The Issue Whether the Respondent willfully violated local building codes and abandoned a job.
Findings Of Fact David Cobb is a registered general and registered roofing contractor with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The job in question was done in Gainesville, Florida. Gainesville has a local building code, having adopted the Southern Standard Building Code, but does not have a local competing board. Cobb entered into a contract with John Larramore for a room addition to Larramore's home. Larramore paid Cobb a total of $2,475.84 on the job which was priced as $4,080.24, an amount which included the price of floor covering which both parties acknowledged would be purchased by Larramore and deducted from the monies paid Cobb. Cobb began work on the project. Larramore was not happy with the craftsmanship on the job, which was overseen by Cobb's foreman. Eventually, Larramore contacted a friend who was a contractor. This friend indicated to Larramore that the job should be inspected by the building inspectors of Gainesville, and Larramore contacted the Building Department of Gainesville. Pending inspection by the Department, Larramore told Cobb to stop work until he was contacted again. The chief building official, Leslie Davis, inspected the Larramore job on May 4, 1979. He found several violations of the local building code. Davis was accompanied by the Board's investigator, Herman Cherry. Davis contacted Cobb and advised him to correct the code violations. Davis sent Cobb a letter on May 10, 1979, outlining the violations and giving Cobb 14 days to correct these violations. See Exhibit 5. Cobb tried to contact Larramore by telephone without success concerning correction and completion of the job. Eventually, Cobb wrote Larramore an undated letter, Exhibit 4, which was written after the inspection by Davis and Cherry on May 4, 1979. Larramore was uncertain of the date he received the letter but did acknowledge it was after the Davis/Cherry inspection. Larramore did not contact Cobb after he received Cobb's letter. Instead, he contracted with another contractor to complete the job. This contractor began work on May 17, 1979.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board take no action against David Cobb. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Mr. David Cobb Post Office Box 1306 16146 James Couzens Freeway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Detroit, Michigan 48221
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered roofing contractor (RC- 0034055), building contractor (CB-C033206), and certified roofing contractor (CC-C035625). At the time of hearing, license RC-0034055 had expired and was no longer in effect. Although Petitioner introduced a "certification of licensure", executed by its custodian of records which purports to establish prior disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board against Respondent, said certification references license number CG-C024378. There is no documentation in the record to establish that Respondent has license number CG-C024378, and in any event if this is, in fact, his license, this case does not involve license number CG-C024378. The records' custodian was not present to testify or to be cross-examined, and therefore this apparent discrepancy in the certification is unexplained. Further, the only documentation introduced to support prior disciplinary action by the Board against one of Respondent's licenses, is a certified copy of an order dated August 7, 1985 (Case No. 0051210), but this case involves license RC-0034055, which expired in July 1987 and is no longer in effect. Therefore, it has not been established by evidence in this record that Respondent has previously been subject to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board concerning his current valid licenses, CB- C033206 and CC-C035625. Respondent was the qualifying agent at all times material hereto, of Unique Construction, Inc., 1302 North Clearview Avenue, Tampa, Florida. On February 25, 1986, George Katsarelis entered into a sales contract with Unique Construction, Inc., to reroof his entire house at 6 Venetian Court, Tarpon Springs, Florida. Respondent was not present when the contract was executed, and had not met Katsarelis at the time work commenced on the job. Katsarelis specified to the salesman representing Unique Construction, Inc., that he wanted to be sure all required local permits were pulled for this job. Work on the Katsarelis roof began within only a few days of the execution of the sales contact. Crews from Unique Construction tore off approximately 80% of the Katsarelis roof before a City of Tarpon Springs building inspector stopped work on the job because no permit had been obtained. Thereafter, it took two days for Unique to put a temporary cover over Katsarelis' uncovered roof while a permit was being obtained. A permit was finally obtained on March 19, 1986, and the work was completed. Katsarelis paid Unique Construction, Inc., $7,000, the full contract amount, for reroofing of his home. Between February 25, 1986, and December 1987, Katsarelis had to repeatedly call Unique Construction since his roof leaked every time it rained. A ten foot ceiling section in his Florida room eventually caved in due to these leaks. In December 1987, Respondent came to Katsarelis' home for the first time and decided to reroof the whole house for a second time. No additional payment was required or made by Katsarelis for this second reroofing job. After a hard rain in April 1988 his roof again leaked, and within a week prior to hearing, Respondent made a third attempt to correct Katsarelis' leak problem. According to expert testimony and evidence offered at hearing by Owen Baynard, who was accepted as an expert in roofing, work performed by Unique Construction on the Katsarelis roof was incompetent and the result of a lack of proper supervision of the work crews by the qualifying agent, Respondent. The job fails to meet the standards of local building practices. There was improper and insufficient preparation of the roof surface, a lack of adequate adhesive, nailing, and mopping to meet Sections 101, 107, 109 and 113 of the Southern Standard Building Code Roof Coverings standards, applicable in this case. The only way to remedy Katsarelis' continuing leak problem is to completely redo all work done by Unique Construction on his roof, and completely reroof his house in a workmanlike manner. As qualifying agent for Unique, Respondent was responsible for beginning work on Katsarelis' roof without obtaining or assuring that someone else had obtained a local permit for the job. A permit was not posted on the site when this work began, in violation of local building code requirements. Respondent failed to obtain required local building department inspections on the job. Respondent's actions on the Katsarelis job, as qualifying agent and in actions taken personally on two occasions to correct continued leakage, were incompetent and of substandard quality. On December 17, 1986, Lawrence E. Burkett entered into a sales contract with Unique Construction, Inc., to reroof his home on 62nd Avenue, N.E., in St. Petersburg, Florida. Work commenced shortly after this contract was executed, and upon completion Burkett paid Unique $3,657, the contract amount. Respondent admits that leaks continued to exist in Burkett's roof for nine or ten months after Unique's crews worked on his roof. Finally, on September 16, 1986, Unique's crew replaced a section of roof and this corrected the leaking. In an attempt to correct or prevent damage from leakage, Unique's crews installed pans between Burkett's drop ceiling and the roof to catch water which was leaking into his Florida room. A permit was not posted on the Burkett job, but the record does not establish whether a local permit for this job was required to be posted. On or about February 23, 1987, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the United Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa. However, no action was taken against his local certificate. This reprimand resulted from a roofing job performed by Respondent on the home of Gerald T. Minnick in late 1986. Repeated attempts by Respondent to correct leakage in the Minnick roof failed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's licenses numbered CB-C033206 and CC-C035625 for a period of six (6) months and imposing an administrative fine of $2,500; provided that after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the issuance of the Final Order if Respondent pays said fine in full, his license shall be immediately reinstated. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of August, 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 220 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William E. Whitlock, III, Esquire 116 East 3rd Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0034898. He operates a business known as B & P Roofing at 244 Tollgate Trail, Longwood, Florida. The Respondent has appropriately qualified the business name of "B & P Roofing" with the Petitioner. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, with regard to licensure of building contractors, the regulation of their licensure status and methods of operation and practice. During June of 1981, the Respondent, doing business as B & P Roofing, contracted to perform a re-roofing job with Mr. Jack Mewhirter, whereby he was to put a new roof on a residence at 137 Variety Tree Circle, Altamonte Springs, Florida. The construction of the roof was contracted for and completed during June, 1981. The Respondent failed to obtain a building permit before or during construction of the roof and also failed to obtain a final inspection of the roof when it was finished in June, 1981. The Respondent's testimony establishes that the Respondent was familiar with the building code adopted in Seminole County and familiar with the requirement that he was responsible as the contractor, to obtain a permit before commencing construction of the roof and that he was also responsible for obtaining a final inspection by the Seminole County Building Official. In response to a complaint from Mr. Mewhirter, the owner of the residence, the Seminole County Building Officials, Mr. Flippent and Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer became aware that no building permit had been obtained for the re-roofing job and that no final inspection had been obtained pursuant thereto. Accordingly, Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer inspected the roof in November, 1981, and Mr. Flippent informed the Respondent of the necessity to obtain a building permit and a final inspection. Thus, on November 10, 1981, the Respondent obtained the building permit and called for the final inspection. Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer was unable to sign the final inspection document as "satisfactory" because he was unable to adequately inspect the roof once it was finished. He had been unable to inspect the method by which it was installed during its construction due to the Respondent failing to inform him or his superiors that the roof was under construction and that inspections were needed at that time. hen the Respondent entered into the contract with Mr. Mewhirter, he informed Mr. Mewhirter that he would not obtain a building permit because that would "drive the cost up." The Respondent, in his testimony, denied that he made such a statement, but Mr. Mewhirter's testimony is here found more credible because of the facts established by Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer's testimony that a random check of the roof after he finally was able to inspect it in November, 1981, revealed that all the shingles he examined were nailed with only three nails and were nailed too high up near the upper edge of the shingle, which is a substandard method of installing the roof and which permits storm winds or rain to raise the shingles, causing possible damage to the roof. The fact that the roof was installed in this fashion and that fact that the Respondent admittedly knew of the requirements of the building code and the requirement that a permit be obtained and inspections be made during the course of and at the conclusion of the job, indicated that the Respondent was knowingly trying to avoid the necessity of obtaining a permit and a final inspection and thus lends sufficient credibility to Mr. Mewhirter's testimony regarding the reason the Respondent obtained no permit. In any event, the roof was shown to not be constructed in accordance with the building code. In summary, it was established that the Respondent knew of the appropriate building code, was thoroughly familiar with it and and indeed had installed an excess of seven hundred roofs since he entered the business. He was aware, in connection with the need for obtaining a building permit, that he should also obtain inspections during the construction and a final inspection when the roof was finished, which he failed to do until reminded of his violation by the building department five months after the roof was completed, at which time it was too late to perform the appropriate inspections. Thus, the roof could not be approved by the building department of Seminole County. The Respondent admitted to only being present on the subject job site for approximately an hour and a half during the entire construction of the roof and he admittedly did not bother to look to see if a permit was on the job site at that time, or any other time. Finally, although the Respondent remonstrated that his failure to get a building permit at the appropriate time was inadvertent and due to his assumption that other office personnel had taken care of the obtaining of the permit, that testimony is not found to be credible since it was established, through the testimony of Mr.. Mewhirter, that the Respondent consciously decided not to obtain a permit prior to starting construction of the roof.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, George G. Vincent, be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and that an administrative fine of $1,000 be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Siegel, Esquire 292 U.S. Highway 17-92 P.O. Drawer 965 Fern Park, Florida 32730 James A. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, v. DPR Case No. 0017669 DOAH Case No. 82-1341 GEORGE C. VINCENT B & P Roofing RC 0034898 244 Tollgate Trail Longwood, Florida 32750, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant, Respondent was licensed as a certified building contractor holding license number CB CO24185. On or about March 14, 1983, Respondent, doing business as Duran Construction Co., contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Butler of San Mateo, Florida, to construct a room addition and freestanding carport at their residence for $6,825. Subsequently, Respondent constructed an aluminum "roof- over" by rate contract for an additional $2,000. Respondent completed the freestanding carport and aluminum roof-over projects without apparent difficulty. However, he began the room addition without obtaining the required building permit from Putnam County. 1/ He obtained an after-the-fact permit about April 21, 1983, but was issued a "correction notice" by the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department on April 22, 1983, ordering all work to cease until the cited deficiencies were corrected. 2/ The chief building inspector arranged to meet Respondent on April 214, 1983, at the construction site. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the corrective measures required on the partially completed room addition. Respondent did not attend this meeting and did no further work on the project. His failure to attend the meeting or continue work was not explained to either the building officials or the property owner. At the time Respondent discontinued work, he had been paid $4,550 on a written contract which covered the finished carport as well as the incomplete room addition. He had also been paid $2,000 for the finished roof-over project which was the subject of an oral contract. Respondent would have been entitled to an additional $2,275 on the written contract had he completed the room addition. By letter of May 6, 1983, the Butlers' attorney advised Respondent that he would initiate legal action against him unless the project was completed by May 13, 1983. However, Mr. Butler had already applied to the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department for reissuance of the permit to himself in place of Respondent. The permit was reissued to Butler on May 6, 1983 and the project was completed without Respondent's further involvement.
Recommendation From the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order finding Respondent guilty of violating Subsection 489.129(1)(d), F.S., and suspending his contractors license for a period of four months. DONE and ENTERED this 16th day of November, 1984 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 323301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 16th day of November, 1984. 1/ A building permit must be obtained prior to construction. Section 106.1(a), Putnam County Building Code (PCBC). The PCBC is the Southern Standard Building Code adopted by Putnam County Ordinance 83-2. 2/ See Section 103.2, PCBC. The cited deficiencies included insufficient girder support for floor joists and inadequate roof framing with respect to rafters and beam construction. COPIES FURNISHED: James H. Gillis, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Dean Arturo Duran 11680 N.W. 15th Lane Ocala, Florida 32675 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
The Issue Whether Respondent, who is licensed as a Plans Examiner, a Building Inspector, and a Building Code Administrator, committed the offenses alleged in the three-count Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties if any that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate Building Code Administrators and Inspectors pursuant to Section 20.165, Chapter 455, and Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held licenses as a Standard Plans Examiner in Building and Mechanical; a Standard Inspector in Building and Mechanical; and a Building Code Administrator. Section 468.603(1), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: Building code administrator" or "building official" means any of those employees of municipal or county governments with building construction regulation responsibilities who are charged with the responsibility for direct regulatory administration or supervision of plan review, enforcement, or inspection of building construction, erection, repair, addition, remodeling, demolition, or alteration projects that require permitting indicating compliance with building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other construction codes as required by state law or municipal or county ordinance. This term is synonymous with "building official" as used in the administrative chapter of the Standard Building Code and the South Florida Building Code. . . . Section 468.603(2), Florida Statutes, provides the following definition relevant to this proceeding: (2) "Building code inspector" means any of those employees of local governments or state agencies with building construction regulation responsibilities who themselves conduct inspections of building construction, erection, repair, addition, or alteration projects that require permitting indicating compliance with building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other construction codes as required by state law or municipal or county ordinance. Section 468.603(6), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Categories of building code inspectors" include the following: "Building inspector" means a person who is qualified to inspect and determine that buildings and structures are constructed in accordance with the provisions of the governing building codes and state accessibility laws. * * * (e) "Mechanical inspector" means a person who is qualified to inspect and determine that the mechanical installations and systems for buildings and structures are in compliance with the provisions of the governing mechanical code. Section 468.603(7), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Plans examiner" means a person who is qualified to determine that plans submitted for purposes of obtaining building and other permits comply with the applicable building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other applicable construction codes. Categories of plans examiners include: (a) Building plans examiner. * * * (c) Mechanical plans examiner. Section 468.603(7), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Building code enforcement official" or "enforcement official" means a licensed building code administrator, building code inspector, or plans examiner. Ramon Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., was not licensed as a construction contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Melendez was not individually licensed as a construction contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., was not qualified as a construction business by any certified or registered contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. On or about March 20, 1998, Mr. Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., contracted with Pedro Camacho to re-roof the residence located at 3961 N.W. 170th Street, Miami, Florida, for the sum of $3,000. Mr. Camacho paid Mr. Melendez the agreed sum in cash based on the contract dated March 20, 1998. On or about June 3, 1998, Mr. Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., contracted with Santos Valentin to re- roof the residence located at 4412 N.W. 185th Street, Opa Locka, Florida, for the sum of $2,800. Mr. Valentin paid R.E.M. Roofing, Inc. the sum of $1,400 on June 8, 1998. Mr. Valentin paid Mr. Melendez the additional sum of $800 on June 10, 1998. Both payments, which were by check, were for the roofing work described in the contract dated June 3, 1998. On April 6, 1998, Respondent applied for and obtained a permit for the Camacho roofing work. This permit application was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning Development and Regulation. Respondent signed the permit application as “the contractor” and inserted his contractor license number and social security number on the application. The application submitted by Respondent on April 6, 1998, was a fraudulent sham. At no time was Respondent the contractor for the Camacho roofing work. Respondent’s action in obtaining the building permit aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting. On June 8, 1998, Respondent applied for and obtained a permit for the Valentin roofing work. This permit application was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning Development and Regulation. Respondent signed the permit application as “the contractor” and inserted his contractor license number and social security number on the application. The application submitted by Respondent on June 8, 1998, was a fraudulent sham. At no time was Respondent the contractor for the Valentin roofing work. Respondent’s action in obtaining the building permit aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting. Miami-Dade County Compliance Investigator Daniel Vuelta filed criminal charges against Respondent in two separate criminal cases. One case was for his involvement in the Camacho roofing project and the other was for his involvement in the Valentin roofing projects. These cases were brought in Miami- Dade County Court and assigned case numbers M99-57926 and M99- 57931. In each case, Respondent was charged with one count of Unlawful Application for Building Permit and one count of Aiding and Abetting an Unlicensed Contractor. All charges were first- degree misdemeanors. On February 22, 2001, Respondent entered into a plea agreement to resolve those criminal charges. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to each of the two counts in Case M99-57931, and he was subsequently adjudicated guilty of each count. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to nolle pross Case M99-57926. The crimes to which Respondent entered a guilty plea involved fraudulent building permits and, consequently, were directly related to building code enforcement. Petitioner’s investigative costs for this case, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, were $427.29.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the offenses alleged in Counts I, II, and III. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order revoke Respondent’s licensure and impose an administrative fine against him in the amount of $3,000. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner order Respondent to pay its investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, in the amount of $427.29. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S 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 7th day of April, 2005.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Robert Kegan (Mr. Kegan) committed violations of Chapters 455 and 468, Florida Statutes, as alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department).
Findings Of Fact Mr. Kegan has a Certificate of Licensure from the Florida Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board. He was first licensed in 1994, and, unless he renewed it, the license expired on November 30, 2008. At all times pertinent, he was the Building Code Administrator in Mt. Dora, Florida. Mr. Kegan has never been employed by the City of Leesburg in any capacity. The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of building code administration and inspections pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 468, Florida Statutes. Linda Renn purchased a home located at 2407 Winona Avenue, Leesburg, Florida, from Mr. Kegan and his wife pursuant to a contract entered into during March 2001. Prior to entering into the contract for sale, Ms. Renn walked through the house with Mr. Kegan. Ms. Renn was aware that it was an older home and testified, "And I felt very comfortable after leaving the home and doing the walk through that even though I was buying an older home with older home obsolescent issues types, but that the renovations were enough that I felt comfortable." Ms. Renn typed up an addendum to the contract prior to execution that stated Mr. Kegan would level a part of the house that required leveling, install an HVAC, install a 220-volt outlet for the clothes dryer, and would accomplish certain other improvements prior to closing on the home. The addendum became part of the contract for sale. Mr. Kegan provided Ms. Renn with his business card indicating that he was the Building Code Administrator in Mt. Dora. Ms. Renn observed Mr. Kegan in a shirt with the Mt. Dora logo upon it, indicating that he was a building official of Mr. Dora, and she visited him in his office in Mt. Dora. There is no question Ms. Renn was aware that he was a building official in Mt. Dora. Ms. Renn claimed that because he was a building official she completely relied on the representations he made to her. However, this assertion lacks credibility because she employed an independent home inspector prior to closing. During the walk-through, the HVAC was resting upon the floor of the home's garage. However, at a time between March 17 and April 29, 2001, Mr. Kegan had the HVAC installed, as he agreed. Subsequently, Ms. Renn discovered this work was accomplished by an unlicensed individual. An inspection of the premises was conducted by Guy Medlock of Benchmark Building Inspections, Inc., on March 29, 2001. A report was issued on March 30, 2001. The report noted that the dwelling was 53 years old and had problems that one would expect from a home that old. Mr. Medlock also noted that the house had a lot of charm. Mr. Medlock's inspection noted that the dwelling required roof repairs and wood rot repairs. It was noted that it was necessary to ameliorate water leaks and correct electrical deficiencies, among other items. There were seven items noted with estimated costs of repair ranging from $50.00 to $150.00. At the time of the inspection, the 220-volt receptacle had not been installed for the washer and dryer. Mr. Medlock further noted that there was no plumbing available for the washer. Because of Mr. Medlock's report, Ms. Renn was well aware of the defects he noted, and she knew this prior to closing. The report stated that he, Mr. Medlock, had discussed the electrical deficiencies with Ms. Renn and suggested that she have an electrician inspect the dwelling. Ms. Renn testified that she gave greater weight to Mr. Kegan's knowledge than to the home inspector that she hired, but there is no basis in the record for her to arrive at that conclusion. On April 29, 2001, the day before closing, Economy Electric of Eustis, Florida, installed a 220-volt line, and Mr. Kegan paid for this work. Economy Electric's principal is Larry New. He is licensed to accomplish electrical work. He performed additional electrical work that was paid for by Ms. Renn, including upgrading wires so that her computer would not be damaged by bad wiring. On April 30, 2001, Mr. and Mrs. Kegan conveyed the premises to Ms. Renn by warranty deed. Subsequently, Ms. Renn concluded that she was not happy with certain facets of the house, and tried to contact Mr. Kegan to have her perceived problems corrected. Mr. Kegan was difficult to contact. In a letter dated November 4, 2001, Ms. Renn filed a 16-page complaint with the Department alleging numerous Florida Building Code violations by Mr. Kegan. She requested that the Department investigate these alleged violations. Sometime immediately prior to January 10, 2002, Ms. Renn had Raymond Anderson of Suter Air Conditioning, Inc., of Leesburg, inspect the HVAC. He made Ms. Renn aware of several city code infractions involving the HVAC. Sometime immediately prior to January 11, 2002, Ms. Renn had someone named James A. Dolan inspect the electrical service at the premises. In a letter dated January 11, 2002, Mr. Dolan stated that there were "national electrical code violations" at the house and that it was his opinion that an electrical inspector or building code official should look into the situation. Ms. Renn believed this to be true. Sometime immediately prior to February 5, 2002, Ms. Renn had the electrical service inspected by Bronson Electric Service, Inc., of Eustis, Florida. In a letter dated February 5, 2002, David E. Bronson reported numerous electrical deficiencies, including an improperly fused air conditioning unit. Mr. Bronson found that the electrical service to the house required an upgrade to 150 amps because the current service was inadequate. He quoted a price of $1,546.00 to accomplish the required modifications. Ms. Renn believed this to be accurate. Ms. Renn employed an inspector from Ocala, Florida, who prepared an inspection report dated May 10, 2002. She learned there were plumbing, electrical, and mechanical problems. She also learned that the roof did not meet building code standards. She noted that for a period of two and one-half years, the HVAC neither cooled nor heated, although it did make some noise. Permits were required for the electrical upgrade and for the air conditioning installation in Ms. Renn's house. No permits were obtained by Mr. Kegan, or his friends, or persons he employed to work on Ms. Renn's house, as were required by the City of Leesburg. By April 18, 2002, all permits had been obtained. Unlicensed persons worked on both the HVAC installation and the electrical upgrade. Work of that sort is lawful only if accomplished by licensed persons. The work accomplished without the appropriate permit and the work done by unlicensed persons, was done under the control of Mr. Kegan. Ultimately, Larry New, a licensed electrician, and Jimmy Harris, a licensed person, fixed all of the problems; got the work inspected; and ensured that all permits were in place. After her complaint to the Department which was drafted November 4, 2001, and submitted in early 2002, Ms. Renn was informed by the Department that she should handle the case locally. Complaints were made by Ms. Renn to the Leesburg Building Department and to many other officials of the Leesburg municipal government. Ultimately, a hearing regarding Mr. Kegan was held before the Lake County Board of Building Examiners (County Board) on August 7, 2003, in Tavares, the county seat of Lake County. Both Leesburg and Mt. Dora are in Lake County. The County Board heard charges against Mr. Kegan's contractor's license for accomplishing work in the trades of roofing, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing using unlicensed workers and failing to obtain permits. It imposed sanctions, including a $1,000 fine. The County Board required Mr. Kegan to do the work he promised, but it was clear that he had already accomplished that work, except for some roofing issues not further identified. The County Board did not address his position as the Building Code Administrator in Mt. Dora, Florida. The action of the County Board was subsequently reversed by a circuit court. Relations between Ms. Renn and Mr. Kegan eventually deteriorated to the point where Ms. Renn had a trespass warning served on Mr. Kegan and sought to have the state attorney prosecute him for trespass. She was not successful in this. She also sued Mr. Kegan civilly, but eventually she voluntarily dismissed the case. None of the actions taken by Ms. Renn, resulted in Mr. Kegan being disciplined. At some point thereafter, Ms. Renn appeared to be satisfied with her house and the retaliation she had visited upon Mr. Kegan. However, while Ms. Renn was "working on legislation" in Tallahassee, Florida, in 2006, she was asked by a Department attorney to reopen the case. Other than the transcript from the County Board hearing of August 7, 2003, nothing had changed. Every problem she had with the house that should have been ameliorated, had been ameliorated. Nevertheless, she did as asked by the Department attorney, and this case was filed. Ms. Renn sent two letters dated April 3, 2006, and one letter dated April 21, 2006, to the Chief Professions Attorney of the Department. The latter missive was a follow-up to the April 3, 2006, communications. The April 3, 2006, communications are considered complaints as contemplated by Subsection 468.619(4), Florida Statutes (2005). There is no evidence of record that Mr. Kegan was informed of the complaint or that he was permitted 30 days to respond as contemplated by Subsection 468.619(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). There is no evidence of record that the Department submitted the complaint regarding Mr. Kegan to a probable cause panel for review as contemplated by Subsection 468.619(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2005), within 180 days. There is no evidence to the contrary, either. In summary, the Department has proven that Mr. Kegan, during 2001 and 2002, caused work to be accomplished at 2407 Winona Avenue, Leesburg, Florida, when he owned the house, as well as after he sold the house to Ms. Renn, and this work was done without proper permits and, on occasion, by persons who had no license when a license was required.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation dismiss the Administrative Complaint in the case of Robert Kegan. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 13th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry T. Hackney, Esquire Harry Thomas Hackney, P.A. 3900 Lake Center Drive, Suite A1 Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Elizabeth F. Duffy, Esquire Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating building code administrators and inspectors. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed standard building inspector, license number BN 0001750. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Martin County Building Department as a Building Inspector. Harriet R. Edwards owns a residence located at 2595 Hickory Avenue, Jensen Beach, Florida. This home is located in Martin County, Florida. At some point in early 1996, it became Ms. Edwards' desire to construct an addition to the residence. She retained a contractor to perform the work and returned to her second home in Ohio during the time of the construction. When Ms. Edwards returned to Florida in December of 1996, she was dissatisfied with the quality of the construction work performed on her home. Mr. Joyce, Ms. Edwards' friend, stated that they had expressed a desire for, and had requested, a high quality of work for the addition to Ms. Edwards' home. Upon investigation it was discovered that the permit card located at the construction site had been initialed by an unlicensed building inspector, James L. Brown. This led the homeowner to suspect that the work performed did not meet inspection code standards. Building code inspections are to verify that the work performed by contractors meets certain minimum standards set forth in adopted building code regulations. By implication the highest quality of construction performance would generally exceed code requirements. One inspection item in particular concerned Ms. Edwards' friend, Mr. Joyce. This homeowner believed the new addition did not have a proper footer. All of the inspections listed on the permit card for this project occurred prior to December 17, 1996. The footer/slab inspection was performed on October 4, 1996. The Respondent asserts that at the time he performed the footer/slab inspection, the structures were in place to assure that the poured foundation would meet minimum code requirements. The Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Brown, an unlicensed inspector in training, initialed the permit card and transmitted by radio the inspection results. Mr. Brown was assigned to work with the Respondent during his training period prior to receiving licensure from the state. Mr. Brown ultimately received his provisional license on or about December 17, 1996. The Respondent asserts that a final inspection was not performed on Ms. Edwards' home. Consequently, no final verification was completed to assure the home addition was constructed in accordance with the plans and the forms on the ground for the footer/slab foundation. In this case there is no allegation that the construction plans for the addition for the Edwards' home failed to meet minimum code requirements. Presumably the footer/slab foundation as reflected on the plans would have specified at least a minimum compliance with code mandates. The footer/slab inspection was performed with the forms and reinforcements in place according to the approved plans. The Respondent maintains that the forms and reinforcements met minimum code requirements and that if such forms were altered after inspection he would not have known. Typically, once the footer/slab foundation forms and reinforcements are approved by an inspector the contractor calls for the delivery of concrete to be poured into the foundation forms. The date the concrete was poured for the subject footer/slab is unknown. Whether there was a delay between the footer/slab inspection date and the construction date is unknown. In any event when Ms. Edwards and Mr. Joyce returned from Ohio to view the addition the foundation did not appear adequate. Efforts were then pursued to attempt to ascertain whether the footer/slab did meet code. In this case the record is inconclusive as to whether the footer/slab foundation as constructed at Ms. Edwards' addition meets minimum code requirements. The pictures in evidence do not clearly establish the depth of the slab. Some of the photographs suggest that the minimum depth was achieved. A visual inspection performed at the site did not verify the depth nor compare the interior finished grade with the exterior measurements. The final grading of the exterior of the home around the addition was never completed. As a result the photographs may have a distorted view of the foundation and portions should have been back-filled along the edge of the slab. In any event, no definitive measurements have been offered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Building Code Administrators and Inspectors enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorota Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Bobby T. Chambers 3520 Northeast Linda Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, John W. Hull, held certified building contractor license number CB CO28961 issued by petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). When the events herein occurred, respondent was qualifying agent for, and doing business as, John W. Hull Construction in Inverness, Florida. On September 15, 1990, respondent entered into a contract with Robert and Mary E. Griggs to construct a single-family residence at 7118 East Gospel Island Road, Inverness, Florida, for an estimated cost of $130,000. The contract called for respondent to be responsbile for all materials and work on the project and to build the residence in compliance with the county building code. In this regard, respondent pulled the permit for the job and was the supervising contractor. The project was completed around mid-May 1991 and a certificate of occupancy was issued by Citrus County (County). After the Griggs paid for the work in full, they took occupancy of the premises on May 17, 1991. On September 21, 1993, the Griggs noticed a water leak in the guest bathroom. Mary Griggs immediately contacted respondent and was told to call the subcontractor who installed the roof, Lloyd Vann. She did so and Vann came to the house the next morning and acknowledged the shingles were installed "incorrectly." He returned on October 4, 1993, and placed some tar under the shingles. While doing so, Griggs says that Vann "ripped a lot of the shingles." When the leaks persisted, including at least seven separate leaks during a single rain storm, Mary Griggs requested two other roofers to inspect her roof. They corroborated Vann's acknowledgment that the roof was "incorrectly" installed. On January 18, 1994, Griggs again contacted respondent and told him she needed a new roof since it violated building code requirements. He responded that there were no building code standards applicable to the roof. Mary Griggs persisted with her complaint and eventually arranged a meeting with a County building inspector, Henry Pann, respondent and Vann on September 30, 1994. However, Griggs was told not to speak at the meeting but rather to listen to the other participants. As a result of that meeting, Mary Griggs was contacted by respondent just after a heavy rain on October 3, 1994, to see if she still had any roof leaks. Not surprisingly, she responded in the affirmative and respondent visited the premises the next day. After concluding that the leaks were caused by water seeping through the sides of the chimney, respondent sealed and repainted the chimney area the following day. On November 15, 1994, the Griggs again experienced "heavy leaks" in their home during a heavy rain storm. After unsucessfully attempting to contact respondent, Mary Griggs finally reached Vann, who eventually replaced some shingles on November 23, 1994. However, as of the time of hearing in late July 1995, the Griggs still had water leaks in their home every time it rained, some of which were "worse" than before any repairs were made. Photographs received in evidence, and deposition testimony by inspector Pann, confirm numerous water stains throughout the house. Inspector Pann established that the roof violated the County's building code in at least four respects. First, the roof was in violation of section 103.2.4 by having inadequate fastener lengths, that is, respondent's agent had used staples instead of large head galvanized nails as required by the code. Thus, the fasteners could not penetrate through the shingle and into the lumber deck. Second, section 103.2.3 was contravened because the rakes and eaves were not cemented. Third, section 100 was violated because the drip edge was applied over the felt topping, a procedure which also contravened the manufacturer's specifications. Finally, the roof workmanship violated sections 100 and 100.1 by having an improper staple installation. The manufacturer of the asphalt shingles used on the Griggs' roof, Georgia-Pacific, has published a brochure containing easily understood instructions on how to install asphalt shingles. Even so, Vann ignored these plain instructions in a number of respects when he installed the Griggs' roof. For this reason, it can be reasonably inferred that respondent, through his agent Vann, deliberately violated local building codes. To correct the code violations and eliminate the leaks, and to make the roof comparable to that which the Griggs contracted for, it will be necessary for the Griggs to replace the roof, which will cost $7,020.00. In addition, it will cost the Griggs $500.00 to seal and paint the ceiling areas discolored by the leaking water. Respondent says that when the roof was installed in 1991, he followed applicable building codes "as much as they were being followed" at the time. While he defended his roofing subcontractor as being "a very reputable roofer," respondent nonetheless took the position that the roof was Vann's responsibility "to make good," and not his. He does not deny that the Griggs' roof is leaking, but says the leaks are "very small" and suggests that the Griggs' claims are exaggerated. At hearing, respondent suggested that the problem could be resolved by Mary Griggs calling Vann, who would "be there within a day or two" to make the repairs, a claim belied by the record. In any event, respondent is unwilling to replace the entire roof, a measure deemed to be necessary by the County inspector and other contractors. In light of respondent's continued failure to take appropriate measures to fix the roof, it is found that respondent is guilty of misconduct in the practice of contracting. Through a late-filed affidavit, petitioner established that it incurred $3,012.18 in costs in prosecuting this action. This amount was not challenged. By law, the Board is entitled to recover this amount from respondent should it prevail in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d) and (m), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), imposing an administrative fine of $2,250.00, requiring that he pay restitution in the amount of $7,520.00, and requiring that he pay $3,012.18 for costs incurred by the Board in investigating and prosecuting this action. The fine, restitution and costs shall be repaid by a date certain to be established by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0541 Petitioner: The proposed findings submitted by petitioner have generally been adopted in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Mr. John W. Hull 95495 Berkshire Avenue Inverness, Florida 34452-9005 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
