The Issue The principal issue in this case is whether certain local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by the Broward County Board of Review and Appeals (BORA) comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). As to Broward County, there is the additional issue of whether Broward County is a proper party to this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, and upon the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Findings about status of Broward County Respondent Broward County is a county created pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Broward County became a charter county effective on January 1, 1975, by a referendum approved by the voters of Broward County in November of 1974. In 1976, the Broward County Charter was amended to add a new Section 8.18, which the legislative history for the charter describes as establishing BORA as “an arm of Charter government.” Broward County has not voted to adopt any local amendments to the Florida Building Code. Findings about status of BORA Respondent BORA, is a board created under the provisions of the Charter of Broward County (the “Charter”). BORA was originally created in 1971 by a special act of the Florida legislature, 71-575, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1971. That special act adopted the South Florida Building Code, as the applicable building code for Broward County and included within the South Florida Building Code as Section 203 the following language, which created BORA: 203. Board of Rules and Appeals. In order to determine the suitability of alternate materials and types of construction, to provide for reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code and to assist in the control of the construction of buildings and structures, there is hereby created a BORA, appointed by the appointing authority, consisting of twenty-four (24) members who are qualified by training and experience to pass on matters pertaining to building construction. Findings about status of Petitioners Petitioner, TRG-Aquazul, Ltd. ("TRG"), is a Florida limited partnership and is the developer of a high-rise multi- family residential building project located in Broward County (“Project”) which is subject to the Florida Building Code, as amended, in Broward County. Petitioner, Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, is a principal of Initial Engineers. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga and Initial Engineers are the mechanical engineers of record on the Project. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga's firm has designed other high-rise residential buildings in Broward County in the past and plans on doing more such projects in the future. Petitioners allege that they will be materially and adversely affected by the application of the Broward County local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code in that the application of said technical amendments to the Project will require a redesign of the mechanical systems of the Project to comply with those technical amendments and undertaking such redesign will cost significant time and money. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga submitted plans to the Broward County Building Department for approval in connection with the Project. The plans submitted included plans for smoke control measures. The smoke control measures were not approved by the chief mechanical official because in his estimation they did not comply with the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code enacted by BORA on March 1, 2002. Despite the Broward County Building Official’s suggestion that Mr. Fernandez-Fraga appeal the Building Official’s decision interpreting the applicable code, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga decided not to appeal that decision. Rather, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga chose to challenge the validity of the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by BORA, a different appeal than the one discussed with the Building Official. TRG, through its engineer and its architect of record on the project, attempted to comply with option four of the local technical amendments at issue here, which allows one to achieve an understanding with the local building official on an alternative method for smoke control. TRG could not, and did not, reach that understanding with the Broward County Building Official. The building that TRG proposes to build is over 75 feet high, which makes it subject to the local technical amendments at issue here. At the time the local technical amendments at issue here were being adopted, Petitioners were not concerned with such developments because at that time they did not have any projects in Broward County. Findings about BORA's amendment process Once it was clear that Florida was going to have a new statewide Florida Building Code, BORA embarked upon a course of action to adopt several local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code. Such amendments were allowed, with certain qualifications and requirements, by the then-new statutes providing for the implementation of a new Florida Building Code. On March 1, 2002, BORA adopted the local technical amendments that are at issue here. Those two local technical amendmants, Sections 412 and M403.6.4, contained standards for the application and testing of smoke control systems for high-rise buildings. The two amendments were more stringent than the corresponding requirements in the Florida Building Code. Each of these local technical amendments had been part of Broward County’s local building code in effect prior to the adoption of the Florida Building Code, and as set forth in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. BORA sought to maintain the status quo within Broward County with respect to the adoption of these two local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code, a status quo that had been in effect since the mid 1980's. The two local technical amendments at issue here did not introduce any new subjects that had not previously been contained in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. The process leading up to the adoption of amendments on March 1, 2002, began several months earlier with the appointment of a committee and a sub-committee to discuss and draft proposed amendments. The chairman of BORA’s Mechanical Committee appointed a subcommittee which reviewed materials and made decisions with respect to the Local Amendments and made recommendations to the Mechanical Committee which, in turn, made recommendations to BORA The meetings of BORA’s Mechanical Committee and its Smoke Control Subcommittee were not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper of general circulation. No findings or determinations made by BORA’s Mechanical Committee or Smoke Control Subcommittee with respect to the local need to enact the Local Amendments are reflected in the minutes of their meetings. On December 13, 2001, BORA held a hearing to receive and consider information from the subcommittee and the committee regarding the pending proposed amendments. BORA’s December 13, 2001 hearing was not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. Final BORA action to adopt the proposed amendments was eventually scheduled for March 1, 2002. The March 1, 2002, BORA meeting was the only BORA meeting pertaining to the local technical amendments at issue here that was publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. BORA did not make any findings or determinations at the March 1, 2002, meeting. There was no discussion or determinations made at the March 1, 2002, hearing regarding whether there was a local need justifying the subject local technical amendments. There was no discussion at the March 1, 2002 hearing regarding the subject local technical amendments. At the March 1, 2002, meeting, BORA determined that what its Mechanical Committee presented was acceptable and BORA therefore voted to adopt it without any meaningful discussion. BORA did not make any other determinations with respect to the local technical amendments at that hearing. The members of the Florida Building Commission’s Mechanical and Technical Advisory Committee, which drafted and/or made recommendations with respect to the Florida Building Code, are presently considering the possibility of putting more stringent smoke control measures into the Florida Building Code for statewide application. Findings about the challenge process Broward County does not have, and has never had, an interlocal agreement establishing a countywide compliance review board for the purpose of reviewing any challenges to local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code that may be challenged by a substantially affected party. Neither Broward County, per se, nor any of the municipalities in Broward County, is authorized to exercise any authority over the building code in Broward County. In light of this situation in Broward County it appears to have been the concensus of the members of BORA that it was simply not necessary to structure any interlocal agreement nor create any county-wide compliance review board as otherwise generally provided for in the applicable statutory provisions. Thus, when Petitioner Fernandez-Fraga advised BORA that he wished to challenge the validity of two of the local technical amendments adopted by BORA, it was initially unclear where the challenge should be filed and where it should be heard. Following discussion with Commission staff, BORA advised that the challenge should be filed with BORA and would be heard by BORA. On or about March 20, 2003, Petitioners filed an appeal with BORA challenging the validity of the subject amendments. BORA scheduled a hearing on the challenge for April 10, 2003. BORA was apparently of the initial view that it was hearing the Petitioners' appeal in the capacity of a statutory "countywide compliance review board" because BORA originally noticed the April 10, 2003, hearing as being held by “the Board of Rules and Appeals sitting as a Countywide Compliance Review Board pursuant to Florida Statutes 553.73(4)(b) to hear challenges to Broward County Local Amendments to Sections 412 and M403.6.4 by Mr. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, P.A.” Notwithstanding the notice and agenda of the April 10, 2003, BORA meeting/hearing, during the course of the hearing BORA took the position that Broward County does not have a countywide compliance review board as described in Section 553.73(4)(b)8, Florida Statutes. Counsel for BORA stated, on the record, that BORA “has exclusive authority over the building code in Broward County.” Counsel then advised the Board: That statutory section which refers to an interlocal agreement applies to counties where the county and municipalities have the authority to amend the code. In Broward County, the municipalities and the county do not have that authority. Therefore, we don’t have a Compliance Review Board in Broward County because it’s just not authorized because we operate on a different procedure here. The Board of Rules and Appeals has the sole authority to amend the code, so we’re hearing this appeal tonight really as an appeal to reconsider whether the action of this board in March of 2002, when you passed these amendments, were done properly, and that’s the sole issue. The appeal was heard by BORA on April 10, 2003. BORA voted unanimously to deny the appeal. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga promptly received a letter from James DiPietro advising him that the appeal had been rejected. Thereafter the Petitioners timely filed their petition seeking relief from the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Building Commission issue a final order which concludes that, for the reasons set forth above, the local technical amendments adopted by BORA which are challenged in this case fail to comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2001), and are invalid local technical amendments, and further concluding that Broward County is not a necessary or appropriate party to this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2003.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a registered residential contractor having been issued license number RR 0040275. In approximately 1980, Respondent entered into a contract to erect a screen room for a Mr. Lewis. Under the terms of the contract, Respondent was to obtain the necessary building permit. After the contract had been signed, Respondent's grandfather died, and Respondent therefore went to New Jersey. He left the permit application with his qualifying agent to sign and process through the building department. When Respondent returned from New Jersey approximately 30 to 35 days later, he went to the Lewis job site and found the project almost completed. Respondent did not check to ascertain if the permit had been obtained, but rather completed the screen room himself. Lewis subsequently contacted Respondent to say that he had received a notice of violation from the building department for erecting a screen room without a permit. Respondent contacted the building department and advised that it was not Lewis's fault, but rather that it was Respondent's responsibility to pull the permit. Respondent was charged with unlawfully erecting a screen room without a permit; he appeared in court and pled guilty; and he paid a $250 fine pursuant to the adjudication of guilt entered on April 20, 1981, in the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida, in Case No. 81-50438. On June 24, 1981, Respondent submitted to the Construction Industry Licensing Board a Contractor's Registration application. On that application, Respondent answered in the negative the following question: "Has any person named in (i) below ever been convicted of any offense in this state or elsewhere other than traffic violations?" At the time Respondent gave that answer, he believed it to be true. He understood the question to call for information on criminal acts and did not comprehend the "screen room" charge to have been criminal conduct. Since Respondent answered that question in the negative, his application for registration was processed in accordance with normal procedures. Had Respondent answered that question in the affirmative, his application would not have gone through normal processing but rather would have been presented to the Construction Industry Licensing Board for the Board's determination of whether to approve the application based upon a consideration of the facts. On November 22, 1982, Respondent contracted with Naomi Blanton to construct an addition to Blanton's home located in the City of Miami, in Dade County, Florida, for a contract price of $11,250. When Respondent had first met with Blanton several months earlier, he had told her he could guarantee completion of the project within 45 days. No contract was entered into at that time, however, since Blanton had not obtained the financing she needed in order to construct an addition. When the contract was signed on November 22, Respondent told Blanton he would start the job when he finished the Chamber of Commerce building he was con structing but that he was starting a 12-unit duplex project around Christmas and would not be able to guarantee any 45-day completion deadline. Accordingly, when the contract was signed, no completion date was included in the terms of that written contract, since Respondent did not know when he could guarantee completion. The Blanton contract written by Respondent specifically provided that Respondent would obtain the building permit. On December 22 and 23, 1982, two of Respondent's employees arrived at the Blanton job site, dug a trench, knocked down the utility room, and moved Mrs. Blanton's washing machine. No further work was done until January 1983. Since Respondent knew that he was required to obtain the building permit before commencing any construction work, Respondent submitted his plans and permit application to the City of Miami Building Department. After the plans had been there about a week, he was advised that his plans would not be accepted unless they were drawn by an architect, although that is not required by the South Florida Building Code. After attempting several more times to obtain approval from the City of Miami Building Department, Respondent hired an architect to redraw the plans and secure the building permit. By this time, Respondent found himself unable to concentrate on operating his business efficiently, since he was preoccupied with spending time with his father who was dying of cancer. Also by this time, Blanton had commenced telephone calls to Respondent on an almost daily basis as late as 11:00 p.m. at his office, at his home, at his mother's home, and at his father's home. Respondent offered to return Blanton's deposit, but she refused to cancel the contract and threatened Respondent that she would sue him if he did not comply with that contract. Respondent commenced working on the Blanton job, although no permit had yet been obtained. The contract on the Blanton job called for payments at certain stages of the construction. By January 27, 1983, Respondent had completed a sufficient amount of the work under the contract so that Blanton had paid him a total of $8,270 in accordance with the draw schedule contained in the contract. Respondent ceased working on January 27, 1983, and advised Blanton and her attorney that he would do no further work until he could obtain the building permit, which he had still not been able to obtain. Although he told them his work stoppage was due to his continued inability to obtain the permit, he also stopped work due to his father's illness and his continued inability to get along with Mrs. Blanton. A delay occurred with the plans being redrawn by the architect Respondent hired to obtain the Blanton building permit, since the architect needed information from Blanton and she was out of town. After Blanton returned, the architect made unsuccessful attempts to obtain the building permit. Respondent and his architect were finally able to speak to one of the top personnel in the City of Miami Building Department about the problems they were experiencing in obtaining a building permit, and, at about the same time, Blanton contacted that same individual to complain that Respondent had no permit. On May 4, 1983, the building department finally accepted the second permit application together with the plans drawn by the architect, and the building permit was issued on May 4, 1983. No work was performed on the Blanton job between January 27, 1983, when Blanton paid Respondent the draw to which he was entitled by that date, and May 4, 1983, when the building permit was finally issued by the City of Miami. Respondent immediately resumed work and quickly completed the next stage of construction called for under the Blanton contract. Upon completing that next stage, he requested his next draw payment; however, Blanton decided not to pay Respondent for the work completed and had her attorney advise Respondent not to return to the job site. Blanton then had a friend of her son come to Miami from Wisconsin to complete the addition to her home. At all times material hereto, Respondent held a certificate of competency issued by Metropolitan Dade County.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a Final Order be entered finding Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by willfully and deliberately violating Section 301(a) of the South Florida Building Code; imposing an administrative fine against Respondent in the amount of $2,000 to be paid by a date certain; and dismissing the remaining charges contained in the Administrative Complaint, as amended, against Respondent. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 13th day of April, 1984, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of April, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joseph F. Scioli, Jr. 246 North Krome Avenue Florida City, Florida 33034 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaints filed against him? If so, what discipline should he receive?
Findings Of Fact Based upon the record evidence, the Hearing Officer makes the following findings of fact: General Information Edward Ryan is now, and has been since October, 1973, licensed as a Building Contractor by the State of Florida. He holds license number CB 0006481. Ryan has previously been disciplined by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). In July, 1987, prior to the issuance of the instant administrative complaints, he received a letter of reprimand from the Board. The Department of Professional Regulation has recently received additional complaints concerning Ryan. These complaints are currently under investigation. Ryan has been the qualifying agent for Gulf Chemical Contractors, Inc. (Gulf) since August, 1982. All ten of the instant administrative complaints involve projects undertaken by Gulf in Dade County, Florida. The South Florida Building Code (Code) has been adopted as the building code for both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Dade County. The Code provides in pertinent part as follows with respect to the requirement of permits: It shall be unlawful to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, remove or demolish any building structure, or any part thereof; or any equipment, device or facility therein or thereon; or to change the Occupancy of a building from one use Group to another requiring greater strength, means of egress, fire and sanitary provisions; or to install or alter any equipment for which provision is made or the installation of which is regulated by this Code; without first having filed application and obtained a permit therefor, from the Building Official, validated by payment there for. EXCEPTION: No permit shall be required, in this or any of the following Sections, for general maintenance or repairs which do not change the Occupancy and the value of which does not exceed one hundred dollars ($100.00) in labor and material as determined by the Building Official. The Code further requires that the permit holder or his agent notify the Building Official of the completion of the project and call for an inspection of the work completed. Another requirement of the Code is that products such as air vent systems receive official approval from the appropriate Building Official prior to their installation. An experienced building contractor like Ryan doing business in Dade County should be aware of these requirements and should know that it is the responsibility of the general contractor of a project to make sure that these requirements are met. Case No. 89-2204 On May 2, 1987, Helana Lau and her husband entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to perform work on the Lau residence located at 2400 S.W. 15th Street in Miami, Florida, for which it was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $11,450.00 by the Laus. The work that was to be performed on the structure included, among other things, the replacement of the roof and "any rotted wood on facia and soffits" and the installation of a "filter vent system." Gulf installed an aluminum air vent system for the Laus. The product used by Gulf had not received official approval prior to its installation as required by the South Florida Building Code. Furthermore, it posed a potential safety hazard. No official inspection of the contract work performed by Gulf on the Lau residence has ever been requested, notwithstanding that Gulf has long since terminated its work in connection with the project and vacated the jobsite. Case No. 89-2205 On December 29, 1986, Marvin Lichtenstein entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to texture coat Lichtenstein's home located at 2080 N.E. 171st Street in North Miami Beach, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Gulf was to be paid $4,000.00 by Lichtenstein for performing this work. The contract contained a handwritten notation that "finances will be appr 10-11%" and that therefore Lichtenstein would have "a monthly payment of appr $71 or less" on the unpaid balance, which was $3,900.00. The contract also contained the following provision, which unlike the aforementioned notation was printed: This is an agreement by the parties mentioned herein to enter into an installment loan contract. The Purchaser requests that the Seller and the Seller's agents make the appropriate inquiries into the Purchaser's credit history and into the condition of the Title of the Property to be encumbered. The purpose of these inquiries is to see if the Seller may be able to arrange financing of the unpaid cash balance and what the terms of that financing may be. The purchaser agrees to accept any Home Improvement Contract presented by or thru the Seller, that has an interest rate less than the maximum current interest mentioned in the Florida Retail Installment & Sales Acts. The Purchaser agrees that all cost incurred by the Seller in connection with the payment plan will be paid by the Purchaser if the Purchaser refuses to accept that Home Improvement Contract. The work was performed by Gulf on the Lichtenstein home during the second week of January, 1987. Although a permit was required under the Code, it was not obtained prior to the commencement of the project or at any time thereafter. Furthermore, no official inspection of the work completed by Gulf has been requested. Following the completion of the work, Lichtenstein received from AmSav Financial, Inc., an Advance Notice of Acceptance and Intent to Purchase an FHA Title I Note. The document, which was dated January 14, 1987, provided Lichtenstein with the following information: We have found your credit to be satisfactory for a loan in the amount of $3,900.00 for a period of 60 months. Interest at a rate of 14.50% will be charged on the unpaid principal balance. Monthly payments will be $92.82. It is our intention to disburse the funds to the above mentioned dealer [Gulf] when all necessary documents, including a completion certificate indicating the work has been satisfactorily completed are received in proper order; but not earlier than six days from this date. It is not our policy to inspect all improvement projects we finance, so we want you to know that the selection of the contractor and the acceptance of workmanship and materials is your responsibility. You should insist on a copy of all instruments you sign and you should not sign the completion certificate until the contract has been fulfilled to your satisfaction. Contractors are not permitted to give cash rebates from the proceeds of this transaction nor are they permitted to make any payments for you nor any other type of incentive to buy. This commitment is good for 60 days only. If you have any questions regarding this transaction, or if we can be helpful in any way, please let us hear from you within six days from this date. Lichtenstein refused to accept this financing arrangement and, because he was dissatisfied with the work Gulf had done, withheld payment. He eventually settled this dispute with Gulf and paid the company $2,500 in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement. Case No. 89-2206 On or about July 11, 1987, Al Childress, the supervisor of the Code Enforcement Section of the Dade County Building and Zoning Department, received a complaint regarding work purportedly done by Gulf on the Rojas residence located at 18105 N.W. 5th Court in Dade County, Florida. Childress thereafter inspected the premises and discovered that a three-ton air conditioning unit had been installed without a permit first having been obtained. He further ascertained that no formal inspection of the installed unit had been requested. Childress subsequently issued Gulf citations for "unlawfully commencing work on a[n] air conditioning installation without a permit" and "unlawfully contracting for work outside the scope of the certificate of competency." Case No. 89-2207 On January 12, 1987, Bryan Bitner entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to remodel and renovate the kitchen and other parts of the Bitner residence located 571 N.E. 175th Terrace in North Miami Beach, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Gulf was to be paid $10,216 by Bitner. Work on the project began on February 14, 1987, and ended on April 20, 1987. Although given the opportunity to do so by Bitner, Gulf failed to finish the work it had agreed to perform and, without justification or notice, abandoned the project after having completed only 70% of the kitchen cabinetry work specified in the contract. Neither before nor after the commencement of work on the project were the required building, electrical and plumbing permits obtained. No official inspections of the work done in connection with the project have been requested. Case No. 89-2208 On December 19, 1985, Anthony and Anna Rabeck entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to perform roofing work on the Rabeck's home located at 447 East 7th Street in Hialeah, Florida, for which it was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $2,792.00 by the Rabecks. Gulf thereafter subcontracted with Louis Rusty Gordon of Rusty's Roofing to perform work on the project. Gordon performed the work, but was not paid the $600.00 Gulf had agreed to pay him. He therefore filed a lien on the Rabeck's residence in the amount of $600.00 and filed a complaint against Gulf and the Rabecks in Dade County Circuit Court seeking a $600.00 judgment against them. Gordon was ultimately paid the $600.00 by the Rabecks. A roofing permit was never obtained for the work that was done on the Rabeck residence. Furthermore, no official inspection of the work has ever been requested. Case No. 89-2209 On February 21, 1987, James Cox entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to texture coat and to add a screened porch to the Cox residence located at 11621 S.W. 183rd Street in Dade County, Florida. For this work, Gulf was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $5,700.00 by Cox. The texture coating was completed in late March, 1987. The screened porch was finished in early April, 1987. Upon completion of the entire project, Cox paid Gulf in full in accordance with their contractual agreement. Although a permit was necessary to commence the work on the Cox residence, it was never obtained. In addition, no one requested that the completed work be officially inspected. The screened porch was constructed by a subcontractor, Steve Buzzella. Prior to his undertaking this project, Gulf had agreed to pay him $2,200.00 for such work. Although he satisfactorily completed the project, Gulf did not pay him for his work. Consequently, he filed a lien on the Cox residence in the amount of $2,200.00. Buzzella has yet to be paid the money he is owed by Gulf and the lien remains in effect. Cox has retained legal counsel to assist him in connection with this matter and has already paid $175.00 in legal fees. Case No. 89-2210 On June 30, 1986, Adele Spiegel and her husband David entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed in the contract to, among other things, texture coat the Spiegels' residence located at 7380 S.W. 116th Terrace in Dade County, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of the contract, Gulf was to be paid $4,500.00 by the Spiegels. The contract further provided that the Spiegels were to receive a "15 year warr[anty] on [the] tex[ture] coat[ing]" work. It also contained the following provision: Contractor guarantees that all materials furnished by it will be of standard quality, type and condition, free from defects, and will be installed, built or applied in a good workmanlike manner; said labor and materials guaranteed against structural and material defects. Gulf completed the project without obtaining the required permit. Furthermore, no official inspection of the completed project was ever requested. The Spiegels paid Gulf in full for the work it had done. The last of their payments was made on July 10, 1986, following the completion of the project. After this final payment was made, "dark stains" appeared on portions of the texture coating that had been applied to the gable end of the Spiegels' roof. In addition, some of the texture coating started to peel and crack. These problems were caused by the improper application of the texture coating. The Spiegels have advised Gulf of these problems. They have made numerous efforts to have Gulf honor its fifteen-year warranty and correct these problems. These efforts have been to no avail. Gulf has yet to take any corrective action, notwithstanding its obligation to do so under the warranty it gave the Spiegels. Case No. 89-2211 On February 18, 1985, Angelo Bertolino entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to texture coat Bertolino's residence located at 11730 S.W. 175th Street in Dade County, Florida. For this work, Gulf was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $3,000.00 by Bertolino. Bertolino received from Gulf, as part of their agreement, a fifteen-year warranty on the texture coating similar to the one that the Spiegels were given. Assurances were given to Bertolino that any warranty work that was necessary would be done by Gulf. The Bertolino home was texture coated shortly after the contract was signed. In July, 1987, the texture coating began to crack and peel. Bertolino immediately contacted Gulf to apprise it of the situation and to request that it perform the necessary repairs in accordance with the terms of the warranty it had given him. Receiving no response from Gulf to this initial request, he telephoned the company's offices on almost a daily basis until September, 1987, when a Gulf representative came to his home and did some corrective work. A month later, the area that had purportedly been repaired started to again crack and peel. Bertolino has made Gulf aware of the situation and has sought on numerous occasions to have the company perform the warranty work necessary to correct these problems. Gulf has ignored these requests and failed to honor the warranty it gave Bertolino. Case No. 89-2212 On January 6, 1988, Edward Baum entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to texture coat Baum's residence located at 10921 S.W. 120th Street in Dade County, Florida. For this work, Gulf was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $3,200 by Baum. The project was completed on January 13, 1988. Upon completion of the work, Baum paid Gulf in full. Textured Coatings of America, Inc. (TCA) supplied Gulf with $583.28 of materials that were used to complete the project. The materials were supplied on credit. Because it had not received payment for these materials, TCA, on March 4, 1988, after giving due notice to Gulf and Baum, filed a lien on Baum's residence in the amount of $583.28. TCA has yet to be paid for these materials and the lien is still in effect. Case No. 89-2213 On February 17, 1987, James Harris entered into a written contract with Gulf. Gulf agreed to install new windows in Harris' residence located at 9730 S.W. 167th Street in Dade County, Florida, for which it was to be paid, pursuant to the terms of the contract, $2,503.20 by Harris. The windows were installed in one day. Although one was needed, no permit was obtained prior to the completion of the project. Furthermore, no official inspection of the completed work has ever been requested. The windows were not installed properly. As a result, they do not close and lock as they should. Harris must put cement blocks on the outside ledges in front of some of the windows and then tape these windows shut to prevent them from falling open. Harris has unsuccessfully sought to have Gulf repair the windows.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order (1) finding Respondent guilty of the violations described in paragraph 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 16-24 of the foregoing Conclusions of Law; (2) revoking his license as punishment for these violations; and (3) dismissing the charges against Respondent discussed in paragraphs 9, 10, 13, and 15 of the foregoing Conclusions of Law. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of September, 1989. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NOS. 89-2204 THROUGH 89-2213 The following are the Hearing Officer's specific rulings on the Proposed Findings of Fact submitted by the Department: 1-12. Accepted and incorporated in substance, although not necessarily repeated verbatim, in this Recommended Order. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence inasmuch as it suggests that Lichtenstein was obligated to, and did, make monthly payments of $92.82. Rejected for the same reason as 13, second sentence, above. 15-16. Accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence to the extent that it asserts that Rojas "had hired Gulf to install an air conditioning unit." Insofar as it describes the complaint received by Childress, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence inasmuch as it indicates that the work on the Rojas residence was performed by Respondent. First and second sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance; third sentence: Rejected as more in the nature of argument than a finding of fact. First sentence: Rejected for the same reason as 18 above; second sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected for the same reason as 18 above. 22-28. Accepted and incorporated in substance. Rejected as beyond the scope of the charges to the extent that it addresses the quality of the work that was completed. In all other respects, this proposed finding has been accepted and incorporated in substance. First sentence: Accepted and incorporated in substance; second sentence: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. 31-32. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 33-34. Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence inasmuch as both of these proposed findings are based upon the premise that the Rabeck's paid Gulf in full. 36-44. Accepted and incorporated by reference. 45. Rejected as unnecessary, except for the last sentence, which has been accepted and incorporated in substance. 46-62. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 63. Rejected as unnecessary except to the extent it references the lien filed against the Baum residence. Insofar as it addresses said lien, it has been accepted and incorporated in substance. 65-66. Accepted and incorporated in substance. 67. First sentence: Rejected as unnecessary; second and third sentences: Accepted and incorporated in substance. 68-71. Accepted and incorporated in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory A. Victor, Esquire Jan L. Darlow, Esquire William Burke, Esquire Bayview Executive Plaza 3225 Aviation Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33133 Edward Ryan 169 Lincoln Road Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issues presented for decision herein are whether or not the Respondent diverted funds from a construction project involved herein; violated local building codes and thereby engaged in misconduct in the practice of electrical contracting all in violation of Sections 489.533(1)(m), (f), and (i), Florida Statutes (1983).
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant factual findings. During times material herein, Respondent is and continues to be a registered electrical contractor having been issued license number ER004865. On November 28, 1983, Clell Villella, manager of Coral Castle, Inc., a tourist attraction, and Respondent entered into a subcontractual agreement for the installation of parking lot and outdoor lighting electrical connections to existing electrical services at the Coral Castle. The contract price was $26,600 and the parties agreed that the work would be-completed by January 1, 1984, the beginning of Coral Castle's peak tourist season. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 2 and testimony of Clell Villella). On December 8, 1983, Respondent was given an initial deposit of $6,600 to commence work. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 3). After Respondent was given the initial deposit he failed to appear at the Coral Castle to commence work on the project for approximately 30 days despite Manager Villella's constant prodding through phone calls. Respondent commenced work on the project during early January, 1984 and worked evenings for a period of approximately ten to twelve days on the project. After Respondent had worked on the project for approximately twenty hours, he abandoned it by failing to appear at the site for more than 30 days. Respondent failed to return Manager Villella's phone calls. When it became apparent that Respondent would not be returning to the project, Manager Villella hired Tierney Electrical Contractors, Inc., (Tierney) to complete the electrical work on March 7, 1984. Tierney submitted a proposal to complete the work in question for the sum of $36,500. (Petitioner's Exhibit 4). Tierney was requested to make some modifications to the work which Respondent had contracted to perform. Tierney estimates the added cost resulting from the modifications increased the value of his proposal by approximately $4,000. (Testimony of William Tierney). When Tierney commenced construction on the project, Manager Villella requested that he estimate the amount of the work that Respondent had completed. Tierney estimated that amount to be 13% of the project or approximately $2,226. Tierney's calculations were based on the fact that Respondent had installed approximately 643 feet of 3/4-inch rigid conduit. Based on the estimate of the work completed by Respondent, Coral Castle, by letter, requested Respondent to refund the $4,374 difference between the amount of the deposit initially tendered to him and the amount of work completed as estimated by Tierney Electrical Contractors. As of the date of the hearing, Respondent failed to respond to this demand or return any telephone calls from Manager Villella. At no time while Respondent performed the work in question for Coral Castle, Inc., had he (Respondent) applied for or obtained an electrical permit to perform the work in question. Respondent acknowledges that no permit was obtained for the work he performed at Coral Castle. However, he maintains that the common practice in the area is that permits are "pulled" after the work is completed or, in any event, prior to the first inspection; that it is permissible to commence construction except that a permit has to be obtained prior to the time when the job is either completed or the first inspection is due. However, a review of the pertinent sections of the South Florida Building Code, 1 1984 edition, reveals that it is necessary to first file an application for and obtain a permit prior to. commencement of construction. Chapter 3, Section 301, South Florida Building Code (1984 Edition).m
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is recommended that Respondent's license as a Registered Electrical Contractor be suspended for a period of one (1) year. Further, it is recommended that the suspension be stayed for a period of 30 days during which time the Respondent will be allowed an opportunity to enter into a settlement agreement with Coral Castle, Inc., and provided that such an agreement is made, that the suspension revert into a term of probation for a like period i.e., (1 year). Finally, it is recommended that the Respondent pay the Petitioner an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000. Recommended this 4th day of February, 1986, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of February, 1986.
The Issue The issue in this case is whether certain proposed amendments to Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G20-2.002 enlarge, modify, and/or contravene the cited provisions of law implemented, so as to render the proposed amendments invalid exercises of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact The Commission is the state agency responsible for the development and maintenance of the Florida Building Code under chapter 553, Florida Statutes (2017),1/ and chapter 61G20-2. The Commission is created as a distinct agency, but is located within the Department of Business and Professional Regulation for administrative purposes. § 553.74(1), Fla. Stat. The subject matter at issue in this case is the Florida Building Code update and amendment process, as recently changed in section 553.73. On November 15, 2017, the Commission published a Notice of Proposed Rule to substantially rewrite rule 61G20-2.002 (the proposed rule), “in order to conform with changes made to section 553.73” by the 2017 Legislature. FAAIA is a professional association representing roughly 2,700 architects licensed in Florida. These Florida-licensed architects are the overwhelming majority of FAAIA’s members. FAAIA’s Florida-licensed architect members are subject to the requirements of the Florida Building Code in the practice of their profession. A failure to comply with the requirements of the Florida Building Code exposes a licensed architect to discipline against his or her license, as well as potential liability for negligence. See, e.g., Seibert v. Bayport Beach & Tennis Club Ass’n, 573 So. 2d 889, 891 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (statutory remedy and common law negligence each provided independent basis for finding liability derived from architect’s violation of the building code); Juhn v. Dep’t of Prof’l Reg., 431 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)(architect can be disciplined by licensing board for failing to comply with applicable codes). The subject matter of the proposed rule is within the scope of FAAIA’s representation of its members in the normal course of its business and activities. As a professional association, FAAIA routinely represents its members before the Florida Legislature as well as before state agencies, and in DOAH administrative proceedings on matters of policy and regulation of its members’ practice. On behalf of its members, FAAIA challenges two aspects of the proposed rule, asserting that in two respects, the proposed rule does not square with the “unambiguous” provisions of the 2017 law intended to be implemented. As the parties represented, FAAIA’s objections to the proposed rule present legal questions that must be answered by comparing the statutory language before and after amendment in 2017, so as to determine whether the proposed rule implements the amended law, as the Commission contends, or whether the proposed rule enlarges, modifies, and/or contravenes the amended law, as FAAIA contends. The parties offered no extrinsic aids as evidence to consider in interpreting the 2017 law, such as legislative staff analyses or other evidence regarding the 2017 legislative action. Instead, both parties contend that the statutory changes at issue are clear and unambiguous, albeit they manage to reach diametrically opposed interpretations of the “clear and unambiguous” statutory changes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was a registered roofing contractor, having been issued License No. RC0034672, in the name of John M. Sneed, Beall and Associates Roofing Corp., 7650 Southwest 135th Street, Miami, Florida 33156. Sometime during the month of October, 1951, Jerry Stamos entered into an oral agreement with Bill Parry and Billy Duncan, to have Parry and Duncan reroof Stamos's home at 441 Castonia Avenue, Coral Gables, Florida. The contract price for the reroofing work was $4,000. At no time was either Duncan or Parry licensed to perform roofing work. As a result, after Mr. Stamos was unable to obtain a building permit in his own name to perform the work, Duncan contacted Respondent, and requested that Respondent pull the building permit for the job. On October 20, 1981, Respondent obtained City of Coral Gables, Department of Building and Zoning Permit No. A48375 to perform the work on the Stamos's property. At the time the building permit was pulled by Respondent, no work had commenced on the job. Duncan and Parry were paid a total of $4,000 for the job, $100 in cash; $2,000 on October 13, 1981; and an additional $1,900 on October 22, 1981. Shortly after the building permit was pulled and work had been commenced on the property by Duncan and Parry, Duncan and Parry stopped work on the roof and never returned. Respondent was on the job site on at least one occasion when work was being performed. No notice was furnished to Mr. Stamos concerning cessation of work on the project, nor was he ever given an explanation of why work stopped and was never recommenced by Parry, Duncan, or Respondent. Respondent never supervised any of the work performed by Parry or Duncan, nor did he ever call for any inspection of the project by the City of Coral Gables, Department of Building and Zoning. The South Florida Building Code, Section 3401.1(b) provides as follows: INSPECTION. The Building Officials shall be notified by the permit holder and ample time for mandatory inspections to be made as follows: At the time the anchor sheet is being mopped to non-nailable decks. At the completion of mechanically fastening the anchor sheet to nailable decks and before mopping. During the operation of shingling or tiling. Upon completion of the roof covering. On December 1, 1981, Respondent contacted the City of Coral Gables, Department of Building and Zoning, and cancelled the permit previously obtained by him on October 20, 1981. At that time, Respondent represented to city officials that construction had never started on the project, although he knew that representation to he false. The building project remained unfinished for a period in excess of ninety days before Mr. Stamos had the job finished by another contractor.
The Issue The issue to be resolved in this proceeding concerns whether the Respondents practiced architecture without being appropriately licensed, as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and, if so, what, if any, penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged, as pertinent hereto, with the responsibility of regulating entry into the practice of architecture and the practice of architecture, including regulation and enforcement concerning proper certification and licensure with regard to the practice of architecture in accordance with Chapters 20, 455, and 481, Florida Statutes. The Respondents are not certified or licensed as an architect or architectural business in accordance with Chapter 481, Part I, Florida Statutes. The Respondent, Lee Mabire, is the sole stock holder and officer of the Respondent, Lee Mabire & Company. Sometime in September 2001, the Respondent, Lee Mabire, was contacted by Mike Rush to provide drawings for a commercial construction project located at 2621 Michigan Avenue, in Pensacola, Florida. The property in question is owned by Lavonia Ives. Mike Rush, the builder, had commenced construction of the renovations requested by Ms. Ives, the owner, but the work on the renovations had ceased because Mr. Rush had never obtained a building permit. Ms. Ives was renovating the property because she intended to lease it to a biomedical company. Mr. Rush needed plans drawn for the project in order to obtain the necessary building permit. Mr. Rush provided the Respondent with a floor plan at the initial meeting he scheduled with the Respondent, Mr. Mabire. The floor plan included a reception area, a conference room, repair shop, storage, warehouse, kitchen, bathroom, and five offices. The project clearly would cost in excess of $25,000.00 as described by Mr. Rush in his request for plans made to the Respondent. The building was designed to include a reception area that had a door open to the public. The Respondent drafted the plumbing, mechanical, and electrical drawings for the project. Oscar Woody, a licensed architect, first became aware of the Ives project through the Respondent. The Respondent gave Mr. Woody several sheets of drawings that he had already prepared. Mr. Woody was responsible for assuring that the plans for the building complied with the American With Disabilities Act. The Respondent is not an employee of Woody or Oscar Woody & Associates and has never received a W-2 form from either of those entities. On November 5, 2001, Mr. Woody signed and sealed the plans prepared for the Ives project. The plans which Mr. Woody signed and sealed as an architect had been prepared by the Respondent. The plans included three pages, a floor plan, an electrical plan, and an HVAC plan. The plans for the project were submitted to the city building department for permitting on November 5, 2002. Mr. Rush told the owner, Ms. Ives, that the Respondent had prepared the architectural drawings for the project. On November 5, 2001, at a meeting outside the building department office, the Respondent gave the plans to Ms. Ives. This was the first time Ms. Ives had ever met the Respondent in person. Prior to the hearing, Ms. Ives had never met Mr. Woody nor had any discussions with Mr. Woody. On that same day, November 5, 2001, Ms. Ives gave the Respondent a check in the amount of $2,400.00 and, at the request of the Respondent, left the payee portion of the check blank. The Respondent later filled in Oscar Woody & Associates as the payee of the check. Ms. Ives requested that the Respondent prepare a receipt for the services he provided an evidencing that payment had been made. The Respondent prepared and signed the receipt for the payment dated December 4, 2001, that describes the scope of services as "Comm. Bldg. Rem. Plans to code." Mr. Woody's name does not appear anywhere on the receipt. The building department required Mr. Woody to revise the electrical and HVAC sheets contained in the plans which he had signed and sealed. Those revised drawings were prepared by the Respondent, however. Mr. Woody signed and sealed the revised drawings on December 11, 2001. On that same day, Ms. Ives gave the Respondent a check in the amount of $125.00 made payable to Lee Mabire Company. The memo on that checks states "revised blueprints, Michigan Avenue." The Respondent provided Ms. Ives another receipt for the payment and described the services as "revised blueprints to meet code." Throughout this sequence of events, the Respondent was the only person Ms. Ives had contact with regarding the architectural drawings that were filed with the building department, other than Mr. Rush and personnel from the building department itself. On February 12, 2002, Don Mathys, filed a complaint with the department against the Respondents for drawing and submitting plans to the Escambia County Building Department for a commercial project. Mr. Mathys was previously a Florida licensed architect, who was chief plans examiner for the Escambia County Building Inspections Department at the time the complaint was filed. The Respondent, Mr. Mabire, has previously been disciplined by the department for the unlicensed practice of contracting and has received a Notice and Order to Cease and Desist as to that disciplinary action on February 18, 2000. The Notice and Order to Cease and Desist pertained to a set of drawings prepared by the Respondent for an office building.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witness, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Department of Business and Professional Regulation finding that the Respondents Lee Mabire and Lee Mabire Company violated the above referenced statutory provisions concerning the unlicensed practice of architecture; that an administrative fine in the amount of $2,000.00 be imposed against the Respondents, and that they be required to pay the costs, other than attorney's fees, in the amount of $2,111.25. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of June, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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 Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of June, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: David K. Minacci, Esquire Smith, Thompson, Shaw & Manausa, P.A. 2075 Centre Pointe Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32308-4893 Lee Mabire, pro se 4440 Bayou Boulevard, No. 25 Pensacola, Florida 32503 Sherry Landrum, Executive Director Architecture and Interior Design Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy Campiglia, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0729
