves construction under conditions which, in the opinion of the building official, are hazardous or complex, the building official shall require that the architect or engineer who signed the affidavit, or made the drawings or computations, shall supervise such work and be responsible for its conformity with the approved drawings. Pursuant to this provision, the building official of Cocoa Beach determined that the Harbour Cay project was complex and that he did not have sufficient personnel to provide inspection services. Accordingly, he made arrangements with Respondent and the owner's representative at the site, Jack Bennett, to have the project's structural design engineer, Harold Meeler, perform such services and provide daily inspection reports to the City. Meeler assumed such functions under an oral agreement with Univel, Inc. He had either inspected or assisted city inspectors to inspect all Univel projects since 1977. (Testimony of Straub, Meeler, Respondent's Exhibit 4) Two field superintendents supervised the on-site work at the Harbour Cay project One of these, Fred W. Rustman, was employed by Univel, Inc. and had fifty years experience. The other field superintendent was Patrick T. Alles, brother of Kenneth Alles, who was employed as a site superintendent by Towne Realty, Inc. a firm which owned Palm Harbor West, Inc. His immediate supervisor was Jack Bennett, also employed by Towne Realty, Inc., who served as the "owner's representative." Alles' function was to supervise the concrete and form work, and Rustman coordinated the balance of the job and approved vendor's bills. Rustman looked upon Bennett and Kenneth Alles as his immediate supervisors. Bennett primarily did office work such as pricing, insurance matters, time schedules, and the like. He described himself as the "anchor man" of the project who could always contact the other supervisory personnel because he stayed in place. Bennett conferred with Respondent on a daily basis and was of the view that Respondent had ultimate responsibility for the project because he was the general contractor. Kenneth Alles felt that he had ultimate responsibility for construction decisions for Univel, Inc. on the project, but looked to Respondent as having ultimate overall construction responsibility. (Testimony of Rustman, Bennett, K. Alles, Henderson, Petitioner's Exhibit 12, Respondent's Exhibit 1) Respondent's functions with respect to the Harbour Cay project were varied. Although he relied upon the field superintendents for immediate supervision of construction, he conferred with them periodically for resolution of problems. Ordinarily, general contractors do not perform immediate supervisory functions at the construction site. Respondent reviewed subcontractor bids and recommended awards to be made by Univel, Inc. Univel, Inc. supplied construction personnel for the project. Respondent arranged for rental of equipment, and coordinated with the project engineers, architect, and city officials. He approved payments to subcontractors, and ensured the payment of other bills submitted by suppliers which had been approved by the field superintendents. Problems that arose were usually resolved by joint decisions of Bennett, Kenneth Alles, and Respondent. Respondent's office was approximately 1,000 yards from the job site and he made it a practice to visit the site at least three times a week. (Testimony of Respondent, K. Alles, Bennett, Rustman, Lilley) Harold Meeler conducted frequent inspections of the project and rendered periodic reports reflecting such progress, commencing with garage construction in October, 1980. He was not aware of the identity of the general contractor and generally dealt with Bennett and the field superintendents. His general practice was to inspect in the late afternoon and dictate his reports in a tape recorder on site. The reports were later transcribed and submitted to Bennett. The city building officials expected these reports to be rendered on a weekly basis to him, but they were frequently slow in reaching his office. None of the reports included any indication of construction deficiencies, but merely related when the various construction stages had been completed. Testimony of Meeler, Bennett, Rustman, Straub, Respondent's Exhibit 3) The construction schedule followed at the Harbour Cay site was to prepare reinforcing steel bars for the columns on Mondays and Wednesdays by securing them with steel stirrups on the ground. They were then placed in position within the forms for the columns. Although the specifications and drawings did not show how to place the bars, the number per column ranged from 4 to 8 bars as called for in the design specifications. It was noted by the reinforcing steel subcontractor that the columns were too narrow to adequately space 4 bars per column. However, the only way in which they could be and were placed was to align 4 bars down each side of the column. Generally, the design drawings for a construction project show detail as to spacing. It was noted that some of the bars at the Harbour Cay site were overbent. Meeler inspected the bars on the ground and after the concrete columns had been poured, but noted no deficiencies in his reports. However, he did give instructions on many occasions on placement and addition of bars. He was able to check the position of the bars in the concrete columns by reason of the fact that they extended out of the column into the next floor. The concrete floor slabs were poured two days a week after the steel had been set and the columns poured. Section 108.2(e) of the Standard Building Code provides that reinforcing steel of any part of a building shall not be covered or concealed without first obtaining the approval of the building official, the designing architect, or engineer. (Testimony of Rogers, Meeler, Bennett, P. Alles, Petitioner's Exhibits 1-2, 5a) Patrick Alles, one of the field superintendents, did not start on the job until March 9, 1981, at which time the building had been completed through the third floor. On that day he observed hairline cracks in the slabs at the top and bottom of the columns. He was concerned and notified Meeler and Bennett of the existing condition. Meeler discussed the matter with A.M. Allen, a structural engineer who had actually done the design drawings, who joined him in an inspection. Allen told Meeler that there appeared to be no structural damage, but Alles thereafter added an extra line of 4 x 4 limber supports between the floors to reshore the building. Respondent was made aware of the problem but did not actually participate in the inspection and subsequent remedial work. (Testimony of Meeler, P. Alles, Respondent) On March 26, 1981, a surveyor for A. M. Allen who had worked on the Harbour Cay building "layout", was on-site and observed that several of the building columns between the fifth floor and the roof line appeared to be deflected, and that one of the columns had a sag. He called this to the attention of Patrick Alles and they estimated the amount of deflection. Alles was of the opinion that one corner column was about 3/4" out of vertical on the north corner, and the surveyor estimated a 1 1/4" deflection. No action was taken with regard to the condition of the columns (testimony of P. Alles, Adams) Meeler's last report, dated March 28, 1981, noted that on March 27th the roof slab was being poured. Subsequently the building collapsed and, shortly thereafter, Petitioner employed a registered professional engineer to conduct an investigation into the cause of the collapse. The engineer, Oscar Olsen, was accepted as an expert in structural engineering. He commenced his investigation several days after the collapse, at which time most of the debris had been removed from the job site. He inspected the broken slabs, columns, positions of rebar, thickness of slabs, and the steel stubbed out of the floor from the foundation and column locations which were still intact to determine the placement of steel, and number and size of bars. Comparing these with the specifications, he made an analysis of the design. He concluded that the primary cause of the building's collapse was a punching shear failure of the slab around the columns due to insufficient thickness of the slab, in combination with rather small columns. He attributed this deficiency to design failure. Although the design called for 8" thick slabs he found that in most cases the slabs were under the required eight inches varying from approximately 7 1/2 to 7 5/8". "Shear" is a tendency for the slab to separate from the column and just slide down it. Although the slabs did not all meet the thickness requirements of the specifications, this fact would have had only a small influence on the building failure. The actual shear stress exceeded allowable tolerances by two to three times and therefore the slabs should have been designed to be about ten inches thick. Steel bars in the columns coming out of the first floor level in several cases were considerably out of position in that they were too closely grouped, and in some cases, they were located completely over to one side of the column and in contact with the form. Such improper spacing violated Section 7.6.3 of the American Concrete Institute Building Code Requirements for reinforced concrete (ACI 318-77) in that the clear distance between longitudinal bars was not at least one and a half times the diameter of the bar, or one and a half times the diameter of the bar, or one and a half inches. The spacing also violated Section 7.6.4 of the Code which requires that the clear distance limitation between bars applies also to the clear distance between a contact lab splice and adjacent splices or bars. This violation is based on bars projecting out of the slabs that lapped bars in the column cage that came down from above, and did not maintain the same clear distance between adjacent groups or bars. The ACI Code, in Section 1.1.1, states that the Code provides minimum requirements for design and construction of reinforced concrete structural elements of any structure erected under requirements of the general building code, of which ACI Code forms a part. The improper placement of the reinforcing bars in the columns was not the initial cause of the building collapse, but could have aggravated the situation to some degree. Three of the columns were designed in such a manner that it would have been impossible for a contractor to meet the required ACI specifications, but the rest of them could have been done properly, although it would have been difficult to do so. Although the spacing problems can arise from the size of the reinforcing bars as designed by the engineer, it is normally the contractor's ultimate responsibility to ensure that the steel is properly placed and, if a problem in placement arises, he should call the matter to the attention of the engineer. The fact that the Harbour Cay building had some variation in the plumb line on the fifth floor was not a contributing cause to the building's failure. (Testimony of Olsen, Hunter, Petitioner's Exhibits 10, 13-14) The holes left by some 30 random concrete cores taken from slabs at the Harbour Cay site were measured by Warren Deatrick, Chief Engineer and Vice President of Universal Engineering and Testing Company, who is also the President of Orlando Concrete Contractors, Inc. The measurements showed that only three of the 30 cores were less than eight inches in thickness, being 7.5", 7.8", and 7.9" respectively. He noted that a number of other cores had been taken by others in the balcony areas which were designed to be approximately 1/2" less thick than the main floor slabs. Some of the main floor core holes measured more than eight inches in thickness, up to 8.4". Of the three situations involving less than eight inches in width, only the 7.5" core holes represented an excessive tolerance within reasonable construction practices, and it could have been caused by an inadvertent deflection or depression at the particular point. Due to the manner in which concrete settles in the forms and is troweled, there are always areas that tend to produce an uneven surface. Concrete contractors uniformly point out problems in steel placement to the design engineers and follow his instructions as to whether or not to change its position because he is the person who knows what is necessary according to the design, and is familiar with the basic allowable tolerances. (Testimony of Deatrick) On October 13, 1980, prior to the issuances of the building permit for the Harbour Cay project, the city engineer of Cocoa Beach reviewed the structural calculations for the project and found that they were in accordance with Chapter XII of the Southern Building Code Congress. (Respondent's Exhibit 2)
Recommendation That the Construction Industry Licensing Board suspend the certified general contractor's licenses of Respondent Lawrence for a period of six months pursuant to Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, for violation of Section 489.119(2)(b), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of December, 1981, in Tallahassee, Florida. THOMAS C. OLDHAM Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 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 December, 1981. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire ROBERTS, EGAN & ROUTA, P.A. Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Elmo R. Hoffman, Esquire 215 East Central Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32801 Mr. James K. Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32301
The Issue Petitioner, Florida construction Industry Licensing Board (hereafter FCILB) seeks to revoke the building contractors license of Respondent, John N. Lambert (hereafter Lambert), on the ground that Lambert willfully or deliberately disregarded and violated applicable building codes of Metropolitan Dade County in violation of Section 468.112(2)(a), Florida Statutes. Initially, Lambert was also charged with abandonment of a construction project in violation of Section 468.112(2)(h), Florida Statutes. However, at the hearing, FCILB abandoned the charge.
Findings Of Fact Lambert is the holder of an inactive building contractors license number CBC009927 which legally qualified Lambert to act for Allstate Homecrafts, Inc., a corporation located in Miami, Florida, engaging in contracting work. Lambert was employed by the corporation but was not an officer or shareholder. On June 10, 1976, Lambert initiated a building permit application for work proposed to be done on the home of Mr. Nelson Tower. Mr. Tower had entered into a contract with Allstate Homecrafts, Inc., on June 4, 1976. The contract reflects that Mr. Neal Phillips acted as a corporate representative and not Lambert. The building permit was issued on August 11, 1976. On July 24, 1976, Allstate Homecrafts, Inc., contracted with a Mr. William Millman, and once again the contract reflects that Neal Phillips was the corporate representative and not Lambert. On September 13, 1976, and again on September 30, 1976, Lambert made application for a building permit with she City of Coral Gables, Florida, for the Millman job. Work was commenced on both projects. Work was still in progress on October 26, 1976, when Lambert wrote a letter to FCILB requesting that his qualification as contractor for Allstate Homecrafts, Inc., cease immediately. The reasoning given by Lambert, without further explanation, was that he could "in good conscience no longer comply" with Florida law regarding licensing of construction industry. Lambert further requested in the letter that he be requalified as an individual licensee. On the same date, Lambert terminated his employment with Allstate Homecrafts, Inc. The Tower project continued on until January, 1977, when it was abandoned by Allstate Homecrafts, Inc. The contract price was $30,000.00 and over $25,000.00 in draws were made. Five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) was drawn on November 2, 1977 $5,000.00 wad drawn on November 24, 1976, and $5,000.00 was drawn on December 16, 1976. These occurred after Lambert terminated his relationship with Allstate Homecrafts, Inc. After the contract was abandoned in January, 1977, Tower spent another $23,000.00 to finish the project. The Millman job continued until December, 1976, at which Lire it was abandoned at about 60 percent completion. A $10,000.00 draw was made on November 4, 1976, and a $5,000.00 draw was made on December 2, 1976. Millman spent an additional $10,000.00 to finish the project. Neither Tower nor Millman ever saw Lambert. All monies paid were given to other corporate representatives. While there was some evidence that violations of applicable building codes did occur, there was a complete absence of evidence to establish that Lambert willfully or deliberately disregarded the South Florida Building Code 4501.2(d)(4); failure to correct an electrical hazard. On February 2, 1978, the Dade County Construction Trade Qualifying Board reported that it had found that there was a prima facie showing of the charges brought against Lambert.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered residential contractor having been issued license number RR 0040275. In approximately 1980, Respondent entered into a contract to erect a screen room for a Mr. Lewis. Under the terms of the contract, Respondent was to obtain the necessary building permit. After the contract had been signed, Respondent's grandfather died, and Respondent therefore went to New Jersey. He left the permit application with his qualifying agent to sign and process through the building department. When Respondent returned from New Jersey approximately 30 to 35 days later, he went to the Lewis job site and found the project almost completed. Respondent did not check to ascertain if the permit had been obtained, but rather completed the screen room himself. Lewis subsequently contacted Respondent to say that he had received a notice of violation from the building department for erecting a screen room without a permit. Respondent contacted the building department and advised that it was not Lewis's fault, but rather that it was Respondent's responsibility to pull the permit. Respondent was charged with unlawfully erecting a screen room without a permit; he appeared in court and pled guilty; and he paid a $250 fine pursuant to the adjudication of guilt entered on April 20, 1981, in the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida, in Case No. 81-50438. On June 24, 1981, Respondent submitted to the Construction Industry Licensing Board a Contractor's Registration application. On that application, Respondent answered in the negative the following question: "Has any person named in (i) below ever been convicted of any offense in this state or elsewhere other than traffic violations?" At the time Respondent gave that answer, he believed it to be true. He understood the question to call for information on criminal acts and did not comprehend the "screen room" charge to have been criminal conduct. Since Respondent answered that question in the negative, his application for registration was processed in accordance with normal procedures. Had Respondent answered that question in the affirmative, his application would not have gone through normal processing but rather would have been presented to the Construction Industry Licensing Board for the Board's determination of whether to approve the application based upon a consideration of the facts. On November 22, 1982, Respondent contracted with Naomi Blanton to construct an addition to Blanton's home located in the City of Miami, in Dade County, Florida, for a contract price of $11,250. When Respondent had first met with Blanton several months earlier, he had told her he could guarantee completion of the project within 45 days. No contract was entered into at that time, however, since Blanton had not obtained the financing she needed in order to construct an addition. When the contract was signed on November 22, Respondent told Blanton he would start the job when he finished the Chamber of Commerce building he was con structing but that he was starting a 12-unit duplex project around Christmas and would not be able to guarantee any 45-day completion deadline. Accordingly, when the contract was signed, no completion date was included in the terms of that written contract, since Respondent did not know when he could guarantee completion. The Blanton contract written by Respondent specifically provided that Respondent would obtain the building permit. On December 22 and 23, 1982, two of Respondent's employees arrived at the Blanton job site, dug a trench, knocked down the utility room, and moved Mrs. Blanton's washing machine. No further work was done until January 1983. Since Respondent knew that he was required to obtain the building permit before commencing any construction work, Respondent submitted his plans and permit application to the City of Miami Building Department. After the plans had been there about a week, he was advised that his plans would not be accepted unless they were drawn by an architect, although that is not required by the South Florida Building Code. After attempting several more times to obtain approval from the City of Miami Building Department, Respondent hired an architect to redraw the plans and secure the building permit. By this time, Respondent found himself unable to concentrate on operating his business efficiently, since he was preoccupied with spending time with his father who was dying of cancer. Also by this time, Blanton had commenced telephone calls to Respondent on an almost daily basis as late as 11:00 p.m. at his office, at his home, at his mother's home, and at his father's home. Respondent offered to return Blanton's deposit, but she refused to cancel the contract and threatened Respondent that she would sue him if he did not comply with that contract. Respondent commenced working on the Blanton job, although no permit had yet been obtained. The contract on the Blanton job called for payments at certain stages of the construction. By January 27, 1983, Respondent had completed a sufficient amount of the work under the contract so that Blanton had paid him a total of $8,270 in accordance with the draw schedule contained in the contract. Respondent ceased working on January 27, 1983, and advised Blanton and her attorney that he would do no further work until he could obtain the building permit, which he had still not been able to obtain. Although he told them his work stoppage was due to his continued inability to obtain the permit, he also stopped work due to his father's illness and his continued inability to get along with Mrs. Blanton. A delay occurred with the plans being redrawn by the architect Respondent hired to obtain the Blanton building permit, since the architect needed information from Blanton and she was out of town. After Blanton returned, the architect made unsuccessful attempts to obtain the building permit. Respondent and his architect were finally able to speak to one of the top personnel in the City of Miami Building Department about the problems they were experiencing in obtaining a building permit, and, at about the same time, Blanton contacted that same individual to complain that Respondent had no permit. On May 4, 1983, the building department finally accepted the second permit application together with the plans drawn by the architect, and the building permit was issued on May 4, 1983. No work was performed on the Blanton job between January 27, 1983, when Blanton paid Respondent the draw to which he was entitled by that date, and May 4, 1983, when the building permit was finally issued by the City of Miami. Respondent immediately resumed work and quickly completed the next stage of construction called for under the Blanton contract. Upon completing that next stage, he requested his next draw payment; however, Blanton decided not to pay Respondent for the work completed and had her attorney advise Respondent not to return to the job site. Blanton then had a friend of her son come to Miami from Wisconsin to complete the addition to her home. At all times material hereto, Respondent held a certificate of competency issued by Metropolitan Dade County.
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 violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by willfully and deliberately violating Section 301(a) of the South Florida Building Code; imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $2,000 to be paid by a date certain; and dismissing the remaining charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, 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 13th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joseph F. Scioli, Jr. 246 North Krome Avenue Florida City, Florida 33034 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
