The Issue Whether the Respondent, Peter Battle, committed the offenses alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline should be imposed against his roofing contractor's license.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Peter Battle, was a certified roofing contractor having been issued License No. C-1959 and was the certified contractor for Battle Roofing Company. On September 18, 1996, the Town of Redington Beach approved and issued a roofing permit to Battle Roofing Co. to replace the roof of a house located a 16215 Second Street, East, Redington Beach, Florida. In Redington Beach, inspections of construction sites are conducted only in the following instances: (1) upon request by the property owner or the contractor working at the site; (2) to determine if a proper permit has been secured for the work being performed; or (3) when apparent violations of the Standard Building Code can be viewed by local code enforcement personnel from the street or right-of-way adjacent to the site where work is being performed. On October 16, 1996, while driving on the street adjacent to the site of the roofing project, William Keeley, Building Code Administrator for the Town of Redington Beach, observed the roofing system being installed by Respondent. At that time, it was apparent to Mr. Keeley that the roof being installed by Respondent was a low-sloped roof. Moreover, it appeared to Mr. Keeley that the low-sloped roof being installed by Respondent had single-ply base sheets. Because the Standard Building Code, required double-ply base sheets for a low sloped roof, Mr. Keeley went on the property to inspect the roofing project. As a result of the inspection, Mr. Keeley determined two violations of the Standard Building Code; detailed the code violations on a written rejection notice; and posted the rejection notice at the site. The rejection notice indicated that Respondent (1) failed to use two-ply base sheets as required by Section 1509.4.21 of the Standard Building Code and (2) failed to use six nails or fasteners per shingle as required by Section 1509.3.5 of the Standard Building Code. On October 16, 1996, Mr. Keeley met and discussed with Respondent the violations of the Standard Building Code that Mr. Keeley's inspection had revealed. Furthermore, Mr. Keeley informed Respondent that the deficiencies must be corrected and brought into compliance with the applicable provisions of the Standard Building Code. Another inspection of the roof of the Redington Beach house was performed by Mr. Keeley on March 4, 1997. At that time, it was determined that the violations cited on the rejection notice issued on October 16, 1997, had not yet been corrected. Moreover, the March 4, 1997, inspection of the subject roofing project revealed several other deficiencies and violations of the Standard Building Code. These deficiencies included the following: (1) The rakes were not nailed and cemented as required by Section 1509.4.2.3 of the Standard Building Code; (2) The valley lining was not cemented and was only 14 inches wide in violation of Section 1509.14.3.2 of the Standard Building Code; (3) One shingle on the north and south rakes was short and tabs were missing; (4) The lap at the tie into the porch roof was not cemented as required due to the house being located in a high wind area; and (5) The area on south side of house where soffit and fascia meet was not sealed and secured. On or about March 7, 1997, Mr. Keeley filed a formal complaint with the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board against Respondent. As a basis therefore, Mr. Keeley cited the deficiencies noted in paragraphs 5 and 8 above. A third inspection of the roofing project was conducted by Mr. Keeley on August 1, 1997. This inspection revealed that only one of the previously noted deficiencies was corrected to comply with the Standard Building Code. The corrected deficiency involved the lap at the tie into the porch roof which previously had not been cemented. Other deficient areas noted in the October 1996 and March 1997 inspections were still in noncompliance with the Standard Building Code at the August 1997 inspection. There is no evidence that Respondent's license as a roofing contractor has been subjected to disciplinary action on any prior occasion by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a Final Order that finds that: Respondent, Peter Battle, committed the offense alleged in Count One of the Administrative Complaint, violated Chapter 89-504, Section 24(2)(d) and (j), Laws of Florida, and which imposes an administrative fine of $300 for this violation. Respondent violated Chapter 89-504, Section 24(2)(m), Laws of Florida, is guilty of incompetence as alleged in Count Two of the Administrative Complaint, and which imposes an administrative fine of $300 for this violation. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of October, 1997, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. COPIES FURNISHED: _ CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 22nd day of October, 1997. William J. Owens, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 34643-5116 Peter Battle, pro se 1090 Sixty-Fourth Avenue, South St. Petersburg, Florida 33705 Howard Bernstein, Esquire County Attorney's Office 315 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 34616
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether disciplinary action should be taken against the Respondent’s registered general and residential contractor’s licenses for violations of Sections 489.129(1)(a), 489.129(1)(d), 489.129(1)(j), 489.129(1)(n) and 489.129(1)(o), Florida Statutes, and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, the Respondent, Edwin A. Henry, had been licensed by the Department as a registered general contractor and as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license nos. RG 0045112 and RR 0047927, respectively. Moreover, the Respondent was the qualifying agent for Henry Company Homes, Inc. Henry Company Homes, Inc., is a production builder. A production builder builds homes from various standard or generic plans in the hopes of selling those homes at a later time. The homes are not customized in the sense that the plans for a home are drafted with specific home owners' input or for a specific home owner. The pace of production building is generally substantially faster and less expensive than custom home building. Economies in standard materials and use of labor are the reason for the lesser expense. To gain such economies, Henry Company Homes uses the critical path method of construction. The critical path method is a scheduling outline of the time and sequence of work to be done to build a house. The critical path method is an accepted and appropriate construction management technique and the Respondent’s critical path method and times are within the norms of construction techniques accepted in the industry. Respondent was the manager for Henry Company Homes. He did not personally build any of Henry Company’s houses and he did not personally build the houses at issue in this case. Moreover, Respondent was not on-site when these houses were built. Respondent’s role in the company was at least two levels removed from the actual on-site construction of any home. However, the Respondent’s organizational structure and span of management are within the norms accepted in the construction industry. On all homes built by Henry Company, the construction was supervised by a qualified construction supervisor. An assistant supervisor was available to a construction supervisor, should the assigned supervisor need help in overseeing the houses assigned to him. At least one supervisor, Charles Smith, who supervised the construction of the Hornsby house, voiced the standard complaint that he was being overloaded with houses located in different subdivisions and that it was difficult to maintain the production goals established by Henry Homes of completing a house in 10 to 12 weeks. Expert testimony indicated that such a goal was appropriate. Moreover, this complaint seems to be a standard complaint of construction supervisors everywhere and not particularly probative of any of the issues in this case relating to the Respondent. In fact, the Respondent’s supervisory responsibility for his on-site superintendents is within the norms accepted in the construction industry. The pace of construction of Henry Company Homes is the only fact submitted by the Department to demonstrate any knowledge or negligence on the part of the Respondent. No facts specific to the time period or pace of building of the houses involved in this complaint were submitted by the Department. Moreover, Mr. Smith also testified that the Hornsby home met the requirements of the Building Code and he was not aware of any defects in the home. Any other evidence on the issue of knowledge was unconvincing. Okaloosa County adopted the 1994 Southern Standard Building Code on November 15, 1994. Prior to that time the County, on September 21, 1993, had adopted by Ordinance the "current edition of the Southern Standard Building Code, including the appendix." In 1993, the current edition of the Southern Standard Building Code was the 1991 Standard Building Code. In all material respects, the provisions of each edition of the Standard Building Code relevant to this proceeding are the same. In essence, the Standard Building Code establishes minimum standards for the construction of residential homes. However, the Code provides for a high degree of flexibility in its interpretation and application by local building officials. One reason for the flexibility is that it is virtually impossible to construct a building which is totally compliant with the Building Code. Indeed there is a difference between non- compliance with the Building Code and a violation of the Building Code. Before a violation of the code occurs, notice of a deficiency and an opportunity to correct the deficiency must occur. Local building officials may adopt alternative methods of construction as long as those methods are not prohibited by the Building Code and meet the performance standards of the Building Code. No particular procedure is required for the determination of such alternate methods of construction and the building official is free to apply his expertise and knowledge of the local area to establish such alternate methods. The 1994 Standard Building Code provides, in pertinent part, as follows: PREFACE. The purpose of the Standard Building Code is to serve as a comprehensive regulatory document to guide decisions aimed at protecting the public’s life, health and welfare in the built environment. This protection is provided through the adoption and enforcement, by state and local governments, of the performance-based provisions contained herein. The use of performance-based requirements encourages the use of innovative building designs, materials and construction systems while at the same time recognizing the merits of the more traditional materials and systems. This concept promotes maximum flexibility in building design and construction as well as assuring a high degree of life safety. The Standard Building Code incorporates by reference, nationally recognized consensus standards for use in judging the performance of materials and systems. This provides for equal treatment of both innovative and traditional materials and systems, provides for the efficient introduction of new materials into the construction process and assures a high level of consumer protection. * * * 101.3 Code Remedial General. This code is hereby declared to be remedial and shall be construed to secure the beneficial interests and purposes thereof, which are public safety, health and general welfare through structural strength, stability, . . . and safety to life and property from fire and other hazards attributable to the built environment . . . . Quality control of materials and workmanship is not within the purview of this code except as it relates to the purposes stated herein. * * * 101.4 Applicability 101.4.9 Referenced Standards. Standards referenced in the technical codes shall be considered an integral part of the codes . . . . Permissive and advisory provisions in a standard shall not be construed as mandatory. * * * POWERS AND DUTIES OF THE BUILDING OFFICIAL General. The Building Official is hereby authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official is further authorized to render interpretations of this code, which are consistent with its spirit and purpose. (Emphasis supplied) * * * Requirements Not Covered By Code Any requirements necessary for the strength, stability . . . or for the public safety, health and general welfare, not specifically covered by this or other technical codes, shall be determined by the building official. Alternate Materials and Methods The provisions of the technical codes are not intended to prevent the use of material or method of construction not specifically prescribed by them, provided any such alternate has been reviewed by the building official. . . . . Examinations of Documents Plan Review. The building Official shall examine or cause to be examined each application for permit and the accompanying documents, consisting of drawings, specifications, computations and additional data and shall ascertain . . . whether the construction indicated and described is in accordance with the technical codes . . . . Affidavits. The building official may accept sworn affidavits from a registered architect or engineer stating the plans submitted conform to the technical codes. . . . 105. INSPECTIONS * * * * * * 105.4 Inspections Prior to Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or Completion The Building official shall inspect . . . at various intervals all construction or work for which a permit is required, and a final inspection shall be made of every building . . . prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or Completion. * * * 105.6 Required Inspections The building official upon notification from the permit holder or his agent shall make the following inspections . . . and shall either release that portion of the construction or shall notify the permit holder or his agent of any violations which must be corrected in order to comply with the technical codes: Building Foundation Inspection: To be made after trenches are excavated and forms erected. Frame Inspection: To be made after the roof, all framing, fireblocking and bracing is in place . . . Final Inspection: To be made after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. * * * 202. DEFINITIONS GRADE-a reference plane representing the average of finished ground level adjoining the building at all exterior walls. . . . . * * * 1804. FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS 1804.1 General 1804.1.1 Foundations shall be built on undisturbed soil or properly compacted fill material. . . . * * * 1804.1.3 The bottom of foundations shall extend . . . no less than 12 inches (305 mm) below finish grade. (Emphasis supplied) * * * 1804.18 The area under footings, foundations, and concrete slabs on grade shall have all vegetation, stumps, roots, and foreign materials removed prior to their construction. . . . * * * 1804.4 Footing Design * * * 1804.4.2 Footings shall be proportioned to sustain the applied loads and induced reactions without exceeding the allowable stresses specified in this code. * * * 1906.4 Depositing 1906.4.5 After concreting has started, it shall be carried on as a continuous operation until placing a panel or section, . . . is completed except as permitted or prohibited by 1907.4. * * * 1907.4 Construction Joints * * * 1907.4.3 Construction joints shall be so made and located as not to impair the strength of the structure. Provision shall be made for transfer of shear and other forces through construction joints. * * * 2111. MASONRY CONSTRUCTION * * * 2111.1.3 Weepholes. Weepholes shall be provided in masonry veneer . . . at a maximum spacing of 4 ft (1219 mm) on center by omitting mortar in the head joints. Weepholes shall be located in the first course above the foundation wall or slab . . . . 2111.1.4 Installation of Wall Ties. The ends of wall ties shall be embedded in mortar joints. Wall tie ends shall engage outer face shells of hollow units by at least 1/2 inch (12.7 mm). . . . * * * 203.1.2 The detailed structural requirements contained in this chapter are based on sound engineering principles. . . . * * * 2301.2 Design 2301.2.1 The quality and design of wood members and their fastenings used for load supporting purposes shall conform to good engineering practices. 2301.2.1 All members shall be framed, anchored, tied and braced so as to develop the strength and rigidity necessary for the purposes for which they are used. 2301.2.1 Preparation, fabrication and installation of wood members and the glues, connectors, and mechanical devices for the fastening thereof shall conform to good engineering practices. * * * 2306. FASTENINGS 2306.1 Nailing and Stapling Requirements. The number and size of nails or staples connecting wood members shall not be less than those specified in Table 2306.1. . . . 2306.2 Other Fastenings. Where framing anchors, clips, staples, glues or other methods of fastening are used, they shall be labeled, listed and installed in accordance with their listing. * * * 2308. VERTICAL FRAMING 2308.1 Exterior Wall Framing 2308.1.1. Studs in one and two story buildings shall not be less than 2x4 with the wide face perpendicular to wall. . . . * * * 2308.1.1 Heights listed in 2308.1.1 are distances between points of horizontal lateral support placed perpendicular to the plane of the wall. Heights may be increased where justified by analysis. * * * 2308.1.5 Studs shall be capped with double top plates installed to provide overlapping at corners and at intersections with bearing partitions. End joints in double top plates shall be offset at least 24 inches (610 mm). In lieu of double top plates, a continuous header may be used. . . . 2308.1.5 Studs shall have full bearing on a plate or sill of not less than 2 inch nominal thickness and having a width at least equal to the width of the studs. * * * 2308.5 Interior bearing Partitions 2308.5.1 The provisions of 2308.1.1, 2308.1.2, 2308.1.3 and 2308.1.4 shall apply to interior bearing partitions supporting more than a ceiling under an attic with no storage. * * * 2308.5 Interior Nonbearing Partitions 2308.5.1 Framing for nonbearing partitions shall be of adequate size and spacing to support the finish applied. . . . * * * 2309. ROOF AND CEILING FRAMING 2309.1 Ceiling Joists and Rafter Framing * * * 2309.1.3 Ceiling joists and rafters shall be nailed to each other where possible . . . . * * * 2309.1 Trussed Rafters * * * 2309.1.3 The bracing of metal plate connected wood trusses shall comply to their appropriate engineered design. In the absence of specific bracing requirements, trusses shall be braced in accordance with the Truss Plate Institute’s "Handling, Installing and Bracing Metal Plate Connected Wood Trusses, HIB-91." * * * 2309.1 Roof Sheathing 2309.1 All rafters and roof joists shall be covered with one of the following Materials: * * * 4. Particleboard applied in accordance with the provisions of Table 2309.3B and nailed in accordance with Table 2306.1. * * * Table 2306.1 provides that roof sheathing of the type used in the houses involved in this case be nailed 6 inches on center at the edges and 12 inches on center intermediate. The Administrative Complaint alleges the following Building Code violations as the sole basis for the proposed disciplinary action against the Respondent in relation to both the Hornsby and Anthony houses: Foundation does not extend at least 12 inches below finished grade; Foundation is deficient as to form; Stub trusses are not anchored to the interior weight bearing wall; Stub trusses are not adequately cross braced; Brick veneer is not adequately anchored to the interior sheathing or studs to safely resist wind loads; and As to the Hornsby house, the roof sheathing is not attached to resist wind load requirements in the code. The construction of the Hornsby residence was permitted by Okaloosa County, Florida, on June 2, 1994. At the time the Hornsby permit was issued, Okaloosa County was not reviewing building plans for compliance with wind load requirements of the Building Code or inspecting properties for compliance with wind load requirements of the Building Code. The construction of the Anthony residence was duly permitted by Okaloosa County, Florida, on June 6, 1996. At the time the permit was issued, Okaloosa County was reviewing building plans for compliance with wind load requirements of the Building Code. The plans for the Anthony residence passed that review by the Okaloosa County Building Department. The Hornsby and Anthony homes are wood-frame houses built on monolithic concrete slabs. They have a hip roof. The exterior walls are covered by brick veneer anchored with standard brick ties. Both houses have brick veneer which moves with the application of strong hand pressure to the top part of the veneer. The deflection on one wall of the Hornsby house is at least 1 inch. The deflection on the remainder of the Hornsby house and all of the Anthony house is slight and within general engineering perimeters. Both houses have been through at least two major hurricanes since they were built. Both hurricanes had winds in excess of any wind load requirements. Neither house sustained significant damage from either hurricane. There was no evidence submitted, through appropriate calculations, that the houses involved in this case did not meet the performance criteria of the Building Code. To the contrary, there is evidence that these houses do meet the performance requirements of the Building Code since they have survived at least two major hurricanes without sustaining the type damage these performance tests were designed to prevent. The Respondent requested and the Okaloosa County Building Department (Okaloosa County) conducted all required inspections of the Hornsby and Anthony residences. One deficiency, not at issue here, was noted by Okaloosa County during construction of the Hornsby house and was promptly repaired by the Respondent to the satisfaction of the local building official. No deficiencies were noted by Okaloosa County during any of the inspections of the Anthony house. A Certificate of Occupancy (Certificate) was issued by Okaloosa County for the Hornsby house on March 14, 1995. The Certificate certified to the Respondent that the Hornsby residence was constructed in accordance with the applicable Building Code. Hayward Hornsby purchased the house within several weeks after the Certificate was issued and after one walk-through of the house. However, shortly after moving in, Mr. Hornsby noticed that large portions of the ceiling drywall were sagging or wavy. The view of the property corroborated the condition of portions of the Hornsby ceiling, but, the ceiling is not unsightly; the waviness in the Hornsby ceiling can be traced to an unlevel foundation. However, the waviness does not appear to be the result of any code violation on the Respondent’s part, but is one of workmanship. After seeing the wavy ceiling, Mr. Hornsby has never been happy with his house. A Certificate on the Anthony house was issued by Okaloosa County on December 9, 1995. The Certificate certified to the Respondent that the Anthony residence was constructed in accordance with the applicable Building Code. Mr. Anthony, to this day, is happy with his home and has never complained to the Department about his home. It was Mr. Hornsby who directed the Department to Mr. Anthony’s home. As indicated, the applicable Building Code requires that the foundation extend at least 12 inches below finished grade. Section 1804.1.3, Standard Building Code, 1994. The foundation in the Hornsby and Anthony residences clearly met this Building Code requirement. Additionally, the view of each property demonstrated that the foundation met the Building Code requirement for depth. The Department’s expert testified that the correct measurement for determining the depth of the foundation below finished grade was from the bottom of the foundation to the bottom of the brick shelf. That is not the correct measurement for determining compliance with the Building Code. The correct measurement is from the bottom of the foundation to the top of the finished grade. The closest estimate of the original finished grade for both houses was the soil stain on the brick wall. Even after the Administrative Complaint was filed, the Okaloosa County Building Inspector inspected the Anthony residence. He found no Building Code issues with the depth of the foundation on the Anthony residence. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. The Building Code requires that the foundation be sufficient to carry the load of the structure. Section 1804.4.2, Standard Building Code, 1994. The Department’s experts have testified that they had not performed any tests or calculations to determine whether the Hornsby or Anthony foundations are sufficient to carry the load of the structure. Importantly, nowhere in the Building Code is it required that walls be plumb or that foundations be level or shaped a certain way. One reason for this omission is that the materials and environmental conditions involved in construction are flexible and unpredictable, making mathematical and geometric precision impossible. Therefore, the soundness of a wall or a foundation under the Building Code is determined by using the various formulas for loads, wind, etc. Misshaped or unlevel foundations, or unplumb walls are not, by themselves, violations of the Building Code. Such construction is involved more in the quality of workmanship than in any code violations. The view of the Hornsby and Anthony residences conducted by the Administrative Law Judge failed to disclose any facts which support the allegation in the Administrative Complaint as to the form of the foundation. Moreover, the Complaint alleges that Mr. Anthony had cracked bricks as the result of the insufficient foundation. No cracked bricks were observed during the view of the Anthony residence. The Okaloosa County Building Inspector inspected the Anthony residence. He found no Building Code issues with the form of the foundation on the Anthony residence. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. On both the Hornsby and Anthony houses, the stub trusses were not anchored to the interior weight-bearing wall. Stub trusses are the blunt nosed trusses on a hip roof which intersect the main roof of a house and run under the main roof of a house forming a "T"-like structure. In this case, the blunt end of the stub trusses rested on an interior load-bearing wall. The other end of the stub trusses rested on an exterior load- bearing wall. The part of the trusses on the exterior load- bearing wall were properly anchored. When the Hornsby residence was permitted, Okaloosa County was not reviewing plans for compliance with the wind load requirements of the Building Code. Plans review did not begin in Okaloosa County until July 1, 1994. Such review did occur with the Anthony house. Indeed, at the time both houses were built, there was a great deal of confusion within the building community as well as Okaloosa County regarding how to comply with wind load requirements of the Building Code. When the Hornsby and Anthony houses were constructed, neither the builder nor Okaloosa County knew that the prescriptive method for wind load requirements (SSTD 10-93) required the stub trusses to be anchored to an interior weight-bearing wall because the intersecting main roof covers that part of the stub trusses. It was clear the end of the trusses resting on an exterior weight-bearing wall had to be anchored. The Respondent built both houses consistent with the interpretation and enforcement of the Building Code by the local building official and consistent with local building practices in the area. After the filing of the Administrative Complaint and prior to the hearing on the Administrative Complaint, Okaloosa County conducted an inspection of the Anthony residence and confirmed that the stub trusses were not anchored properly as required by the wind load requirements of the local Building Code. In response to this finding (and consistent with established industry standards), the Respondent employed an engineer to design an appropriate anchoring mechanism for this condition. The engineer’s design was approved by Okaloosa County and properly installed by the Respondent as an alternate method of construction. Okaloosa County inspected the work and cleared the code deficiency. Based on the confusion by both contractors and local building officials regarding the wind load requirement of the Building Code at the time the Hornsby and Anthony residences were constructed, this technical Building Code deficiency was not a knowing violation by the Respondent. No evidence was presented by the Department that the Respondent had any personal knowledge of the existence of this condition prior to the filing of the Administrative Complaint. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. The Building Code requires that the stub trusses be braced in accordance with the engineered truss drawings. At the time the Department made this allegation, its experts had not reviewed the engineered truss drawings. Based on observations at the viewing of the Hornsby residence, the bracing for the stub trusses in the Hornsby residence substantially met this Building Code requirement. After the filing of the Administrative Complaint and prior to the hearing on the Administrative Complaint, Okaloosa County conducted an inspection of the Anthony residence. The Okaloosa County Building Official did not find any Building Code violations with respect to the cross-bracing of the trusses. He did note the bracing was light. Based on the view conducted by the Administrative Law Judge, the stub trusses did not have the required amount of bracing. The bracing which was in place was spaced too far apart by about 1 foot on the middle set of stub trusses. This spacing does not appear to be material and no calculations were completed to demonstrate that the bracing in place was inadequate or negligent construction. Moreover, no knowledge or negligence is attributable to the Respondent since he was unaware of the deficiency and the local building inspector passed the bracing. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. When the brick veneer was removed on the end of the Hornsby residence, it was shown that all of the brick ties were installed into the interior sheathing or wall studs. Okaloosa County requires that the framers, not the brick masons, install the brick ties. The brick ties that were imbedded in the brick were properly installed, consistent with local construction practices in Okaloosa County. The failure of the brick masons to use the top row of brick ties is not a condition that the contractor knew about or reasonably could have known about, even with adequate supervision. The Hornsby and Anthony residences passed a brick tie inspection, the inspection which tells the contractor that the brick ties are properly installed and spaced. The failure to use the brick ties on the top row did not cause the excessive movement in the brick veneer of the Hornsby house. Due to the method of installation of Okaloosa County, it was impossible to use those ties on the soldier or top course of the brick wall. Indeed, the Department has failed to prove that the excess movement in the brick veneer of the Hornsby house even existed at the time the Certificate was issued on the Hornsby residence. The movement in the brick was caused by a break in the bond between the brick and the mortar in the tenth course from the top of the wall. It is impossible to know when or why that break occurred. However, Mr. Hornsby’s first report of brick movement to Okaloosa County was after the second hurricane hit Okaloosa County in 1995. The break in the bond could have been caused by the hurricanes or some other external force unrelated to the installation of the brick at the time the house was built. Although the Department’s expert testified that the brick veneer at the Anthony residence had the same movement as the brick in the Hornsby residence that conclusion had no factual foundation. The inspection by the Okaloosa County Building Inspector failed to disclose any excess movement in the brick veneer. A licensed engineer and contractor observed only the slightest movement in the veneer, all of which was within normal tolerances. Most importantly, no excess movement of the veneer was observed during the view. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. The Building Code requires roof sheathing to be nailed 6 inches on center at the edges and 12 inches on center intermediate. Table 1206.1, Standard Building Code, 1994. The Department’s experts did not agree as to the number and severity of locations where nails in the roof sheathing missed the roof trusses. Based on the view of the Hornsby residence, there were some missed nails in the roof sheathing which allowed one section of sheathing to be lifted with hand pressure. The extent of the missed nails was very small compared to the number of nails contained in a roof on an average size house. All of the testimony supports the conclusion that the frequency and severity of this condition was not material. The number of "missed" nails was not a material deficiency and has not affected the performance or safety of the roof system. The deficiency is easily correctable. The concept that a few missed nails are a code violation that would support discipline of a contractor is not consistent with industry practice. Moreover, the record is void of any evidence that the Respondent had knowledge of this condition or that this condition was the product of a lack of supervision by the Respondent or even negligence attributable to the Respondent. To the contrary, the Hornsby residence passed a framing inspection, which included an inspection of the nailing in the roof sheathing. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation, by clear and convincing evidence. Moreover, after Mr. Hornsby complained about defects or problems in his home, he consistently denied access to the Respondent for the purpose of effecting repairs. In general Okaloosa County requires that a contractor be allowed an opportunity to fix a code deficiency before it considers a deficiency to be a violation of the Building Code. This interpretation of the Building Code by the agency responsible for its interpretation and enforcement is reasonable. The Respondent was at all times ready, willing, and able to correct any deficiencies in the Hornsby residence, if any. Since the Respondent was not allowed such opportunity in relation to the Hornsby house, there is no code violation which the Respondent was aware of. The Respondent was at all times ready, willing, and able to correct any deficiencies in the Anthony residence, if any, and was allowed to do so in at least one instance. Finally, on both the Anthony an Hornsby houses, the evidence failed to demonstrate that the Respondent’s supervisors were unqualified or failed to supervise the subcontractors underneath them or that the Respondent had specific personal knowledge of a supervisor’s failure to supervise. Likewise, the evidence did not demonstrate that the subcontractors were unqualified or that the Respondent had specific personal knowledge that a subcontractor was unqualified or performed in a negligent manner. Without such specific and personal knowledge on the part of the Respondent, none of the charges contained in the Administrative Complaint can be attributed to the Respondent. Therefore the Department has failed to establish that Respondent is guilty of violating Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. The construction of the residences at 102, 106, and 107 Louise Drive and 420 Jillian Drive were duly permitted by the City of Crestview, Florida. All of these houses were incomplete at the time of the inspection by the Department’s experts. The Department offered very little evidence in support of the allegations relating to these unfinished houses. On most of the houses the Respondent had not called for an inspection of the work the Department alleged was a violation. If the contractor has not called for an inspection of a particular phase of the work on unfinished houses, then the condition of that work by itself cannot support an alleged Building Code violation. In like regard, if the contractor calls for an inspection, and a deficiency is noted and the contractor corrects the deficiency to the satisfaction of the building official, then no code violation exists. All of the allegations regarding the incomplete houses fail for one of these two reasons. On all the unfinished houses the Department alleged that the foundation did not extend at least 12 inches below grade. Again proper measurement to determine the depth of a foundation is based on the finished grade. See Section 1804.1.3, Standard Building Code, 1994. At the time each of these homes was inspected by the Department and its experts, finished grade had not been established. Therefore, there is no factual basis for this allegation in the Administrative Complaint and the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. At 102 and 107 Louise Drive the Department alleged that the brick ties were not properly spaced. At the time of the inspection by the Department and its experts, the Respondent had not called for a framing inspection. Nor was there any evidence that the construction supervisor of the home had accepted the brick tie placement. Accordingly, the spacing of the brick ties could not be the basis of an alleged violation. Indeed, The Department’s expert agreed that this was not a code violation. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. At 106 Louise Drive the Department alleged that the drywall was improperly nailed. At the time of the inspection by the Department and its experts, the drywall was being installed. No observations were made after the drywall installation was completed to determine the final nailing pattern. The Department’s expert agreed that the condition he observed (which was the basis for the allegation in the Administrative Complaint) was not a code violation. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. Also at 106 Louise Drive the Department alleged that the joint offset spacing in the top plate is less than 24 inches apart. At the time of the inspection by the Department and its experts, the Respondent had not called for the framing inspection on this house. The evidence further shows that the issue of the joint offset that was observed during the framing inspection, was noted by the building inspector as an exception, was corrected by the Respondent to the satisfaction of the local building official and was passed by the local building official. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. At 102, 106, and 107 Louise and 420 Jillian the Department alleged that the girder trusses were not anchored. The Department offered no evidence on this issue. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. At 102 and 107 Louise the Department alleged that the exterior sheathing was not properly nailed. The Department offered no evidence regarding this condition at 102 Louise Drive. At the time of the inspection by the Department and its experts of 107 Louise Drive, the Respondent had not called for a framing inspection. The local building official conducted a framing inspection on both houses. Both houses passed the framing inspection. Therefore, the Department has failed to prove this allegation by clear and convincing evidence. Additionally, on all the unfinished houses, the Respondent requested and the City of Crestview conducted all required inspections of these houses. No deficiencies were noted by the City of Crestview Building Department during any of those inspections other than the joint offset at 106 Louise Drive. A Certificate was issued by the City of Crestview on each of these houses. The Certificate certified to the Respondent that these houses were constructed in accordance with the applicable Building Code. As with the Hornsby and Anthony house, even if code violations had been established, the evidence is insufficient to establish that the Respondent knowingly committed any code violations with respect to the properties remaining in these two Administrative Complaints. Likewise, the evidence is insufficient to independently establish that the Respondent committed negligence, incompetency, or misconduct in the practice of contracting. The evidence fails to establish that the Respondent deviated from the applicable standard of care. The evidence did not show that the Respondent relied on unqualified supervisors or subcontractors or that he specifically and personally knew of such. The Respondent is entitled to rely on such qualified personnel. Without such evidence the misconduct charged in the Administrative Complaint cannot be attributed to the Respondent. Moreover, the evidence independently establishes that the Respondent had adequate systems and safeguards in place for supervision of his personnel, and adequately supervised the work on the job sites in question through such qualified construction supervisors. Finally, prior to the commencement of the formal hearing in this matter, the local competency boards for the appropriate jurisdictions disposed of those matters involving the following properties in favor of the Respondent: the Campbell residence, the McLean residence, all of the properties located on Dunbar Circle, the property located at 7222 Antoinette Circle, the Tiger Lake Townhome development, the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Preble, and the property owned by Mr. and Mrs. Janecki. The undisputed evidence, in the form of an Affidavit from the Respondent, establishes that the residence allegedly located at 1894 Alfred Boulevard in Navarre, Florida, did not exist; this fact was unopposed by the Department.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding the Respondent not guilty of any of the counts in either of the Administrative Complaints. DONE AND ENTERED this 19th day of January, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 19th day of January, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 David L. McGee, Esquire Beggs & Lane Blount Building 3 West Garden Street Suite 600 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Charles T. Wiggins, Esquire Beggs & Lane Blount Building 3 West Garden Street Suite 600 Pensacola, Florida 32501 Neil H. Butler, Esquire Butler & Dudley 310 East College Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gregory D. Smith, Esquire Gregory D. Smith, P.A. 201 South Baylen Street Suite A Pensacola, Florida 32501 Rodney Hurst, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32311-7467 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues in this case are whether Respondent, August T. Nocella, committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what discipline is appropriate.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board (Board), is the agency within Pinellas County, Florida, authorized under Chapter 89-504, Laws of Florida, as amended, to regulate and discipline the licenses of, among others, certified aluminum contractors. Respondent, August T. Nocella (Respondent), is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified aluminum contractor in Pinellas County, Florida, having been issued license C-3197. At times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent was doing business as Allied Aluminum, located in St. Petersburg, Florida. In 1997, Ms. Mary J. Pugh had a small screened porch added to her house located at 12855 Gorda Circle West. Approximately two years later, in July 1999, the porch was damaged or destroyed by a storm. Thereafter, Ms. Pugh requested and received a proposal from Allied Aluminum to repair or rebuild the screened porch. On September 1, 1999, Respondent entered into a contract with Ms. Pugh to repair or reconstruct the previously existing screened porch. The contract provided that Respondent would install a new aluminum roof to replace the damaged existing screened porch roof, install gutters and trim, replace 13 feet of valance, replace the screen, and install a new wall front. The contract noted that a riser wall was required for "proper roof pitch." The contract price was $2,300.00, with $1,000.00 to be paid as a down payment and the remaining $1,300.00 to be paid upon completion of the project. Ms. Pugh paid Allied Aluminum in accordance with the terms of the contract. She made the first payment of $1,000.00 on September 1, 1999, and made the final payment of $1,300.00 on September 22, 1999, upon Respondent's completing the job. On or about September 16, 1999, Respondent obtained a permit for the repair or reconstruction of the screened porch at Ms. Pugh's house. Respondent began the project on or about September 15, 1999, and completed the job on September 22, 1999. Section 105.6 of the Standard Building Code, 1997 Edition, as amended,(Standard Building Code) requires local building officials, "upon notification from the permit holder or his agent," to make a final inspection of a building after the building is completed and ready for occupancy. In order to comply with the Standard Building Code, it was the responsibility of the permit holder, in this case, Respondent, to call local officials for a final building inspection. Upon completion of the inspection, a building official would then notify the permit holder of "any violations which must be corrected in order to comply with the technical codes." Respondent failed to notify building officials that the Pugh project was completed and ready for occupancy and, thus, ready for final inspection by appropriate building officials. As a result of Respondent's failure to call for a final inspection, building officials never inspected Respondent's work on Ms. Pugh's screened porch and made no determination as to whether the project complied with the applicable technical codes. In July 2000, during a storm, the roof of Ms. Pugh's screen porch collapsed. Relying on statements of unnamed contractors, Ms. Pugh believes that the roof collapsed because it did not have the proper pitch. Respondent attributes the collapse of the roof to the gutters being blocked with leaves. Despite these assertions no evidence was presented at hearing to establish the cause of the roof's collapsing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order: (1) finding that Respondent failed to obtain a satisfactory inspection as alleged in Count One, and is guilty of the offenses described in Chapter 89-504, Subsections 24, (2)(d), (j), and (n), Laws of Florida; (2) imposing an administrative fine of $1,000.00 for the foregoing offenses; and (3) dismissing Count Two of the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of December, 2001, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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 28th day of December, 2001. COPIES FURNISHED: Don Crowell, Esquire Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 310 Court Street Clearwater, Florida 33756 Rodney S. Fischer, Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road Suite 102 Largo, Florida 33773-5116 August T. Nocella 1017 Robinson Drive, North St. Petersburg, Florida 33710
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered roofing contractor, having been issued license number RC 0034898. He operates a business known as B & P Roofing at 244 Tollgate Trail, Longwood, Florida. The Respondent has appropriately qualified the business name of "B & P Roofing" with the Petitioner. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida charged with enforcing the provisions of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, with regard to licensure of building contractors, the regulation of their licensure status and methods of operation and practice. During June of 1981, the Respondent, doing business as B & P Roofing, contracted to perform a re-roofing job with Mr. Jack Mewhirter, whereby he was to put a new roof on a residence at 137 Variety Tree Circle, Altamonte Springs, Florida. The construction of the roof was contracted for and completed during June, 1981. The Respondent failed to obtain a building permit before or during construction of the roof and also failed to obtain a final inspection of the roof when it was finished in June, 1981. The Respondent's testimony establishes that the Respondent was familiar with the building code adopted in Seminole County and familiar with the requirement that he was responsible as the contractor, to obtain a permit before commencing construction of the roof and that he was also responsible for obtaining a final inspection by the Seminole County Building Official. In response to a complaint from Mr. Mewhirter, the owner of the residence, the Seminole County Building Officials, Mr. Flippent and Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer became aware that no building permit had been obtained for the re-roofing job and that no final inspection had been obtained pursuant thereto. Accordingly, Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer inspected the roof in November, 1981, and Mr. Flippent informed the Respondent of the necessity to obtain a building permit and a final inspection. Thus, on November 10, 1981, the Respondent obtained the building permit and called for the final inspection. Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer was unable to sign the final inspection document as "satisfactory" because he was unable to adequately inspect the roof once it was finished. He had been unable to inspect the method by which it was installed during its construction due to the Respondent failing to inform him or his superiors that the roof was under construction and that inspections were needed at that time. hen the Respondent entered into the contract with Mr. Mewhirter, he informed Mr. Mewhirter that he would not obtain a building permit because that would "drive the cost up." The Respondent, in his testimony, denied that he made such a statement, but Mr. Mewhirter's testimony is here found more credible because of the facts established by Mr. Del'Attibeaudierer's testimony that a random check of the roof after he finally was able to inspect it in November, 1981, revealed that all the shingles he examined were nailed with only three nails and were nailed too high up near the upper edge of the shingle, which is a substandard method of installing the roof and which permits storm winds or rain to raise the shingles, causing possible damage to the roof. The fact that the roof was installed in this fashion and that fact that the Respondent admittedly knew of the requirements of the building code and the requirement that a permit be obtained and inspections be made during the course of and at the conclusion of the job, indicated that the Respondent was knowingly trying to avoid the necessity of obtaining a permit and a final inspection and thus lends sufficient credibility to Mr. Mewhirter's testimony regarding the reason the Respondent obtained no permit. In any event, the roof was shown to not be constructed in accordance with the building code. In summary, it was established that the Respondent knew of the appropriate building code, was thoroughly familiar with it and and indeed had installed an excess of seven hundred roofs since he entered the business. He was aware, in connection with the need for obtaining a building permit, that he should also obtain inspections during the construction and a final inspection when the roof was finished, which he failed to do until reminded of his violation by the building department five months after the roof was completed, at which time it was too late to perform the appropriate inspections. Thus, the roof could not be approved by the building department of Seminole County. The Respondent admitted to only being present on the subject job site for approximately an hour and a half during the entire construction of the roof and he admittedly did not bother to look to see if a permit was on the job site at that time, or any other time. Finally, although the Respondent remonstrated that his failure to get a building permit at the appropriate time was inadvertent and due to his assumption that other office personnel had taken care of the obtaining of the permit, that testimony is not found to be credible since it was established, through the testimony of Mr.. Mewhirter, that the Respondent consciously decided not to obtain a permit prior to starting construction of the roof.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence in the record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent, George G. Vincent, be found guilty of the charges contained in Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint and that an administrative fine of $1,000 be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 23rd day of February, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of February, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire 547 North Monroe Street Suite 204 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Gary Siegel, Esquire 292 U.S. Highway 17-92 P.O. Drawer 965 Fern Park, Florida 32730 James A. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, Petitioner, v. DPR Case No. 0017669 DOAH Case No. 82-1341 GEORGE C. VINCENT B & P Roofing RC 0034898 244 Tollgate Trail Longwood, Florida 32750, Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent was licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board as a registered roofing contractor (RC- 0034055), building contractor (CB-C033206), and certified roofing contractor (CC-C035625). At the time of hearing, license RC-0034055 had expired and was no longer in effect. Although Petitioner introduced a "certification of licensure", executed by its custodian of records which purports to establish prior disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board against Respondent, said certification references license number CG-C024378. There is no documentation in the record to establish that Respondent has license number CG-C024378, and in any event if this is, in fact, his license, this case does not involve license number CG-C024378. The records' custodian was not present to testify or to be cross-examined, and therefore this apparent discrepancy in the certification is unexplained. Further, the only documentation introduced to support prior disciplinary action by the Board against one of Respondent's licenses, is a certified copy of an order dated August 7, 1985 (Case No. 0051210), but this case involves license RC-0034055, which expired in July 1987 and is no longer in effect. Therefore, it has not been established by evidence in this record that Respondent has previously been subject to disciplinary action by the Construction Industry Licensing Board concerning his current valid licenses, CB- C033206 and CC-C035625. Respondent was the qualifying agent at all times material hereto, of Unique Construction, Inc., 1302 North Clearview Avenue, Tampa, Florida. On February 25, 1986, George Katsarelis entered into a sales contract with Unique Construction, Inc., to reroof his entire house at 6 Venetian Court, Tarpon Springs, Florida. Respondent was not present when the contract was executed, and had not met Katsarelis at the time work commenced on the job. Katsarelis specified to the salesman representing Unique Construction, Inc., that he wanted to be sure all required local permits were pulled for this job. Work on the Katsarelis roof began within only a few days of the execution of the sales contact. Crews from Unique Construction tore off approximately 80% of the Katsarelis roof before a City of Tarpon Springs building inspector stopped work on the job because no permit had been obtained. Thereafter, it took two days for Unique to put a temporary cover over Katsarelis' uncovered roof while a permit was being obtained. A permit was finally obtained on March 19, 1986, and the work was completed. Katsarelis paid Unique Construction, Inc., $7,000, the full contract amount, for reroofing of his home. Between February 25, 1986, and December 1987, Katsarelis had to repeatedly call Unique Construction since his roof leaked every time it rained. A ten foot ceiling section in his Florida room eventually caved in due to these leaks. In December 1987, Respondent came to Katsarelis' home for the first time and decided to reroof the whole house for a second time. No additional payment was required or made by Katsarelis for this second reroofing job. After a hard rain in April 1988 his roof again leaked, and within a week prior to hearing, Respondent made a third attempt to correct Katsarelis' leak problem. According to expert testimony and evidence offered at hearing by Owen Baynard, who was accepted as an expert in roofing, work performed by Unique Construction on the Katsarelis roof was incompetent and the result of a lack of proper supervision of the work crews by the qualifying agent, Respondent. The job fails to meet the standards of local building practices. There was improper and insufficient preparation of the roof surface, a lack of adequate adhesive, nailing, and mopping to meet Sections 101, 107, 109 and 113 of the Southern Standard Building Code Roof Coverings standards, applicable in this case. The only way to remedy Katsarelis' continuing leak problem is to completely redo all work done by Unique Construction on his roof, and completely reroof his house in a workmanlike manner. As qualifying agent for Unique, Respondent was responsible for beginning work on Katsarelis' roof without obtaining or assuring that someone else had obtained a local permit for the job. A permit was not posted on the site when this work began, in violation of local building code requirements. Respondent failed to obtain required local building department inspections on the job. Respondent's actions on the Katsarelis job, as qualifying agent and in actions taken personally on two occasions to correct continued leakage, were incompetent and of substandard quality. On December 17, 1986, Lawrence E. Burkett entered into a sales contract with Unique Construction, Inc., to reroof his home on 62nd Avenue, N.E., in St. Petersburg, Florida. Work commenced shortly after this contract was executed, and upon completion Burkett paid Unique $3,657, the contract amount. Respondent admits that leaks continued to exist in Burkett's roof for nine or ten months after Unique's crews worked on his roof. Finally, on September 16, 1986, Unique's crew replaced a section of roof and this corrected the leaking. In an attempt to correct or prevent damage from leakage, Unique's crews installed pans between Burkett's drop ceiling and the roof to catch water which was leaking into his Florida room. A permit was not posted on the Burkett job, but the record does not establish whether a local permit for this job was required to be posted. On or about February 23, 1987, Respondent was issued a letter of reprimand by the United Construction Trades Board of the City of Tampa. However, no action was taken against his local certificate. This reprimand resulted from a roofing job performed by Respondent on the home of Gerald T. Minnick in late 1986. Repeated attempts by Respondent to correct leakage in the Minnick roof failed.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order suspending Respondent's licenses numbered CB-C033206 and CC-C035625 for a period of six (6) months and imposing an administrative fine of $2,500; provided that after the expiration of thirty (30) days from the issuance of the Final Order if Respondent pays said fine in full, his license shall be immediately reinstated. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 5th day of August, 1988. DONALD D. CONN Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of August, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: David Bryant, Esquire 220 East Madison Street Tampa, Florida 33602 William E. Whitlock, III, Esquire 116 East 3rd Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Fred Seely, Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 =================================================================
The Issue Whether Respondent violated Sections 489(1)(d),(j) and (m), Florida Statutes?
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant Respondent was licensed as a registered residential contractor in Florida and held license number RR0046781. Sometime in late April, 1985, Respondent entered into a contract with Mr. Reames. The contract called for Respondent to build a house at 1512 S.E. 24th Avenue, Ocala, Florida. Mr. Reames moved into the house on December 23, 1985, after a certificate of occupancy was issued, even though the house was not fully completed. Mr. Reames completed a "punch list," consisting of an undetermined number of items which needed to be completed, and asked Respondent to complete the items. Most items in the punch list were never completed by Mr. Huey. After the initial attempt by Mr. Reames to get Huey Construction Co. to complete the items in the punch list, Mr. Reames did not contact Huey Construction Co. about the other problems found subsequently. In March or April, 1986, Mr. Reames noticed that the wood floor was buckling and separating. He contacted Mr. Gassett, the person who had installed the floors, who determined that a water leak was causing the problem. In November, 1986, Mr. Reames hired Mr. Clyatt, a licensed general contractor, to inspect the house, to go over the punch list items which needed to be completed, and to correct other items which were discovered to be inadequate. In the first week of January, 1987, Mr. Norton, the chief building inspector for the City of Ocala, was asked by Mr. Reames to inspect the house. Mr. Norton found a number of problems and identified some violations of the City of Ocala Building Code (Code) which was in effect at the time the house was built. The inadequacies, problems and code violations found by Mr. Clyatt and Mr. Norton are set forth below. Ventilation The Code requires 1 sq. ft. of opening for each 150 sq. ft. of crawlspace, in order to provide ventilation. Since the house had 2720 sq. ft. of crawlspace, it needed 18 sq. ft. of openings. The house, however, had only 6 openings of 1 sq. ft. each, or 6 sq. ft. of openings. Additionally, the plans for the house indicated where the openings were to be located and the completed house did not meet the plan specifications in this area. Mr. Clyatt added 15 openings, 8 in. by 12 in. each. In addition to the inadequate openings, one area of the crawlspace was completely enclosed, with no ventilation. The Code requires that attic ventilation for this type of house be 1 sq. ft. of opening for each 300 sq. ft. of space. The plans called for 3 in. by 12 in. vents at 24 in. intervals. The openings in the house were approximately 2 in. in diameter and were placed sporadically. From a visual inspection, without taking actual measurements, the openings for attic ventilation were inadequate and did not provide the ventilation required by the Code. Roof The roof of the house contained exposed nails and staples on the shingles, including some which had rusted. Nails and staples should not be exposed on a shingle roof, since they can lead to leaks. The roof leaked in one area in the back of the house. Mr. Reames contacted H & B Roofing, the subcontractor who had installed the roof, who corrected the problems with the roof. Driveway The Code requires that a driveway permit be obtained prior to the installation of a driveway. Also, the Code requires an inspection of the driveway prior to the concrete being poured. Respondent obtained the required permit, but failed to call for the required inspection prior to pouring the concrete. By letter dated December 10, 1985, Respondent notified the Building Inspection Office of the City of Ocala that the driveway was poured according to the Code. By the time of the inspections by Mr. Norton and Mr. Clyatt, several cracks were present in the driveway. SubFloor Due to the water damage set forth in paragraph 5, supra, the wood floor was removed in late December, 1986 or early January, 1987. The plans originally called for the subfloor to be constructed of one-half inch plywood decking, particle board, and 15 lb. felt paper. However, the Code requires subfloors to be constructed using three-quarter inch plywood, and the plans contained a penciled in notation where the one-half inch was changed to eleven- sixteenths. The subfloor had been constructed using one-half inch CDX plywood decking with particle board on top. No felt paper had been used. Additionally, the subfloor had been nailed in violation of the Code. The Code requires nails to be spaced two and one-half inches on the perimeter of the plywood and four inches in the interior area of the plywood. The subfloor of the house contained boards which had only been nailed on the perimeter and boards which had a large number nails in one area, far in excess of the amount required by the Code. Girders When Mr. Clyatt inspected the house he discovered that approximately 6 of the wood girders supporting the floor appeared to have been cut short and, instead of bearing on the stem wall bearing plate, were supported by posts made of two-by-four and two-by-six non-pressure treated lumber. The posts were resting on soil and the bottom part of the posts had decayed. This construction is a violation of the Code which requires that pressure treated wood be used, and is a violation of construction standards which require that the girders rest on the bearing plate or on concrete. See Petitioner's Exhibit 6. Also, the girders supporting the wood floor were not resting directly on the block piers. Wood shims had been added to fill the space between the girders and the block piers. The wood shims were not pressure treated. The Code requires that pressure treated wood be used in this situation. Additionally, proper construction requires that the girders rest directly on the block piers. Foundation Wall A foundation wall was not bearing on the footing properly. The foundation wall was constructed of 8-inch block and portions of the wall had only one to two inches bearing on the footing; the rest of the wall was resting on the soil. This is a violation of the Code. This problem was corrected by Mr. Clyatt by removing the soil on which the wall rested and pouring concrete under the wall. See Petitioner's Exhibit 7. Cabinets The cabinets in or near the utility room area of the house were loose and separating from the soffit and the wall.
Recommendation Therefore, based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order reprimanding Respondent and imposing a fine of $1500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 31st day of October, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JOSE A. DIEZ-ARGUELLES 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 31st day of October, 1988. APPENDIX Case Number 88-5570 The parties submitted proposed findings of fact which are addressed below. Paragraph numbers in the Recommended Order are referred to as "RO ." Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph Accepted. RO1. Accepted. RO2. Accepted. RO3,4. First sentence, Accepted RO7. Second sentence accepted for proposition that Mr. Reames paid Mr. Clyatt $30,000 for work done on the house. However, the evidence fails to establish what portion of this amount was paid for problems caused by Respondent. 5-10. Accepted generally as to what Mr. Clyatt observed. RO19,20. But see discussion in Conclusions of Law portion of this RO. Accepted. RO13. Accepted generally. RO14. Respondent was not asked to repair the shingles when this deficiency was discovered about one year after Respondent had ended work on the house. First sentence rejected. Second sentence, accepted R016, but no competent substantial evidence was presented to show what caused the cracks. Accepted generally as to what was observed. RO22. But see discussion in Conclusions of Law portion of RO. Accepted. RO18. Accepted. RO18. Accepted. RO21. Accepted. RO21. Accepted. RO10,11. Accepted. RO10,11. Accepted. RO17. Accepted. RO12. Accepted. RO12. Accepted. RO15. Accepted. RO15. Accepted. RO8. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent's post-hearing statement consists of a two page letter with attachments. The attachments have been addressed in the Background section of this Recommended Order. The proposed findings of fact contained in the letter are addressed below. References are to paragraphs and sentences within each paragraph. Proposed Finding of Fact Number Ruling and RO Paragraph Par. 2 RO2 establishes that a contract existed; no finding is made as to whether the contract was oral or written, or as to what the contract amount was. Par. 3 First sentence is not supported by the evidence. Second sentence, accepted. Third-Fifth sentences rejected as not supported by competent evidence; however, no finding is made as to who is at fault for this problem. See Conclusions of Law. Fifth sentence is not a finding of fact. Par. 4 Not a finding of fact. Par. 5 (References are to statements after each number in the paragraph) #8 is accepted generally. RO15. #9 rejected as not supported by competent evidence. #10 rejected as not supported by competent evidence; some of the allegations were proven to exist as set forth in this RO. #11 and 12 are not findings of fact. COPIES FURNISHED: David L. Swanson, Esquire Staff Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Robert D. Huey 3710 Southeast 12th Place Ocala, Florida 32670 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Lawrence A. Gonzalez, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Bruce Lamb General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as an aluminum contractor in Pinellas County should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matter in issue herein, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board was the county agency responsible for the regulation of construction industry professionals and contractors operating in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent was certified as an aluminum contractor and was issued license C-3664. He was, at the time in issue, the qualifying contractor of record for Phoenix Aluminum, Inc. Phoenix Aluminum, Inc. and Ace Aluminum, Inc. are parts of the same entity and are operated by the same individuals. On December 1, 1993, Harvey W. Heimann, the owner of a town house located at 1802 Largo Vista Boulevard, in Largo, Florida, orally agreed with Willard Hill, the reputed representative of Ace Aluminum, to have an aluminum enclosure placed on the rear of his home. Mr. Hill initially had solicited the Heimanns during construction of the home, indicating Ace had done other work in the area. When the parties agreed on a price Mr. Hill indicated that construction would start as soon as the required permit could be obtained, and the job would be completed as soon as possible. No time period for construction was specified. When the job was completed, the Heimanns were not satisfied, feeling the workmanship was poor and the job was esthetically unsatisfactory. They complained numerous times either to Willard Hill or to a Mr. Smart, both reputed to be employees of the company, who promised to come and look the work over. No satisfactory corrections were made by the contractor, however. Nonetheless, an invoice was issued on January 21, 1994 in the amount of $1,720.00, and the Heimanns paid Ace Aluminum the sum of $1,360.00 by check on April 23, 1994, after some corrective work was accomplished. This check was subsequently endorsed and paid to Ace. In November 1995 a strong wind hit the Largo area during which some of the roof panels on the Heimanns' aluminum room installed by Ace/Phoenix blew off. Mrs. Heimann subsequently spoke by telephone with someone at the company office but got no satisfaction, and in February, contacted another aluminum contractor, Mr. Howe, to give them an estimate to repair the damage. When Mr. Howe found out that the installation was so recent, he refused to do any corrective work on it until he determined if the work had been both permitted and finally inspected. He found that a permit had been pulled for the installation. He then advised the owners to contact the original installer. The Heimanns wanted nothing more to do with Ace/Phoenix and on April 5, 1996, Mr. Howe pulled a permit to do the necessary work. The work, which also required the replacement of the screws affixing the base aluminum to the concrete with larger screws and a deeper insertion into the concrete, was completed by April 10, 1996, after which Howe arranged for the job to be properly inspected. The work Howe did passed inspection. According to David Livesay, the chief building inspector for Pinellas County, a permit for the project in issue was pulled by Willard Hill on December 9, 1993. Building Department records also show that on January 24, 1994, a frame inspection was done of the project which resulted in the issuance of a yellow tag, denoting a failure, because of inadequate base anchoring. The actual inspection form reads, "Called in for 'building inspection' YTAG: 9:50AM Need verification of base fastening into slab, Recall J K." J K appears to be the initials of the inspector who did the inspection. On January 25, 1994, a second inspection was done and again the project was rejected because of the base fasteners. That inspection report reads, "9:30 AM Recheck same as previous insp." Both a yellow tag and a red tag mean that a code violation exists. The difference between the two is that while a red tag requires payment of a fee, a yellow tag does not. Notwithstanding the deficiency found in the first inspection was not corrected by Respondent or his company, no further action was taken until March 21, 1996, when Mr. Livesay filed a citation against the Respondent for "construction not to code" based on the work done at the subject address. A court date was set for April 5, 1996, but on March 23, 1996, Respondent appeared in court, pleaded guilty to the charge and paid a fine of $155.00. According to Mr. Livesay, normal procedure is for the contractor who has completed work which requires inspection to call in to have the inspection made. There is no indication here that this was not done. The problem here lies in the failure to make the necessary corrections disclosed by the inspection. Respondent, Bret Hill, admits that he is the individual whose license/certification was used to qualify Phoenix Aluminum, Inc., the company which did the work in issue. However, he denies having ever met or dealt with the Heimanns and this appears to be the case. Respondent's father, Willard Hill, indicates it is he who, as salesman for Ace/Phoenix, dealt with the Heimanns and pulled the permit for the required construction. He is also the individual who did the installation work and who called for the inspection when the work was completed. When the first inspection resulted in the issuance of a yellow tag, he called, the next day, for a second inspection. Mr. W. Hill insists that the first yellow tag resulted from the inspector's inability to determine the size of the lag bolt used to fasten the aluminum to the concrete base. He also asserts that the day after the first inspection he brought the appropriate bolts to the site for the inspector's review, but the inspector did not see them and issued a second yellow tag. Nonetheless, Hill asserts, the bolts used were proper for the job and the room built according to the specifications submitted to the building department by Phoenix. The prime contractor for the housing project was Geiger Enterprises, and it was Geiger who hired Phoenix to do the screening work. Both Ace Aluminum and Phoenix Aluminum were, Hill indicates, owned by a Mr. Brabham, with Bret Hill serving only as the qualifying licensee. Taking into account all the above, the ultimate finding is that the work was done by Phoenix Aluminum, Inc., based on a permit issued to Phoenix; it was found to be inadequate on an inspection called for by Phoenix, and the identified deficiency was not shown to be corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent, Bret Hill, guilty of misconduct in the practice of contracting, and imposing an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 24643-5116 Bret Hill 4904 Headland Hills Avenue Tampa, Florida 33625 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1996.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a registered mechanical contractor having been issued license number PM 0031251. The Petitioner is an agency of the State of Florida, charged with regulating the practices of contractors, administering and regulating their licensure status, and enforcing the legal requirements of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, and appertinent rules. In the late summer of 1980, the Respondent, d/b/a Reach Services and Supply Company, entered into a verbal contract with one Harvey Smith to install an air-conditioning and heating unit in Mr. Smith's residence located at 610 Outer Drive, Milton, Florida. The contract was for approximately $1,245. The Respondent failed to obtain a permit from the City of Milton for the installation of those units at Harvey Smith's residence until after the installation was essentially completed. The building inspector for the City of Milton, Anthony Thompson (testifying for the Petitioner), inspected the premises on or about October 31, 1980, and found several violations of the building code of the City of Milton, to wit: (a) the furnace was installed too close to the wall of the house (less than the required six inches); (b) a cut-off valve for the gas supply line was not installed; (c) a weather-proof disconnect device was not installed at the furnace unit and the furnace was not wired on a separate electrical circuit from other residential electrical equipment. The building inspector notified the Respondent concerning these deficiencies immediately after the inspection. The Respondent ultimately reinstalled the furnace, on February 12, 1981, so that it did comply with the minimum distance required between the furnace and the structural walls. The Respondent failed, however, to return to the job and otherwise complete the installation and correct the remaining deficiencies after several requests by both the owner and the building official, Mr. Thompson. Through his own efforts, the owner of the residence, Mr. Smith, eventually had the installation of the furnace completed in August of 1981. In the fall of 1980, the Respondent installed a furnace at 613 Outer Drive for Mr. Frank Moss, which was inspected by the same inspector on or about December 23, 1980. The clearance between the furnace and the structural wall of the residence in this instance was also insufficient, which can cause a significant risk of the structural wall igniting due to the heat generated by the furnace. There was no cut-off valve on the gas supply line installed within six feet of the furnace (as required by Section 302.1 of the Standard Gas Code). No disconnecting device was installed on the unit such that the wire was connected directly to the unit contrary to the requirements of Section 801 of the Standard Mechanical Code. Finally, a permit was not obtained for the installation of the furnace at all, as is required by Section 104 of the Standard Mechanical Code. During late 1980, the Respondent contracted for and installed a heating and air-conditioning system at 206 Berryhill Road, Milton, Florida. On or about January 12, 1980, the building official, Mr. Thompson, inspected the installation. A cutoff valve had not been installed within six feet of the furnace, ducting was improperly supported, and the furnace was located below the adjacent ground level. The ducts were not properly taped, nor was a proper type of wire used to wire the related electrical receptacle. The vent for the furnace did not extend the minimum required distance above the roof of the dwelling. No light outlet was installed in the furnace area. These deficiencies were, respectively, contrary to the requirements of Section 302.1, Section 504, Section 303.2-5(b), Section 506 and Section 511, Section 303.2-5(d) of the Standard Mechanical Code, and of Sections 302.1 and 507.3 of the Standard Gas Code of the City of Milton, Florida. During late 1980, the Respondent contracted for and installed an air- conditioning and heating system at 405 Ravine Street, Milton, Florida for Mary Beth Williamson. Once again, on January 12, 1981, Mr. Thompson inspected that installation at which time the following deficiencies existed: insulation was improperly installed, there were holes in the "air plenum" and improper caulking. Once again no gas cut-off valve was installed and the wiring was improperly installed and not weather-proofed. These installations were not performed within the requirements of Section 511 of the Mechanical Code (1978 revision) and Section 302.1 of the Standard Gas Code. The Respondent ultimately repaired or corrected the various deficiencies with regard to the 405 Ravine Street installation and established that the inspection for that particular installation had been prematurely called in by his son, his employee, and that the job was not yet ready for inspection at the time the inspection was mistakenly requested. Further, during the periods of time in question in the fall of 1980, the Respondent was ill with a serious heart ailment. He was consequently unable to be present at each job for an adequate period of time to fully supervise the installation, as he has done before and after the period of time in question. Since 1981, the Respondent has established a record of cooperating with the City of Milton Building Department and there have been no more recent violations.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record and the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, it is, therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered finding the Respondent, Abe L. Newsome, guilty of four violations of Section 489.129(1)(d) and (k), Florida Statutes (1979), and one violation of Section 489.129(1)(m) and that a $400 fine for each of the five violations be imposed. DONE and ENTERED this 29th day of February, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of February, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: John O. Williams, Esquire BOYD, THOMPSON & WILLIAMS 2441 Monticello Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Abe L. Newsome 612 Highway 90 West Milton, Florida 32570 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Fred M. Rochep, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Harry Clinton Brackin, is a licensed registered roofing contractor holding license number RC0045880. Respondent was licensed at all times material to this action. Respondent is the owner and licensee for Brackin Roofing Company. Sometime around February 20, 1987, Respondent entered into a contract with Mrs. Arebelle S. Hughes, an elderly woman, to re-roof her house and remodel the front porch of her home located in Vernon, Florida. In addition to the work performed pursuant to the contract, there were verbal construction agreements between Mrs. Hughes and Respondent for the remodeling of the back porch, removing and closing out windows, replacing and framing doors, placing molding in the kitchen and various other carpentry repairs. Ms. Hughes asked Respondent to perform the additional work because she was well satisfied with the roofing job done by Respondent and she was unable to find a licensed contractor willing to come to Vernon and perform the work she wanted done. Respondent, in fact, informed Ms. Hughes he was not a contractor and in his opinion she needed a contractor. However, Ms. Hughes still wanted Respondent to do the additional work for the above reasons. Later, Mrs. Hughes became very dissatisfied with the quality of Respondent's remodeling work and advised the Respondent of her complaints. However, the evidence disclosed that her complaints were not well communicated and Respondent did generally try to meet Ms. Hughes' requests. None of Respondent's work constituted a hazardous condition and no evidence was offered which indicated an actual building code violation. The Respondent has not corrected the work. Mr. Harold Benjamin, an expert in the area of general contracting, reviewed the contract, the job site, the Respondent's license, and the pertinent Florida Statutes. Mr. Benjamin's expert opinion was that the Respondent's contracting job with Mrs. Hughes definitely exceeded the scope of Respondent's roofing license. Mr. Benjamin added that the carpentry work itself demonstrated an unfitness in the area of carpentry contracting and that Respondent's work did not in some respects meet the minimum carpentry standards for the industry. However, Respondent's work was not so bad as to constitute gross negligence in the area of contracting. This is particularly true since Respondent disclosed to Ms. Hughes that he was not a contractor and that the work she wanted done should be performed by one. Respondent's duty was thereby limited to a duty to perform reasonably given his abilities. Respondent did meet that duty. Respondent was disciplined for the same type of violation in 1986.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board impose an administrative fine of $2,500.00. DONE and ORDERED this 5th day of December, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. DIANE CLEAVINGER 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 5th day of December, 1988. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-2721 The facts contained in paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted in substance, in so far as material. The facts contained in paragraphs 2 and of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are subordinate. The facts contained in paragraph 8 of Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact are adopted except as to the finding pertaining to gross negligence which is rejected. COPIES FURNISHED: Elizabeth R. Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Harry Clinton Brackin Route 1, Box 2470 Chipley, Florida 32428 Bruce D. Lamb, Esquire 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
