Findings Of Fact Respondent, Michael N. Kuvin (Kuvin), was at all times material hereto a certified general contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license numbers CG CB07136 and CG C007136. Kuvin, under license number CG CB07136, was the qualifying agent for Gerald S. Krigel Corporation (Krigel Corp.). During the years 1904 and 1985, Krigel Corp. acted as the general contractor for Lomar Communities Inc. (Lomar), the owner/developer of Sugarwood and Heritage Park subdivisions, Dade County, Florida 1/ Gerald Krigel was the president of Krigel Corp. and Lomar. While the Sugarwood and Heritage Park subdivisions were under development, Kuvin did not supervise, direct, manage, or control the contracting activities of Krigel Corp., nor did he supervise, direct, manage, or control any of its construction activities in the subdivisions. He did, however, meet with Mr. Krigel twice a year, at which times he signed and delivered to Mr. Krigel an indeterminate number of blank building permit applications. On each occasion, Kuvin was paid $1,500. 2/ In mid-December 1985, Lomar and Krigel Corp. closed their offices. In January 1986, Lomar filed a petition in bankruptcy. The Freedman Residence On January 8, 1984, Marc Freedman and his wife entered into an agreement with Lomar for the purchase and sale of a single family residence in the Sugarwood subdivision. The agreement, as subsequently modified on May 11, 1984, called for Lomar to build the house in accordance with an agreed floor plan and deed it to the Freedmans in exchange for an agreed price of $106,337.50. On June 7, 1984, a building permit application was submitted to the Dade County Building and Zoning Department (Dade County) to construct the Freedman house. The application listed Lamar as the owner, Krigel Corp. as the contractor, and was signed by Kuvin. The requested permit was issued July 10, 1984, and a certificate of completion was issued on October 3, 1984. A closing was held on the Freedman purchase in late October 1984. Certain construction deficiencies existent on closing or subsequently discovered have not, however, been rectified despite demand of Lamar and Kuvin. 3/ The deficiencies include a backyard which is prone to flooding because of poor drainage, a pool deck area which has cracked into 14 separate pieces because not scored and which floods because not graded; interior dry wall which has cracked and buckled, and cracked tiles in the bathroom. The Florez Residence On February 23, 1985, Maria Florez entered into an agreement with Lomar for the purchase and sale of a single family residence in the Heritage Park subdivision. The agreement called for Lomar to build the unit in accordance with an agreed floor plan and deed it to Ms. Florez in exchange for an agreed price of $69,500. Under the terms of her agreement with Lomar, Ms. Florez was obligated to pay an initial deposit of $1,000, and an additional deposit of $2,500 upon approval of her application for a mortgage loan. Ms. Flores paid Lomar the initial deposit of $1,000, the $2,500 deposit upon approval of her application for financing with Pan American Bank, as well as the additional sum of $1,136 to add an air vent in the bathroom and to upgrade the carpeting. On June 25, 1985, a building permit application was submitted to Dade County to construct the Florez unit. The application listed Lomar as the owner, Krigel Corp. as the contractor, and was signed by Kuvin. The requested permit was issued July 5, 1985, and construction apparently completed in November 1985; however, Dade County has not yet issued a certificate of completion. No closing was ever scheduled for the Flarez unit. Upon learning of Lomar's bankruptcy, Ms. Florez filed a claim in the bankrupt's estate. To date, that claim has not been resolved. The Cevallos Residence On March 13, 1985, Pedro Cevallos and his wife entered into an agreement with Lamar for the purchase and sale of a single family residence in the Heritage Park subdivision. The agreement called for Lomar to build the unit in accordance with an agreed floor plan and deed it to the Cevallos in exchange for an agreed price of $69,900. Under the terms of the Cevallos' agreement with Lamar, they were obligated to pay an initial deposit of $500, and an additional deposit of $3,000 upon approval of their application for a mortgage loan. The Cevallos paid the deposits of $3,500, as well as an additional $190 to add an air vent in the bathroom. On June 6, 1985, a building permit application was submitted to Dade County to construct the Cevallos unit. The application listed Lomar as the owner, Krigel Corp. as the contractor, and was signed by Kuvin. The requested permit was issued June 13, 1985, and a certificate of completion was issued on November 14, 1985. The Cevallos had a walk through inspection of their unit and noted no deficiencies. A closing never occurred, however, because of Lamar's bankruptcy. The Cevallos are a claimant in the bankrupt's estate, but that claim has not been resolved. The Sujansky Residence On October 21, 1934, James Sujansky and his wife entered into an agreement with Lomar for the purchase and sale of a single family residence in the Heritage Park subdivision. The agreement called for Lomar to build the unit in accordance with an agreed floor plan in exchange for an agreed price of $64,900. On April 12, 1935, a building permit application was submitted to Dade County to construct the Sujansky unit. The application listed Lomar as the owner, Krigel Corp. as the contractor, and was signed by Kuvin. The requested permit was issued on April 26, 1985, and a certificate of completion was issued on October 9, 1985. On October 22, 1985, a closing was held on the Sujansky unit. At closing, the Sujanskys received a no-lien affidavit, a builder's warranty from Lomar, and Lomar's assurances that the deficiencies noted on the punch list would be corrected. Lomar failed or refused to correct the following deficiencies: the yard was prone to flooding because of poor drainage, cracked tiles were noticeable in both bathrooms and the kitchen, the dry wall was not sanded or painted, the exterior walls contained cracks in the stucco finish, the window trim rattled, the front door had gaps around it, the kitchen cabinets had missing or unsecured handles, and the formica was peeling off the kitchen counter. Subsequent to closing, the Sujanskys received a claim of lien against their property from GDG Services, Inc., B.Q. Interiors Contractors, and Bird Plumbing Corp. These companies claimed monies owed for materials and services furnished to the property under a contract with Lomar or Krigel Corp. The proof established that B.Q. Interiors was owed the sum of $390, but failed to establish the validity or amount of the remaining claims. The Frisby Residence On March 25, 1985, Thomas Frisby and his wife entered into an agreement with Lomar for the purchase and sale of a single family residence in the Heritage Park subdivision. The agreement called for Lomar to build the unit in accordance with an agreed floor plan in exchange for an agreed price of $69,000. On June 6, 1985, a building permit application was submitted to Dade County to construct the Frisby unit. The application listed Lomar as the owner, Krigel Corp. as the contractor, and was signed by Kuvin. The requested permit was issued on June 13, 1985, and a certificate of completion was issued on December 31, 1985. On November 3, 1985, a closing was held on the Frisby unit. At closing, the Frisbys received a no-lien affidavit and a builder's warranty from Lomar. Subsequent to closing, the Frisbys noted numerous deficiencies which Lomar failed or refused to remedy. These deficiencies included a back yard prone to flooding because of poor drainage, a bedroom wall that leaked and caused the wall and carpet to mildew, chipped and cracked sidewalks, and an uneven livingroom floor. Additionally, the Frisbys received a claim of lien against their property from B.Q. Interiors Contractors, S&R Industries, Inc., and Val's Air Conditioning, Inc. These companies claimed monies owed for materials and services furnished to the property under a contract with Lomar or Krigel Corp. The proof established that B.Q. Interiors was owed the sum of $390 and that S&R Industries was owed the sum of $632.50, but failed to establish the validity or amount of the lien claimed by Val's Air Conditioning.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Michael N. Kuvin's certification as a general contractor, license numbers CG CB07136 and CG C007136, be REVOKED. DONE AND ORDERED this 1st day of April, 1937, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 1st day of April, 1987.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license should be disciplined for reasons stated in the Administrative Complaint filed herein dated November 30, 1987.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings: Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board, is the State agency charged with regulating the construction industry and is responsible for prosecuting administrative complaints issued pursuant to Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes and rules and regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. At times material hereto, Respondent, George Walton, was licensed as a Certified General Contractor in Florida and holds License No. CG C031400. (Petitioner's exhibit E.) At all times material hereto, Respondent was the sole qualifying agent for AMI Improvements Incorporated (AMI). On March 10, 1987, David Lee entered into a contract with AMI to remodel his bathrooms. The scope of the job entailed tearing out interior walls to accommodate a new bathroom, remove a closet to fit a newly installed tub, installation of a marble tub with pad and step, installation of a vanity and tile floors, mirroring the walls, installation of lights over the sink and tub, installation of new faucets and tape and finish the walls. (Petitioner's exhibit 1.) The total contract price was $6,332.50. Pursuant to the contract, AMI was required to obtain the necessary building permits for the job. On April 7, 1987, AMI began remodeling the Lee's bathroom and was paid all but $502.27 of the total contract price by that time. Respondent did not obtain a permit prior to commencement of the work on April 7, 1987. A building permit was required to remodel a bathroom in Broward County in 1987. (Testimony of Susan Marchitello, Custodian of Records for the Broward County Building and Zoning Enforcement Division.) On April 23, 1987, a notice of violation from Broward County was issued to David Lee requiring that he cease and desist from continuing the remodeling work in his home, which work was being performed by AMI. AMI suspended work on the Lee residence on approximately April 23, 1987, and it remained dormant until he applied for a permit on May 7, 1987. While the work was stopped by the cease and desist order, Lee had no bathroom in his home. Upon issuance of the cease and desist order, Lee contacted Richard Bird of AMI, who advised that AMI customarily does not pull permits for inside work as they are normally in and out before anything is seen by building officials. AMI refused to pull the building permits and Lee therefore applied for, and obtained the building permits. AMI's plans and intentions were to complete the construction work at the Lee's home without a building permit. An Owner-Builder permit was issued to Mr. Lee on May 7, 1987. (Respondent's Exhibit 1.) Mr. Lee was without a toilet for 21 days and without a tub and shower for approximately six weeks. AMI promised Mr. Lee that the work would be completed within two weeks after the permits were obtained. Despite this promise, the bathroom did not pass final inspection until July 21, 1987, approximately two months after the permits were obtained. Mr. Lee communicated his concern to AMI in the form of a "punch list" of items to repair. AMI refused to repair those items and Lee, in turn, contacted Daniel Durbano Construction during August 1987 who provided Lee with a proposal to complete those items either that were not completed or to complete/repair those items that were not of workmanlike quality. Durbano presented Lee with his proposal on August 4, 1987, with an estimated cost (to repair the Lee's home) of $3,858.75. (Petitioner's exhibit 3.) After Durbano's proposal was presented to Lee, AMI returned to install the mirror around the tub and the shower stall enclosure. During the time when Lee was negotiating with Durbano about completing the project undertaken by AMI, Respondent was never at the subject site. When a final inspection was called for by Lee, the work completed by AMI did not pass the final inspection. Among the items listed in Lee's "punch list" were (1) the shower stall failed to drain properly as the pitch was almost flat and water settled around the bottom of the shower instead of draining, (2) the marble tub step is crooked and is larger on one end that on the other, (3) the knee wall is crooked and is approximately one inch thicker at the top than at the bottom, (4) the bathroom window does not open properly, (5) the door jam going into the master bedroom is improperly installed, and (6) the plastic caps that affix the toilet to the floor were lost. Lee prepared a second "punch list" and presented it to AMI during August 1987. Among the items listed as deficient were that the floor was uneven and the carpet or tile flooring could not be installed without correcting the floor. Daniel Durbano, a general contractor who is licensed in Florida, performed an inspection of the subject work performed by AMI during September 1987. Durbano found that the tile was not properly laid and the floors were "bumpy and wavy." He also found that the drywall was "wavy" and needed preparation to install wallpaper, there was no casing on the door entrance from the bathroom to the master bedroom, and that the cost would be approximately 20% less than the original estimate of $3,800 that he provided Lee. (Petitioner's exhibit 5.) Respondent is 64 years old and has been a certified contractor since 1954. He is licensed in the states of Ohio, West Virginia, and Florida. Respondent has apprenticed as a carpenter, brick layer, electrician and a plumber. He has been licensed in Florida since 1969. Respondent has twice been a qualifier, once for AMI and with a present engagement, Fixel's Fix It, Inc. As a qualifier for AMI, Respondent pulled permits and supervised construction during the periods of January 1987 through August 1987. Respondent no longer is qualifier for, or is otherwise affiliated with, AMI. Respondent was not aware of the work being performed at the Lee residence, although he was engaged, as a qualifier, to supervise all jobs where AMI was required to obtain a permit. Respondent first learned of problems with the Lee job when he was contacted by Petitioner during December of 1987. Respondent admits that although some of the work done in the Lee's home was probably up to industry's standards, there were areas of workmanship that should have been performed better. Respondent also admits that he relied on Richard Bird, a builder/developer affiliated as a coordinator with AMI and AMI's principal/owner, Tony Enzo, to inform him of projects that needed his supervision or assistance in obtaining permits.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that 1/ Petitioner enter a final order imposing an Administrative Fine in the amount of $1,000, payable to Petitioner within thirty days of entry of its final order, for the above-referenced violations of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. RECOMMENDED this 20th day of January, 1989, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 20th day of January, 1989.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint issued against him and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence adduced at hearing, and the record as a whole, the following findings of fact are made: Respondent is a Spanish-speaking native of Cuba with little or no understanding of the English language. He has resided in Miami-Dade County since coming to this country 18 or 19 years ago. In or around 2006, Respondent decided he wanted to start an air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County, and he went to the downtown Miami location of the Miami- Dade County Code Compliance Office (Compliance Office) to inquire about the licensing requirements with which he would have to comply to legally operate such a business in the county. The Compliance Office is responsible for licensing construction contractors (in various trades) operating in Miami- Dade County. The contractors whom the Compliance Office licenses include mechanical contractors doing air conditioning work. Individuals who desire to go into the air conditioning contracting business in Miami-Dade County must complete and submit to the Compliance Office an eight-page "initial application," accompanied by "letters of experience" and a $315.00 application fee. The application is reviewed by the Miami-Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB). If the CTQB determines that the applicant is qualified to take the licensure examination, the applicant is allowed to sit for the examination. Passing the examination is a prerequisite to licensure. If a passing score is attained, the applicant is notified by the Compliance Office and given the opportunity to submit a "business application" and supporting material (including proof of liability insurance and workers' compensation coverage), accompanied by another $315.00 application fee. If the CTQB approves the "business application," the "applicant is issued a contractor's license number" and given a "competency card" (reflecting such licensure) by the Compliance Office. The applicant then must register with the Department before being able to engage in any contracting work in the county. When Respondent went to the Compliance Office's location in downtown Miami, he was approached by a man carrying a clipboard who spoke Spanish. Respondent was led to believe by the man that he worked for the county (although the man did not present any identification verifying his employment status). The man offered to help Respondent apply for a license, an offer Respondent accepted. After obtaining information from Respondent, the man filled out an application form (which was in English) for Respondent and "kept" the completed form. He then collected from Respondent $350.00. The man told Respondent that Respondent would be receiving his license "by mail." Respondent did nothing further (including taking the licensure examination) to obtain a Compliance Office-issued license for his air conditioning contracting business. Given what he was told by the man (whom he trusted) at the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location, Respondent did not think anything else was required of him, and he acted accordingly. Approximately a month after his visit to the Compliance Office, Respondent received what, on its face, appeared to be a Compliance Office-issued "competency card" indicating that his business, G & G Air Conditioning, Inc., had been issued an "A/C UNLTD" license, License No. 05M000987, with an expiration date of September 30, 2007, and that he was the "qualifying agent" for the business. Although Respondent did not realize it at the time, the "competency card" was a "fraudulent document." The Compliance Office had never in fact issued any license to Respondent or his air conditioning contracting business. Indeed, the Compliance Office had not even received a licensure application, or, for that matter, anything else, from Respondent (including the $350.00 he had paid for what he thought was an application fee). Reasonably, but erroneously, believing that the "competency card" was authentic, Respondent, with the assistance of a friend able to read and write English, completed and submitted the paperwork necessary to register with the Department so that he would be able to engage in the business of air conditioning contracting in Miami-Dade County. Respondent had picked up the application packet (the contents of which were in English) when he had visited the Compliance Office's downtown Miami location. Respondent's friend translated the contents of the application materials for Respondent. For each item requiring a response, Respondent told his friend what entry to make. The final page of the application materials contained the following "Attest Statement," which Respondent signed (after it was translated for him by his friend): I have read the questions in this application and have answered them completely and truthfully to the best of my knowledge. I have successfully completed the education, if any, required for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought. I have the amount of experience required, if any, for the level of licensure, registration, or certification sought.[1] I pledge to comply with the applicable standards of practice upon licensure, registration, or certification. I understand the types of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings may be initiated. Among the representations Respondent made in his completed application was that he possessed a valid "local competency card" issued by the Compliance Office. He believed, in good faith, but again, incorrectly, that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was such a card. In accordance with the instructions in the application materials, Respondent attached a copy of this card to his application. The Department received Respondent's completed application for registration on April 20, 2006. On May 23, 2006, the Department issued the registration for which Respondent had applied. Had the Department known that the "competency card" Respondent had attached to his application and had falsely, but not fraudulently, claimed to be valid was in fact a counterfeit that did not accurately represent the local licensure status of Respondent and his business, the Department would have denied Respondent's application for registration. Following a police investigation, two Compliance Office employees, along with a former Compliance Office employee, were arrested for selling "fraudulent licenses." The police alerted the Compliance Office of the results of its investigation in or around July 2006 (after the Department had already granted Respondent's application for registration). The Compliance Office thereupon conducted an audit, which revealed that Respondent was among those who had received a "fraudulent competency card" from the arrestees. Respondent was so notified by letter (sent by the Compliance Office). Prior to his receipt of the letter, Respondent had no idea that the "competency card" he had received in the mail was not what it purported to be. Had he known it was a "fraudulent document" he would have never applied for registration with the Department. The total investigative and prosecutorial costs incurred by the Department in connection with the instant case (excluding costs associated with any attorney's time) was $32.66.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Board issue a Final Order revoking Respondent's registration and requiring him to pay the Department $32.66 (representing the Department's investigative and prosecutorial costs, excluding costs associated with attorney time) for the violation of Section 489.129(1)(a), Florida Statutes, Section 455.227(1)(h), Florida Statutes, and Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes, described above that the Department alleged in its Administrative Complaint and subsequently proved by clear and convincing evidence at the final hearing. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S STUART M. LERNER 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 22nd day of October, 2007.
The Issue The issue is whether Prestige Gunite of Orlando, Inc. (Prestige) may use an air general permit pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-210.300(4)(c)2. to operate a concrete batch plant in an unincorporated part of Lake County, Florida.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented by the parties, the following findings of fact are made: A. The Parties Prestige is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Prestige Gunite, Inc.; the parent corporation is located at 7228-C Westport Place, West Palm Beach, Florida. The owner of the parent corporation was identified as Brian A. Mahoney, who also owns and controls a number of other entities in the State that are engaged in the business of producing cement. The record does not disclose the names of all of the corporate entities, but it does show that Mr. Mahoney has formed two corporate entities who operate at the same location in Lake County, Florida: Prestige Gunite of Orlando, Inc. (the applicant here), and a limited liability corporation known as Prestige/AB Ready Mix, LLC, which has a different parent corporation. The latter entity operates a ready-mix cement plant on the southern part of the property on which the applicant's operations will be located. In addition, the record shows that Mr. Mahoney operates at least two other cement plants in the State, one a "smaller facility" at Ocala, Florida, whose name and corporate status are unknown, and B & B South Florida, Inc., which operates a facility at an undisclosed location. Although these entities are owned and controlled by one individual, the applicant has represented without dispute that all of the cement plants are operated as separate entities, each with its own permit issued by the Department. The Department is an agency of the State that is authorized under Chapter 403, Florida Statutes (2006), to evaluate applications for air emission permits that are used by cement batching plants. The use of the permit in issue here was reviewed by the Department's Central District Office in Orlando, Florida. Petitioners all reside in close proximity to the proposed facility. In addition, their homes are in closer proximity to the existing ready-mix facility. Through testimony at hearing, Petitioners established that their substantial interests are affected by the new facility and they have standing to challenge the use of the permit. Background A general permit is established by rule and constitutes a "simplified procedure" used by the Department to allow a facility to begin operations, as compared with other types of permits issued by the Department. Department standards provide that if a facility such as that proposed by the applicant emits less than 100 tons per year of particulate matter and is therefore a Non-Title V source, it qualifies to operate under a general permit, assuming that all other criteria are satisfied. Under this process, the Department reviews the notification (application) for compliance with two applicable rules: Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-296.414, which establishes the substantive criteria for using a general permit for a concrete batching plant, and Florida Administrative Code Rule 62- 210.300(4)(c)2.a.-f., which contains the procedural requirements for obtaining a Non-Title V Air General Permit. Unless the Department decides to deny the application, no formal proposed agency action is issued. Therefore, none was issued in this case. Absent the filing of a protest by a third party, the applicant may then use the general permit after the time for third parties to file a challenge has expired. The facts underlying the filing of the instant application are somewhat confusing and form the basis, in part, for the allegations in the two Petitions filed in opposition to the notification. In May 1999, Prestige Gunite of Orlando, Inc., gave notification of its intention to use a general air permit to operate a concrete batching plant at 17600 State Road 50, near Clermont, Florida (also known as the Clermont Yard). Because no challenge to that notification was made, the applicant was issued Permit No. 7775088-001-AG, which became effective on July 8, 1999, and expired on July 9, 2004. Presumably, Prestige operated a gunite batching plant under that permit during that five-year period. In 2001, Prestige/AB Ready-Mix, LLC (then known as Prestige/AB, Inc.) applied for another air general permit at the same location (the Clermont Yard) to operate a concrete batching plant.3 (Apparently, multiple batching plants are authorized at the same geographic location so long as the total particulate of all facilities at that location does not exceed 100 tons per year, which would cause the facilities to lose their Non-Title V status.) Because no third party objections were filed, and all criteria were satisfied, Permit Number 7775088-003-AG was issued. Although the permit was scheduled to expire in 2006, it was recently renewed for another five years and will now expire on August 3, 2011. See Prestige Exhibit 2. (Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-4.540(13) limits the use of an air general permit to five years.) Prestige says that it incorrectly assumed that the air general permit issued to Prestige/AB Ready-Mix, LLC, in 2001 (and renewed in August 2006) also authorized it to continue to operate a gunite batching plant at the Clermont Yard after the first air general permit issued to Prestige Gunite of Orlando, Inc., expired in 2004. This explanation seems unusual, given the fact that the applicant's owner operates multiple permitted cement facilities throughout the State and should be familiar with the permitting process. In any event, Prestige continued to operate a gunite batching plant at the Clermont Yard without a permit. Apparently prompted by numerous and repeated complaints from nearby residents over air emission concerns from both operations, the Department eventually conducted an investigation of both facilities. Besides finding that emissions standards and hazardous waste rules were being violated, the Department discovered that Prestige was operating a gunite facility without a permit. On May 31, 2006, the Department issued a Warning Letter to the parent corporation advising that it must cease gunite operations until a permit was obtained. Despite the Warning Letter, operations at the facility continued, which prompted a second letter from the Department on August 29, 2006, advising that formal enforcement action would be taken unless operations were terminated. In early September 2006, operations ceased and have not resumed pending the outcome of this proceeding. On July 31, 2006, Prestige filed an Air General Permit Notification Form to notify the Department of its intent to use both a new and existing air general permit for its gunite batching plant at the Clermont Yard. This application was denied by the Department on August 29, 2006, because of "unconfined emissions," that is, the applicant had failed "to take reasonable precautions to contain particulate emissions from truck loading operations." During this same period of time, a meeting by the Central District staff and the applicant was held and on August 31, 2006, Prestige filed a second Air General Permit Notification Form advising that it intended to operate a concrete batching plant at the Clermont Yard. A new permit, rather than a renewal of the old permit, was sought since the original permit had expired in 2004. Thus, it was not necessary for Prestige to surrender any existing permits, a requirement found in the application form. Because the Department concluded that all rule criteria had been satisfied, it took no action regarding the application. On August 31, 2006, Prestige Gunite, Inc. (as opposed to Prestige Gunite of Orlando, Inc., which had filed the notification) caused to be published in the The Daily Commercial, a newspaper of general circulation in Lake County, a Public Notice of Application for a General Permit. The following day, a similar notice was published in the South Lake Press, also a newspaper of general circulation published in Lake County. On September 21, 2006, Mr. Koehnlein, who lives just east of a vacant lot on the eastern side of the site, filed his Petition challenging the use of the permit on numerous grounds. (Mr. Koehnlein's Petition was actually filed in response to the Department's notice of intent dated August 29, 2006, to deny the first application filed by Prestige. However, it was treated as a request for a hearing in response to the second notification filed by the applicant.) On the same date, and then through counsel, Petitioners, Aaron and Amy Wright, Joseph Maxwell, Donald Stone, and Marlene Matthews, who live in a residential subdivision immediately south of the site, filed their Petition challenging Prestige's use of the permit. Although numerous allegations were raised in the Petitions, most were struck by Order dated November 14, 2006, leaving only the allegation of whether Prestige is qualified to use the general permit by meeting the applicable requirements under Florida Administrative Code Rules 62-210.300(4)(c)2. and 62-296.414. The Permit The Notification filed by the applicant indicates that the facility will be located at 17600 State Road 50 near Clermont, Florida. In broader geographic terms, the facility is located just south of State Road 50 (which runs in an east-west direction), and it appears to be just west of the Florida Turnpike and approximately half way between the Cities of Winter Garden (in Orange County) and Clermont (in Lake County). The site is bordered by State Road 50 to the north, a mini-storage facility to the west, a light industrial area and vacant lot to the east, and as more fully discussed below, a residential area to the south. At least since 1985, a residential subdivision has occupied the area immediately south of and adjacent to the site of the proposed facility.4 For many years, the subject property just north of the subdivision was owned by Kelly Construction Company (Kelly) and remained vacant. At some point after 1985, however, Kelly began using the site as a gravel pit and commenced excavation operations as close as forty feet to the back property line of the homes in the subdivision. According to one long-time resident, Kelly then began using the vacant land as a dumping site for building materials and illegal trash. After a complaint was filed, in 1998 the Department shut down the landfill operations and a substantial berm was constructed between the subject property and the subdivision. Around 1999, Prestige's parent company either purchased or obtained authorization to use the property and commenced operations shortly thereafter under the permit issued to Prestige Gunite of Orlando, Inc. It also reduced the size of the berm between the plant operations and the subdivision property line to approximately seventy-five feet. Prestige's gunite facility will share a six-acre tract of property already used by Prestige/AB Ready Mix, Inc., under a permit obtained by that entity in 2001. The gunite portion of the business will use the northern part of the property, while the ready-mix operations are located on the southern part of the tract, which lie less than a hundred feet or so from the back property line of the closest homes. Access to both operations will be from State Road 50, which lies directly north of the property. In addition, there is a truck maintenance facility on the site, which will perform maintenance work on vehicles for both operations. The proposed gunite facility consists of an existing cement storage silo containing dry powdered cement, sand storage areas, and office space. The finished product (gunite) is used in the construction of swimming pools. The dry powdered cement will be loaded into the rear compartment of the cement trucks, while sand is loaded by a front end loader into the front compartment on the truck. The sand is stored in nearby storage piles and will be covered by tarpaulins when not in use. The materials are then transported to a job site, off-loaded, mixed with water, and sprayed into a swimming pool shell. These operations are in contrast to the existing ready-mix operations now being conducted on the southern half of the property, which involve the on-site mixing of cement, sand, aggregate, fly ash, and water to create cement, the loading of the wet mixture into trucks, and the hauling of the wet cement to the job site. In addition, the ready-mix cement trucks require continual cleaning on site, which creates a noisy environment for the surrounding area. Permit Requirements Under Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-296.414, which contains the substantive requirements for using the permit, an applicant must agree to comply with various requirements set forth in the rule. They include requirements relative to stack emissions, unconfined emissions, test methods and procedures, and compliance demonstration. Although the application and supporting documentation reflect that each of the above requirements has been met, perhaps the most relevant requirements to Petitioners' concerns are the two that the owner "limit visible emissions to 5 percent opacity" and "take reasonable precautions to control unconfined emissions from hoppers, storage and conveying equipment, conveyor drop points, truck loading and unloading, roads, parking areas, stock piles, and yards." Fla. Admin. Code R. 62- 296.414(1) and (2). To control unconfined emissions, Prestige will operate water and sweeper trucks (which are shared with the ready-mix operation) that will periodically water the grounds during hours of operation and remove excess materials from roads and other loading areas which might otherwise be carried by the wind to surrounding neighborhoods. Prestige will place tarpaulins over sand piles, when not in use, to prevent sand from being blown out of the yard. To control stack emissions, a bag system has been installed on top of the silo in which the dry powdered cement is stored. This is intended to reduce emissions that may be generated from the gunite silo during loading and unloading operations. The baghouse will be periodically inspected and bags changed on a regular basis. Also, a shaker system is automatically initiated during the loading process which reduces emissions by moving cement and cement dust down into the silo rather than up and out of the silo. Further, the lid on the chute (which fits onto the opening of the truck where the material is loaded) has been modified to prevent sand or cement from "smoking" up and causing an emission problem. Prestige acknowledges that prior to shutting down operations in early September 2006, it experienced an emissions problem with the truck loading operation which will be corrected by the modification of the lid. Finally, within thirty days after operations are commenced, Prestige must conduct a visible emission test on each dust collector exhaust point. The procedural requirements for obtaining a Non-Title V Air General Permit to operate a concrete batching plant are found in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-210.300(4)(c)2. and simply require that the owner (Prestige) provide a completed Concrete Batching Plant Air Permit Notification Form, agree to comply with the requirements of Florida Administrative Code Rule 62-296.414 (cited above), submit notification to the Department in the event the site of the plant is relocated, agree to meet certain requirements if nonmetallic minerals are processed, and that if more than one relocatable concrete batching plant is located at the same location, agree that the total operations would not be a Title V source. The record shows that each of these requirements has been met. Petitioners' Concerns Petitioners presented a wide array of concerns, most of which are not relevant to the narrow issues in this case and instead appear to be related to the operations of the ready-mix plant or matters outside the jurisdiction of the Department.5 Their undisputed testimony is that the occupants of the homes which lie near and adjacent to the six-acre site are now, and have been for years, the recipients of dust and other particulate matter in such quantities as to force them to keep their windows closed throughout the year and prevent them from enjoying any type of outside activity in the area. Virtually all of Petitioners and their witnesses testified about constant respiratory ailments which they or members of their family suffer from due to the air emissions from the cement plants. These ailments began after the adjoining property was converted to a cement plant. They also pointed out that vehicles which are not parked in enclosed garages are covered by dust after a relatively short period of time. For example, cars that are washed in the afternoon and parked in front of their owners' homes that evening will be covered in dust the next morning. See Petitioners' Exhibits 18A, B, and C. While not a consideration in this case, water truck and sweeping operations at the gunite facility will begin at 6:00 a.m., and operations have begun as early as 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. at the ready-mix facility. Thus, beginning early in the morning and continuing throughout the day, the neighbors are subjected to the sound of large cement trucks being driven throughout the yard while being loaded with cement, cleaned, or mechanically repaired. At the same time, Petitioners have indicated that the sale of their homes is not possible due to the operation of the cement plants, and one witness stated that it was unlikely he could even rent his home to a third party due to the issues facing the neighborhood. Petitioners uniformly expressed dissatisfaction with the Central District Office's handling of their long-standing complaints (beginning years ago) and the amount of time it took for the Department to actually perform an inspection of the adjoining property. After conducting an initial inspection in November 2005 and a follow-up inspection in March 2006, presumably because of Petitioners' complaints, in October 2006 the Department entered into a Short Form Consent Order with both Prestige and the ready-mix entity. To resolve a number of violations, including operating without a permit, the Department required Prestige to pay a $10,800.00 civil fine and take corrective action. (Also, Prestige/AB Ready Mix, LLC, was required to pay a $15,650.00 civil penalty for numerous violations associated with its operations and take corrective action.) The matter was finally resolved by a Department letter dated October 13, 2006. See Department Exhibit 9. According to a Department inspector, a follow-up inspection in early December 2006 did not detect any on-site violations by the ready-mix plant. Despite the corrective actions which the ready-mix operation may have undertaken, Petitioners complain that the air quality in the neighborhood has improved only slightly, and that was a result of Prestige shutting down the gunite operations in early September 2006 pending the outcome of this case, and was not due to any corrective measures required by the Short Form Consent Orders. Petitioners' complaints regarding air quality are real and not imagined. Credible testimony and photographs confirm them to be true. It is fair to assume that if emissions violations are still occurring, as Petitioners contend, they are due to the operations of the ready-mix plant and should be the subject of further inspections by the Department and an enforcement action, if appropriate. However, given the Department's straight-forward regulations pertaining to the use of an air general permit, the precautions which Prestige has stated it will take (and assuming that they will occur), and the expert testimony supporting a finding that all criteria have been met, Prestige is qualified to use the applied-for air general permit to operate a cement batching plant at the Clermont Yard.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Environmental Protection enter a final order determining that Prestige Gunite of Orlando, Inc., is qualified to use an air general permit at 17600 State Road 50, Clermont, Florida. DONE AND ENTERED this 5th day of March, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DONALD R. ALEXANDER 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 5th day of March, 2007.
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 construction industry licensees. Such authority includes, but is not limited to, the discipline of air conditioning contractors in the State of Florida. At all times material to this case, Respondent, Jose R. Gonzalez, was a certified air conditioning contractor, license number CA C035486. According to licensing records, Respondent does business as Rainbow Mechanical, Inc. Neither Nelson Rodriguez nor N.V. Air and Appliance Corporation is licensed in Florida as a state-certified or state- registered contractor. Neither has been approved by Miami-Dade County to perform contracting services. Neither Hector Salvador nor Electro Mundo Corporation is licensed in Florida as a state-certified or state-registered contractor. Neither has been approved by Miami-Dade County to perform contracting services. In September of 1995, an electrical surge caused extensive damage to a home located at 2342 Southwest 128th Avenue, Miami, Dade County, Florida. As a result of the surge, the air conditioning units and all electrical appliances were damaged. The condenser for the central air conditioning system had to be replaced. Michael Rodriguez, the son of the property's owner who resided at the home, sought assistance from the insurance carrier, Allstate. He notified Allstate of the damages and expected an adjuster would come to assess the repairs. Instead, one early morning in late September or early October 1995, Michael Rodriguez was awakened by Nelson Rodriguez who was removing the air conditioning condenser. When Michael Rodriguez questioned the activity (he had not heard back from Allstate), Nelson Rodriguez referred him to Hector Salvador. Mr. Salvador arrived at the property a short while later and advised Michael Rodriguez that he (doing business as Electro Mundo Corporation) had been retained by Allstate to do the work. Thereafter, Salvador and Nelson Rodriguez were given access to the property on numerous occasions to correct the electrical problems. Michael Rodriguez became suspicious of their work when nothing seemed to work better after repairs. He became so concerned as to the quality of the work that he began to make inquiries to building officials. Eventually, Michael Rodriguez discovered a permit had not been pulled for the work. Later he determined that Nelson Rodriguez and Salvador were not licensed. Meanwhile, Salvador contacted Respondent and asked him to pull a permit for the job. Respondent considered himself a subcontractor to Electro Mundo. At the time the Respondent applied for the permit for the air conditioning work at the homeowner's residence, Respondent knew that the work he described in the permit application (replacement of the condenser) had already been performed by an unlicensed contractor, without a permit. On or about August 21, 1996, Respondent completed a permit application for the subject home. Such application identified Rainbow Mechanical as the contractor and described the work as "replaced condenser." The permit did not address the other numerous electrical repairs needed. Respondent did not replace the condenser at the subject home. That work had been performed by Electro Mundo or Nelson Rodriguez. Respondent's involvement at the home consisted of pulling the permit, calling for an inspection, correction of a cable problem identified by the inspector, and calling for a re- inspection which passed. Respondent never talked personally to the property owner or the son. Respondent never had a written contract with anyone to perform the work. Respondent maintains that Electro Mundo reimbursed him for the permit fees but did not pay him for any service for the job. Electro Mundo was not approved or authorized by Allstate to make the electrical repairs to the subject home. Electro Mundo is not on Allstate's quality vendor list. The property owner never contracted with Electro Mundo to perform electrical services at the property but permitted access to the property based upon the direction of an individual named Maria Torres who represented Allstate had dispatched Salvador to the job. Although factually not similar to the violation alleged in this matter, Respondent was previously disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board.
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 imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,500, suspending Respondent's license for a period of sixty days, imposing a probationary period thereafter, and awarding costs of prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of March, 1999, 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 22nd day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Dorota Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board 401 Northwest 2nd Avenue, Suite N-607 Miami, Florida 33128 Josefina Perez-Cofino, Esquire 7860 Northwest 71 Street, Suite 302 Miami, Florida 33166
The Issue Whether the Petitioner, Glenn Singer (Petitioner or Singer) is entitled to attorney's fees and costs from the Complainant/Respondent, Robert Nieman (Respondent or Nieman), pursuant to Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes (2004).
Findings Of Fact On June 10, 2002, the Respondent executed a Complaint that was filed with the Ethics Commission against the Petitioner. At the time of the filing, the Respondent was on paid administrative leave or suspension from the Police Department of the Town of Golden Beach (Town). Nevertheless, the Respondent remained employed by the Town and at the time of hearing in this cause the Respondent was employed as a police sergeant. Immediately prior to filing the Complaint against the Petitioner the Respondent served as the interim police chief for the Town. At all times material to this case the Petitioner was a councilman serving on the Town’s governing council. As such, the Petitioner was subject to the ethics provisions governed by the Ethics Commission. The Petitioner and the Respondent have known one another since childhood. Prior to the incidents complained of herein the two had considered themselves cordial acquaintances. The Respondent’s Complaint itemized four concerns that he believed demonstrated violations of ethics provisions. The specifics of the Complaint are set forth in Petitioner’s Exhibit 1. In general, the Respondent believed that the Petitioner had used his position as a Town councilman to obtain a building permit at a lesser value than should have been reported. He based this assertion on information told to him by persons working within the Town who overheard comments made by the Petitioner and a building official. The Respondent believed that Linda Epperson, who has 20-plus years of experience in the construction business, had opined that the value of the work to be performed at the Petitioner’s home greatly exceeded the value set forth in the permit sought. Ms. Epperson’s comments regarding the permit issue were overheard by another Town employee, Rosemary Wascura. At hearing, Ms. Epperson denied making the comments. Ms. Epperson is still employed by the Town and would like to continue her employment until her retirement vests (another four years). Ms. Wascura (who is a personal friend of the Respondent’s) does not work for the Town any longer. Ms. Wascura’s testimony was credible and persuasive as to the incident regarding the conversation between the Petitioner and a building official. Although it is not concluded the Petitioner used his position to influence the building official and receive a reduced permit cost, it is found that the factual information upon which the Respondent relied in making such assertion was grounded in an eyewitness account of an incident and not mere speculation. The second allegation of the Complaint also dealt with a subcontractor who had performed services for the Petitioner at his home. That subcontractor was subsequently awarded a Town contract for brick pavers to be installed at the entrance to the Town. The basis for the Respondent’s concern regarding this allegation stemmed from unsealed bids that were submitted for the brick paver project. According to Ms. Wascura the subcontractor who had provided a favorable job for the Petitioner was to receive the bid on the Town job. Although wrongdoing on the Petitioner’s part was not substantiated, the basis for the Respondent’s assertion was supported by the information he received from Ms. Wascura. In as much as Ms. Wascura was privy to comments from the building officials at the time, it was reasonable for Respondent to believe that something untoward had occurred when the same subcontractor received the Town’s bid, especially when the bid amount was later changed to cover a shortfall on the construction cost (the increased amount would have resulted in the subcontractor not being the lowest bidder after all). As to the third assertion in the Complaint, the Respondent claimed that the Petitioner had physically assaulted a temporary security guard employed by the Town while the Police Guardhouse was being built. The Respondent based this claim on the personal observations he made when the security guard reported the incident, the pictures he took of the guard (depicting the damaged shirt), and the identification of the Petitioner as the perpetrator that the victim made from a photograph. Although the assault was never fully investigated (the security guard could not be located and the matter was dropped), the Respondent had a reasonable basis to believe some inappropriate act had occurred and that the Petitioner could be involved. Finally, the fourth claim set forth in the Respondent’s Complaint alleged that the Petitioner had changed a vote on a variance request after being called aside by someone known as “Vinnie” in this record. According to eyewitnesses to the incident, the Petitioner voted against Vinnie’s variance then changed his vote after Vinnie whispered something in the councilman’s ear, and the two left the room briefly. When the Petitioner returned to the council table, he changed his vote to favor Vinnie’s variance. Although it is not concluded the Petitioner did anything improper in changing his vote, or that the variance would not have received sufficient favorable votes to pass even without the Petitioner’s vote, it is clear that the Respondent thought the activity was highly unusual and suspect. The Town council meetings are videotaped. A videotape of the proceeding disproving the account of the witnesses was not provided. It is unusual to allow anyone to approach the council seats to privately discuss anything with a council member during a council session. As for why the Petitioner would change his vote, the Respondent believed it had to do with a boat mooring that the Petitioner sought. Although the Petitioner did not own a boat at the time, the gossip among Town workers had been that the Petitioner wanted to be able to moor his boat at a certain angle to avoid an impeded view of the waterway. In return, he allegedly supported Vinnie’s variance. Although the rumor was unfounded, when the story was viewed in light of the Petitioner’s actions with Vinnie at the council meeting, it formed a reasonable basis for Respondent’s concerns. On July 9, 2002, the staff attorney for the Ethics Commission sent Respondent a letter requesting additional information regarding the Complaint. The forms included with that letter constitute the Complaint Amendment that was executed by the Respondent on July 19, 2002. Sometime in August 2002 the Respondent was fired from his position with the Town. He filed an appeal of the termination and ultimately won his job back. At that time he desired to drop the entire matter against the Petitioner. To that end he executed and filed with the Ethics Commission a Request to Withdraw the Complaint. The Request to Withdraw was denied on December 9, 2003. Also on December 9, 2003, the Ethics Commission issued a Public Report that dismissed the Respondent’s complaint against the Petitioner. On January 4, 2004, the Petitioner filed a Fee Petition pursuant to Section 112.317(8), Florida Statutes. The Fee Petition asserts that the Respondent acted with a malicious intent to injure the reputation of the Petitioner. The Respondent’s intent was to bring to light the allegations against the Petitioner because he believed the information he had been given was accurate. It proved to be inaccurate. He did not investigate each of the claims before filing the Complaint and Complaint Amendment but believed his sources to be credible Town employees. In retrospect, the Respondent believes he could have avoided the professional pitfalls that befell his employment had he not filed the Complaint. Nevertheless, based on the information he had at the time from credible Town employees, the Respondent acted to cause some investigation of the Petitioner’s activities. The Respondent did not know that the comments from Town employees were false or not subject to confirmation. The Respondent personally observed Vinnie’s intervention at the council table. Had it not dovetailed with the rumor regarding the Petitioner’s proposed boat issue, the conversation would have still appeared unusual at best. Coupled with the other unverified information, it gave the appearance of impropriety warranting investigation. Similarly, none of the other allegations could be easily discredited. The Respondent relied on comments attributed to Ms. Wascura and Ms. Epperson. He had no reason to doubt the veracity of his friend. Further, he could not foresee that Ms. Epperson would not acknowledge making statements pertaining to the permit issue. The original documents pertaining to the permits pulled for the Petitioner’s property are in storage and were not available at the hearing. A computer-generated report was provided to the Ethic Commission’s investigator. That report does not contain the detail and dates that might have verified the account provided by Ms. Wascura. The Respondent’s efforts to obtain copies of public records were thwarted. The Petitioner’s efforts to paint Ms. Epperson as a gossip whose alleged statements should not have been credited is not supported by the weight of persuasive evidence. Ms. Epperson was an experienced person whose knowledge in the construction industry made her a credible source for information. She was employed in a position that made her privy to the activities of the building department. She now disavows making the comments that were the subject matter of the Complaint. Nevertheless, the Respondent believed the comments attributed to her and believed they were from a credible source. If attorney’s fees and costs are entered in this cause the beneficiary of an award will be the Town. The Petitioner has incurred no expenses or costs associated with the defense of the Complaint. The Town agreed to pay and has paid all attorney’s fees and costs associated with this case. The Petitioner presented several invoices from the Law Offices of Stuart R. Michelson that were alleged to pertain to the instant case. One invoice dated January 6, 2004, set forth 25.00 hours had been expended by Ilene L. Michelson (partner) at the rate of $200.00 per hour. The invoice also noted 5.50 hours had been expended by Stuart R. Michelson (senior partner) also at the rate of $200.00 per hour. The total of the first invoice including costs was $6,594.54. The second invoice, dated June 10, 2004, itemized time expended by James Birch (associate attorney) billed at the rate of $125.00 per hour; Michael Torres (law clerk) billed at the rate of $75.00 per hour; Robert J. Longchamps (law clerk 2) also billed at the rate of $75.00 per hour; and Stuart R. Michelson (senior partner) billed at the rate of $200.00 per hour. The total attorney’s fees for this second invoice equaled $3,232.50; with costs the second invoice was $3,772.38. A third invoice dated September 9, 2004 documented $1,187.50 in fees for time expended by James Birch, Michael Torres, Robert J. Longchamps, and Stuart R. Michelson. The total for fees and costs for the invoice were $4,308.85. The costs and fees claimed in this cause are set forth in detail in Petitioner’s Exhibit 8. However, bills attached to invoices identify other parties not related to the instant case. For example, an invoice from United Reporting, Inc., references the case James Vardalis v. Robert Neiman. The Petitioner’s case is not the same matter. Similarly, a second invoice from United Reporting, Inc. (dated June 16, 2004) references Michael Addicott v. Neiman. The Petitioner did not delineate which of the costs were solely attributable to this case. It is unclear whether the fees were also incurred for other cases related to this Respondent (but not the Petitioner herein). The Petitioner also presented testimony from an expert witness who was to be paid by the Town. That witness, an attorney, was to be paid $200.00 per hour for his efforts in this matter. In connection with his work in this matter and other cases the expert billed the Town a total of $8,050.00. Exactly what portion of that amount is attributable to solely this case is unknown (see page 77 of the transcript in this case). Although the Petitioner’s expert testified that the hourly rates for fees applied in this cause were reasonable, there was no evidence that the time was actually expended in connection with the instant case. There is no way to know if the services were performed for the defense of the Respondent’s Complaint.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered dismissing the Fee Petition in this case. S DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of June, 2005, 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 2nd day of June, 2005. COPIES FURNISHED: James J. Birch, Esquire Law Office of Stuart R. Michelson 200 Southeast 13th Street Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33133 Robert Nieman 9731 Southwest 12th Street Pembroke Pines, Florida 33026 Kaye Starling, Agency Clerk Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Phillip C. Claypool, General Counsel Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709 Bonnie J. Williams, Executive Director Commission on Ethics 3600 Maclay Boulevard, South, Suite 201 Post Office Drawer 15709 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-5709
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified air conditioning contractor, holding license number CAC 017508. The Respondent has been in the central air conditioning and heating business in Gadsden County for approximately two years. Prior to entering this business on his own, the Respondent was employed by Central Heating and Consultants in Leon County as a salesman in charge of the duct department. While working for Central Heating and Consultants in Leon County, the Respondent was not involved in the permitting process. In Leon County, a separate mechanical permit is not required, while in Gadsden County a separate mechanical permit is required. The Respondent's first installation in Gadsden County was at the residence of Larry Geyer. When this job began, the Respondent was in partnership with two individuals from Leon County, all of whom were operating as Central Heating Consultants of Gadsden County. Upon inspecting the plumbing and electrical work, the building inspector noticed that certain mechanical work had been performed but that a permit had not been obtained. Within a day or two from the date that the inspector notified the Respondent of this situation, the Respondent pulled the permit. This permit had not been pulled earlier because when the Respondent first visited the Geyer project, he noticed a permit card on the premises and assumed that there was no need for any additional permit. On February 6, 1981, the Respondent pulled the permit for the Don Vickers job. This permit was obtained by the Respondent shortly after the County inspector and a State investigator visited the Respondent and informed him that the permit had not been pulled. The County inspector testified that he had contacted the Respondent concerning the need to pull a permit on the Vickers job prior to this visit. The Respondent testified that the first time he learned that he had failed to pull the permit was at the time of the visit. In any event, the Respondent pulled the permit for the Vickers job on or about the same day as the visit by the County inspector and the State investigator. The Respondent did not pull the permit on the Vickers job earlier, due to a misunderstanding concerning the relationship between Vickers and Luke Blackburn Builders. On Luke Blackburn jobs, Mr. Blackburn pulled all the permits. Since Mr. Vickers and Mr. Blackburn worked closely on various projects, the Respondent assumed that Mr. Vickers had pulled this permit as Mr. Blackburn had always done. At the time when the County inspector and the State investigator visited the Respondent at the Vickers project, the Respondent realized that he was operating under a misconception of the permitting procedure. To avoid future problems, the Respondent met with the county and the state officials to discuss in detail the procedure for pulling permits. It is one of the functions of the County Building Inspector's Office to assist contractors with procedural- type matters, including the permit process. When the Respondent began operating in Gadsden County, he would visit the County Inspectors Office on a regular basis. The Respondent also engaged in an advertising campaign in order to become better known in the Gadsden County area.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint against Christian B. Smith be dismissed. THIS RECOMMENDED ORDER entered on this 27th day of May, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, 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 27th day of May, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael Egan, Esquire Post Office Box 1386 Tallahassee, Florida 32302 Robert D. Mendelson, Esquire 300 Lewis State Bank Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this case, the Respondent, Joseph Lawton, was licensed as a registered roofing contractor in the State of Florida, holding license number RC 0052537. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was the qualifying agent for All Florida Systems located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Notice of Hearing was mailed to Respondent at his last known address. Ronald Klein lives at 8245 Northwest Ninety-fifth Avenue, Tamarac, Florida. A portion of the roof on Mr. Klein's residence is flat and a portion is pitched. In the middle of August, 1987, Respondent met with Mr. Klein at the Klein residence to discuss Mr. Klein's roofing needs. Respondent told Mr. Klein during their meeting that the flat portion of his roof needed to be re-roofed and quoted a price for the work that Mr. Klein found acceptable. This was the only meeting between Mr. Klein and Respondent and was the only time Mr. Klein has seen Respondent. There was no written contract between Respondent and Mr. Klein because Respondent did not mail to Mr. Klein a written contract as he had agreed to do. On Sunday, August 30, 1987, Earl Batten, one of All Florida System's workers, re-roofed the flat portion of Mr. Klein's roof. Mr. Klein paid Mr. Batten $1,575.00 for the work pursuant to the verbal agreement between Respondent and Mr. Klein. Mr. Klein made his check payable to Earl Batten because Respondent had told Mr. Klein to pay his worker when the work was completed. Mr. Klein noted on the check that the check was in payment of work done by All Florida Systems. Respondent did not obtain the permits required by local law for the work done on the Klein residence. Because there was no agreement to the contrary, it would have been Respondent's responsibility to obtain the permits required by local law. Respondent did not obtain the inspections required by local law for the work done on the Klein residence. Because there was no agreement to the contrary, it would have been Respondent's responsibility to obtain the inspections required by local law. Mr. Klein's roof began leaking after Mr. Batten completed his work on August 30, 1987. In response to three weeks of repeated telephone calls from Mr. Klein, Respondent sent one of his supervisors to inspect Mr. Klein's roof. The supervisor told Mr. Klein that the work had to be redone because the work on the flat roof had not been properly tied into the remainder of the roofing system. Mr. Klein was further advised by the supervisor that Respondent would be in contact with Mr. Klein. After Respondent failed to respond further, Mr. Klein hired a second roofing contractor who corrected the deficient work in October of 1987 at a price of $1,377.00. Between the time Mr. Batten worked on his roof and the time the second contractor corrected the deficiencies, Mr. Klein sustained damages to his residence which required expenditures of over $1,500.00 to repair. Respondent was previously disciplined by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in Case No. 90265.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent guilty of having violated Sections 489.129(1)(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, and which imposes an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $5,000.00 and places Respondent on probation for a period of one year. DONE and ENTERED this 19th day of May, 1989, in Tallahassee, Florida. CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 19th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 22 are adopted in substance; insofar as material. The findings of fact contained in paragraphs 16, 17, 21 of Petitioner's proposed findings of fact are subordinate. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Joseph Lawton 1000 South Ocean Boulevard Apartment 6C Pompano Beach, Florida 33062 Kenneth E. Easley, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
