The Issue The principal issue in this case is whether certain local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by the Broward County Board of Review and Appeals (BORA) comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). As to Broward County, there is the additional issue of whether Broward County is a proper party to this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, and upon the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Findings about status of Broward County Respondent Broward County is a county created pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Broward County became a charter county effective on January 1, 1975, by a referendum approved by the voters of Broward County in November of 1974. In 1976, the Broward County Charter was amended to add a new Section 8.18, which the legislative history for the charter describes as establishing BORA as “an arm of Charter government.” Broward County has not voted to adopt any local amendments to the Florida Building Code. Findings about status of BORA Respondent BORA, is a board created under the provisions of the Charter of Broward County (the “Charter”). BORA was originally created in 1971 by a special act of the Florida legislature, 71-575, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1971. That special act adopted the South Florida Building Code, as the applicable building code for Broward County and included within the South Florida Building Code as Section 203 the following language, which created BORA: 203. Board of Rules and Appeals. In order to determine the suitability of alternate materials and types of construction, to provide for reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code and to assist in the control of the construction of buildings and structures, there is hereby created a BORA, appointed by the appointing authority, consisting of twenty-four (24) members who are qualified by training and experience to pass on matters pertaining to building construction. Findings about status of Petitioners Petitioner, TRG-Aquazul, Ltd. ("TRG"), is a Florida limited partnership and is the developer of a high-rise multi- family residential building project located in Broward County (“Project”) which is subject to the Florida Building Code, as amended, in Broward County. Petitioner, Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, is a principal of Initial Engineers. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga and Initial Engineers are the mechanical engineers of record on the Project. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga's firm has designed other high-rise residential buildings in Broward County in the past and plans on doing more such projects in the future. Petitioners allege that they will be materially and adversely affected by the application of the Broward County local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code in that the application of said technical amendments to the Project will require a redesign of the mechanical systems of the Project to comply with those technical amendments and undertaking such redesign will cost significant time and money. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga submitted plans to the Broward County Building Department for approval in connection with the Project. The plans submitted included plans for smoke control measures. The smoke control measures were not approved by the chief mechanical official because in his estimation they did not comply with the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code enacted by BORA on March 1, 2002. Despite the Broward County Building Official’s suggestion that Mr. Fernandez-Fraga appeal the Building Official’s decision interpreting the applicable code, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga decided not to appeal that decision. Rather, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga chose to challenge the validity of the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by BORA, a different appeal than the one discussed with the Building Official. TRG, through its engineer and its architect of record on the project, attempted to comply with option four of the local technical amendments at issue here, which allows one to achieve an understanding with the local building official on an alternative method for smoke control. TRG could not, and did not, reach that understanding with the Broward County Building Official. The building that TRG proposes to build is over 75 feet high, which makes it subject to the local technical amendments at issue here. At the time the local technical amendments at issue here were being adopted, Petitioners were not concerned with such developments because at that time they did not have any projects in Broward County. Findings about BORA's amendment process Once it was clear that Florida was going to have a new statewide Florida Building Code, BORA embarked upon a course of action to adopt several local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code. Such amendments were allowed, with certain qualifications and requirements, by the then-new statutes providing for the implementation of a new Florida Building Code. On March 1, 2002, BORA adopted the local technical amendments that are at issue here. Those two local technical amendmants, Sections 412 and M403.6.4, contained standards for the application and testing of smoke control systems for high-rise buildings. The two amendments were more stringent than the corresponding requirements in the Florida Building Code. Each of these local technical amendments had been part of Broward County’s local building code in effect prior to the adoption of the Florida Building Code, and as set forth in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. BORA sought to maintain the status quo within Broward County with respect to the adoption of these two local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code, a status quo that had been in effect since the mid 1980's. The two local technical amendments at issue here did not introduce any new subjects that had not previously been contained in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. The process leading up to the adoption of amendments on March 1, 2002, began several months earlier with the appointment of a committee and a sub-committee to discuss and draft proposed amendments. The chairman of BORA’s Mechanical Committee appointed a subcommittee which reviewed materials and made decisions with respect to the Local Amendments and made recommendations to the Mechanical Committee which, in turn, made recommendations to BORA The meetings of BORA’s Mechanical Committee and its Smoke Control Subcommittee were not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper of general circulation. No findings or determinations made by BORA’s Mechanical Committee or Smoke Control Subcommittee with respect to the local need to enact the Local Amendments are reflected in the minutes of their meetings. On December 13, 2001, BORA held a hearing to receive and consider information from the subcommittee and the committee regarding the pending proposed amendments. BORA’s December 13, 2001 hearing was not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. Final BORA action to adopt the proposed amendments was eventually scheduled for March 1, 2002. The March 1, 2002, BORA meeting was the only BORA meeting pertaining to the local technical amendments at issue here that was publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. BORA did not make any findings or determinations at the March 1, 2002, meeting. There was no discussion or determinations made at the March 1, 2002, hearing regarding whether there was a local need justifying the subject local technical amendments. There was no discussion at the March 1, 2002 hearing regarding the subject local technical amendments. At the March 1, 2002, meeting, BORA determined that what its Mechanical Committee presented was acceptable and BORA therefore voted to adopt it without any meaningful discussion. BORA did not make any other determinations with respect to the local technical amendments at that hearing. The members of the Florida Building Commission’s Mechanical and Technical Advisory Committee, which drafted and/or made recommendations with respect to the Florida Building Code, are presently considering the possibility of putting more stringent smoke control measures into the Florida Building Code for statewide application. Findings about the challenge process Broward County does not have, and has never had, an interlocal agreement establishing a countywide compliance review board for the purpose of reviewing any challenges to local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code that may be challenged by a substantially affected party. Neither Broward County, per se, nor any of the municipalities in Broward County, is authorized to exercise any authority over the building code in Broward County. In light of this situation in Broward County it appears to have been the concensus of the members of BORA that it was simply not necessary to structure any interlocal agreement nor create any county-wide compliance review board as otherwise generally provided for in the applicable statutory provisions. Thus, when Petitioner Fernandez-Fraga advised BORA that he wished to challenge the validity of two of the local technical amendments adopted by BORA, it was initially unclear where the challenge should be filed and where it should be heard. Following discussion with Commission staff, BORA advised that the challenge should be filed with BORA and would be heard by BORA. On or about March 20, 2003, Petitioners filed an appeal with BORA challenging the validity of the subject amendments. BORA scheduled a hearing on the challenge for April 10, 2003. BORA was apparently of the initial view that it was hearing the Petitioners' appeal in the capacity of a statutory "countywide compliance review board" because BORA originally noticed the April 10, 2003, hearing as being held by “the Board of Rules and Appeals sitting as a Countywide Compliance Review Board pursuant to Florida Statutes 553.73(4)(b) to hear challenges to Broward County Local Amendments to Sections 412 and M403.6.4 by Mr. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, P.A.” Notwithstanding the notice and agenda of the April 10, 2003, BORA meeting/hearing, during the course of the hearing BORA took the position that Broward County does not have a countywide compliance review board as described in Section 553.73(4)(b)8, Florida Statutes. Counsel for BORA stated, on the record, that BORA “has exclusive authority over the building code in Broward County.” Counsel then advised the Board: That statutory section which refers to an interlocal agreement applies to counties where the county and municipalities have the authority to amend the code. In Broward County, the municipalities and the county do not have that authority. Therefore, we don’t have a Compliance Review Board in Broward County because it’s just not authorized because we operate on a different procedure here. The Board of Rules and Appeals has the sole authority to amend the code, so we’re hearing this appeal tonight really as an appeal to reconsider whether the action of this board in March of 2002, when you passed these amendments, were done properly, and that’s the sole issue. The appeal was heard by BORA on April 10, 2003. BORA voted unanimously to deny the appeal. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga promptly received a letter from James DiPietro advising him that the appeal had been rejected. Thereafter the Petitioners timely filed their petition seeking relief from the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Building Commission issue a final order which concludes that, for the reasons set forth above, the local technical amendments adopted by BORA which are challenged in this case fail to comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2001), and are invalid local technical amendments, and further concluding that Broward County is not a necessary or appropriate party to this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2003.
The Issue Whether Respondent committed the offenses described in the administrative complaint? If so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him?
Findings Of Fact Respondent is now, and has been since 1982, a roofing contractor licensed to practice in the State of Florida. He holds license number RC 0041149. At all times material hereto, Respondent has been the licensed qualifying agent for Reinforcement Roofing and Painting Company (Reinforcement). On or about November 29, 1987, Reinforcement, through Respondent, entered into a written contract with Wayne Leidecker in which it agreed, for $4,655.00, excluding permit fees and taxes, to replace the roof on Leidecker's residence, located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street in Miami, Florida. Shortly thereafter, Reinforcement obtained a permit from the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department to perform the work specified in the contract. It then proceeded to begin work on the project. The felt underlayer of the new roof was improperly installed. Reinforcement laid the shingles over this improperly installed felt underlayer without first calling for a tin cap/anchor sheet inspection, in willful violation of the local building code. The result was a roof having a "wavy" appearance. To make matters worse, some of the shingles were not properly fastened to the roof deck. Furthermore, the metal eaves and gable drips were installed too close to the facie in violation of the local building code. The work on the Leidecker project, which was performed under the supervision of Respondent, was completed in January, 1988. The job, however, having been done in an incompetent manner, failed its final inspection. Efforts were subsequently made by Reinforcement, under the direction of Respondent, to correct the foregoing problems. These efforts were inadequate and unsuccessful. Consequently, the project was still unable to pass a final inspection. Leidecker was growing increasingly impatient. In the latter part of 1988, he had Charles H. Walton, the Vice-President of Bob Hilson & Company, Inc., examine the roof. Based upon his examination, Walton concluded, in a written report which he gave Leidecker, that "[d]ue to all of the above deficiencies, South Florida Building Code infractions and the waviness of the shingles, the only way that I can truthfully say that this roof can be properly corrected is to remove this existing shingle roof entirely to a smooth workable surface and reinstall a new 3-tab, 20 year type fungus resistant fiberglass shingle roof system, that meets all of the South Florida Building Code specifications and manufacturers' requirements." This was consistent with what Leidecker had been told by the building inspectors who had previously inspected the roof. Accordingly, after receiving Walton's report, Leidecker refused to allow Reinforcement to do any further patchwork on the roof. He expected Reinforcement to take the removal and reinstallation measures Walton had recommended in his written report. He would accept nothing less. By letter dated July 14, 1989, Respondent was informed that a formal hearing would be held before the Dade County Construction Trades Qualifying Board (CTQB) on the following four charges filed against him relating to the Leidecker project: Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 3401.4(c) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to obtain the final roofing inspection required at a roofing job located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street Miami, Dade County, Florida; said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative condition of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 3403.3(h)(2) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to imbed sheets of roofing felt without wrinkles or buckles as required at a roofing job located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida; said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative condition of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 3408.3(c) of the South Florida Building Code (SFBC) by failing to install metal eave and/or gable drips so the bottom of said metal drips did not touch facie and did [not] have the minimum of a one-half inch clearance from the structure as required at a roofing job located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida; said violation evidencing a failure to maintain the affirmative condition of honesty, integrity and good character as required for the issuance of a certificate of competency under Section 10-16(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County. Between November 28, 1987 and January 31, 1989, Reinforcement Roofing & Painting, Co., and/or Louis Gordon as the Qualifying Agent there for as a Roofing and Painting Contractor did unlawfully violate Section 10-22(a) of the Code of Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, in that they did fail to fulfill their contractual obligation to honor a six (6) year warranty in connection with roofing work done on the residence located at 18280 S.W. 202nd Street, Miami, Dade County, Florida. The hearing on these charges was held as scheduled on August 10, 1989. The CTQB found Respondent guilty of Charges 1, 2 and 3 and not guilty of Charge The following penalties were imposed: Charge 1- six-month suspension of Respondent's personal and business certificates and a fine of $1,000.00; Charge 2- six-month suspension of Respondent's personal and business certificates and a fine of $250.00; and Charge 3- official letter of reprimand and a fine of $250.00. In addition, he was directed to pay $257.00 in administrative costs. On October 12, 1989, Respondent made another appearance before the CTQB. He made a request that the foregoing penalties be reduced. His request was granted. The CTQB "lifted" his suspension, but with the caveat that if he did not timely pay his fines the suspension would be reinstated. Respondent failed to make timely payment. As a result, his suspension was reinstated. Neither Reinforcement, nor Respondent in his individual capacity, has yet to take the measures necessary to correct the problems with the Leidecker roof that were caused by the shoddy work done under Respondent's inadequate supervision. Respondent has been disciplined on two separate, prior occasions by the Construction Industry Licensing Board for conduct unrelated to that which is the subject of the charges filed against him in the instant case. On February 12, 1986, the Board issued a final order in Case No. 0053301 imposing a $250.00 administrative fine upon Respondent. On June 16, 1988, in another case, Case No. 81135, the Board fined Respondent $500.00 for violating the provisions of Section 489.129(1)(i), Florida Statutes.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations of Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, charged in the instant amended administrative complaint and suspending Respondent's license for a period one year and imposing upon him a fine in the amount of $3,500.00 for having committed these violations. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 27th day of September, 1990. STUART M. LERNER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of September, 1990.
The Issue Whether Summary Final Order should be granted and, if so, whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.475 is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the owner of a construction company that constructs roof-overs in the Leon County area. A roof-over is a construction method where an existing roof is covered over with an additional layer of roofing material without removing the old roof. The construction method is specifically authorized by section 1510, Florida Building Code, Building Volume (2004 as amended 07/2007), and Section 511, Florida Building Code, Residential Volume (2004 as amended 07/2007). Roof-overs are not considered roof replacements; roof-overs are considered a form of reroofing. As indicated, amended Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B-3.0475 was effective on April 6, 2008. The rule adopted, by reference, the Manual of Hurricane Mitigation Retrofits for Existing Site-Built Single Family Residential Structures (the Manual). In general, Section 101 of the Manual provides the requirements for mitigation as prescribed by law. Section 201.2 provides permissible techniques for accomplishing the requirements defined by Section 101. The Manual is not part of the Florida Building Code. Section 101 of the Manual provides: Retrofits Required. Pursuant to Section 553.844, Florida Statutes, strengthening of existing site-built, single family residential structures to resist hurricanes shall be provided. Site built single-family residential structures shall mean site built family detached residential structures. 101.1 When a roof on an existing site-built, single family residential structure is replaced, the following procedures shall be permitted to be performed by the roofing contractor: (emphasis supplied) Roof-decking attachment and fasteners shall be strengthened and corrected as required by section 201.1. A secondary water barrier shall be provided as required by section 201.2. Section 201.2 of the Manual provides the methods for installation of a secondary water barrier when an existing residence is subject to work that includes a “reroof.” The term “reroof” is not defined within the Manual. The authority for Florida Administrative Code Rule 9B- 3.0475 is Section 553.844, Florida Statutes. Section 553.844(3)(a) states: A roof replacement must incorporate the techniques specified in subparagraphs (2)(b) 2 and 4. (emphasis supplied) Subparagraph (2)(b)2 states: Secondary water barriers for roofs and standards relating to secondary water barrier. The criteria may include, but not limited to. . . . Chapter 2 of the Florida Building Code, defines reroofing, for purposes of the Florida Building Code, to include roof replacement and roof-overs. However, the Florida Building Code definition of reroofing is not determinative of the meaning of the term reroof in the Manual since the Manual is not part of the Florida Building Code. Testimony demonstrated that Leon County’s Building Inspector recognized the fact that the mitigation manual was not meant to apply to roof-overs because application of the requirement for a secondary water barrier requires removal of an existing roof covering and is inconsistent with the practice of roof-overs. Additionally, the Respondents do not intend the requirement for secondary water barriers to apply to roof-overs and have stipulated to that interpretation in this hearing. While the Manual could have been more precise in the use of the terms roof replacement and reroofing, it is clear that, when read as a whole, the Manual only addresses roof replacement and does not apply to roof-overs. Such a requirement is within the Respondents’ statutory authority.
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Eugene Amrhein, is a certified roofing contractor, license number CC C020238, and was the qualifying agent for Knight Roofing, Inc. at all times relevant to these cases. On or about December 16, 1982, Respondent, conducting business through Knight Roofing Inc., contracted with Evelyn Nickerson for reroofing of a home at 707 N.E. 7th Street, Fort Lauderdale, Florida for a contract price of $1,485. She gave Respondent a downpayment of $785, and upon completion of the project paid the balance of $700. Respondent commenced work on the project without obtaining a permit, as required by Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code. Respondent also failed to obtain an inspection as required by Section 305.2(a), of this code. On or about March 10, 1981, Respondent conducting business through Knight Roofing, Inc., contracted with Judevilla Geria for the rebuilding of an existing flat tile roof for a contract price of $4,100. Respondent did not obtain the required building permit, in violation of Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code. Respondent did not perform the work contracted in that only a coat of paint was applied. He failed to rebuild the existing roof by recementing each tile, replacing rotten lumber, soffitt and fascia, nor did he replace approximately 50 tiles as required by the contract. However, Respondent has honored his warranty to Geria to the extent of repairing four leaks that developed subsequent to the work. On or about June 29, 1982 Respondent contracted with Golda Oxenberg to waterproof a roof at 3253 Foxcroft Road, Miramar, Florida. The contract price was $1,000. The project was completed and Respondent was paid in full. The Respondent violated Section 301.1(k), South Florida Building Code by failing to obtain a permit for this project. On or about August 22, 1983, Knight Roofing Inc., contracted with Joseph Castellano to repair the roof of a home at 1215 1st Street, Indian Rocks Beach, Florida. The contract price was $600, and included a two-year warranty. At no time was a licensed roofer present at the job site. David Ness, then an unlicensed individual, contracted for the work, performed the work, and received the payments. At no time did the Respondent supervise the work on the Castellano home. After completion, the roof began to leak. Respondent has not repaired the leak, despite his warranty. Respondent violated Section 108.2(d), Standard Building Code (adopted by Indian Rocks Beach Ordinance 291) by failing to obtain required inspections. However, no evidence was presented to show that Respondent violated Section 108.2(b), Standard Building Code, since a permit was obtained. Respondent has moved, but failed to notify the Construction Board of his new address as required by Rule 21E- 15.07, F.A.C. On March 7, 1984, Respondent contracted with Ralph Huff for roofing work at 3210 N.E. 9th Avenue, Pompano Beach, Florida. The contract price was $5,725, and the work was completed. Respondent admitted at hearing that he failed to follow up on his warranty agreement. Respondent did not violate Section 305.2(a), South Florida Building Code since a final inspection was obtained on October 25, 1984.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a Final Order revoking Respondent's license. DONE and ENTERED this 25th day of June, 1985 in Tallahassee, Florida. R. T. CARPENTER 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 25th day of June, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 William F. Beggs, Esquire BEGGS and VECCHIO 3012 East Commercial Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202
The Issue Whether pursuant to Sections 57.111 or 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, Petitioner Rafael R. Palacios (Palacios) should be awarded reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in defense of an administrative proceeding against him that was initiated by the Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department). Whether pursuant to Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes, Petitioner Steven L. Johns (Johns) should be awarded reasonable costs and attorney's fees incurred in defense of an administrative proceeding against him that was initiated by Respondent.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Steven L. Johns, is a Florida Certified General Contractor and the principal qualifier for C. G. Chase Construction Company (Chase Construction). In 1994, Chase Construction entered into a construction contract with Carnival Cruise Lines for an expansion project at the Port of Miami. Chase Construction subcontracted the mechanical work to R. Palacios & Company. Petitioner, Rafael R. Palacios, is the president, primary qualifier, and 100 percent stockholder of R. Palacios & Company. Palacios' principal place of business is located in Miami, Florida. In July and December 1998, Palacios employed less than 25 employees and had a net worth of less than $2,000,000. The contract for the Port of Miami project consisted of two phases. Phase I was to construct an arrival lobby and an enclosed walkway to a terminal. Phase II included the addition of boarding halls, the renovation of an existing elevated area, and the addition of baggage areas. A foundation permit had been pulled for Phase I. The foundation work was quickly completed, and Chase Construction representatives advised both the Port of Miami and Carnival Cruise Lines that they could go no further without a permit. Work stopped for a short period of time. In June 1995, a Representative from the Port of Miami called Chase Construction and told them to go to the Dade County Building and Zoning Department (Building Department) the next day to meet with Port of Miami officials, the architect, and building and zoning officials. Johns sent Dave Whelpley, who was a project manager and officer of Chase Construction. Palacios did not attend the meeting. Dr. Carlos Bonzon (Bonzon) was the director and building official of Dade County's Building Department during the majority of the construction activities at the Port of Miami by Chase Construction. As the building official, Dr. Bonzon gave verbal authorization for the work on the project to proceed above the foundation without a written permit. Inspections were to be done by the chief inspectors for Dade County. After the meeting with the Building Department officials in June 1995, Johns understood that authorization had been given by the building official to proceed with construction without a written permit. Work did proceed and inspections were made on the work completed. The Dade County Building Code Compliance Office (BBCO) had the responsibility to oversee Dade County's Building Department. In early 1996, an officer of the BBCO accompanied a building inspector during an inspection of the Port of Miami project. It came to the attention of the BBCO officer that no written permit had been issued for the project. The BBCO officer notified the chief of code compliance for Dade County. A written permit was issued for Phase II of the Port of Miami Project on February 6, 1996, at which time approximately 80 percent of the work had been completed. On the same date, Chase Construction issued a memorandum to its subcontractors to secure the necessary permits. Shortly after the permits were issued, an article appeared in the Miami Herald concerning the project and the lack of written permits. Respondent, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department) became aware of the situation as a result of the newspaper article and began an investigation. Diane Perera (Perera), an attorney employed by the Department since 1993 to prosecute construction-related professional license law violations, played a major role in determining and carrying out the Department's subsequent actions regarding the Port of Miami project and persons licensed by the Department who had been involved in the project. The Department opened investigations against eight Department licensees. Those licensees included two building officials, Bonzon, and Lee Martin; four contractors, Johns, Palacios, Douglas L. Orr, and D. Jack Maxwell; one engineer, Ramon Donnell; and one architect, Willy A. Bermello. By Administrative Complaint prepared by Perera and filed on September 9, 1997, before the Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board (BCAIB), the Department charged Bonzon with various violations of Part XIII of Chapter 486, Florida Statutes, for having allowed above-grade construction on the project to proceed in the absence of approved plans and building permits. In conjunction with the Bonzon case, Charles Danger (Danger), a licensed professional engineer and Director of BBCO testified in a deposition that above-grade construction of the project had proceeded without a building permit and without approved plans in violation of Chapter 3, Section 301 of the South Florida Building Code. He also testified that Bonzon had exceeded his authority under the South Florida Building Code by authorizing the above-grade construction and that the contractors who performed the work did so in violation of the South Florida Building Code. The Department's charges against Bonzon were resolved through a settlement agreement, whereby Bonzon agreed to relinquish his building code administrator's license. A final order of the BCAIB accepting the settlement agreement was filed on July 2, 1998. In the settlement agreement, Bonzon specifically agreed that his interpretation of the South Florida Building Code provisions, including portions of Section 301, was erroneous. On June 24, 1998, the Department presented the Department's Case Number 97-17322 involving Johns to the Division I Probable Cause Panel (PCP) of the Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). The panel members on this date were Gene Simmons and Wayne Beigle. Stuart Wilson-Patton and Leland McCharen, assistant attorneys general, were present to provide legal advise to the PCP. The prosecuting attorney presenting the case to the panel was Perera. The Department was requesting a finding of probable cause against Johns for a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, for knowingly violating the applicable building code by performing above-grade construction work on the Port of Miami project in the absence of approved plans and specifications. Prior to the meeting of the Division I PCP of the CILB, Perera had furnished the two panel members documentary evidence pertaining to the case, copies of which were received in evidence at the final hearing as Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 13, with the exception of a letter dated July 31, 1998, from Petitioners' attorney, Renee Alsobrook. Respondent's Exhibit 5 consisted of materials taken from the Bonzon and Lee Martin cases, including the transcript of the December 22, 1997, deposition of Charles Danger, who was the building officer for the BBCO from 1991 to 1998. Respondent's Exhibit 13 was the investigative file for the Johns' case. The Division I PCP discussed Johns' case and voted to request additional information regarding whether any fast track ordinance existed in Dade County, and if so, how it might have applied to the Port of Miami project. On June 24, 1998, the Division II PCP of the CILB met and discussed the Palacios case, which was designated as the Department's Case No. 97-17313. The members of the panel were James Barge and Richard Cowart. Mr. Wilson-Patton and Mr. McCharen were present to provide legal advise to the PCP. The prosecuting attorney presenting the case to the PCP was Perera. The Department was requesting a finding of probable cause against Palacios for violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by knowingly violating the applicable building code by performing above-grade construction work on the Port of Miami project in the absence of approved plans and a building permit. Prior to the Division II PCP meeting, the panel members were provided with materials which were received in evidence at the final hearing as Respondent's Exhibits 5 and 14, with the exception of letters dated July 31 and August 26, 1998, from Renee Alsobrook. Respondent's Exhibit 14 is the Department's investigative file on the Palacios case. Following a discussion of the Palacios case, one of the panel members made a motion not to find probable cause. The motion died for lack of a second, and the panel took no further action on the case that day. Pursuant to Section 455.225(4), Florida Statutes, the case was treated as one in which the PCP failed to make a determination regarding the existence of probable cause and was presented to Hank Osborne, Deputy Secretary of the Department, to make a determination whether probable cause existed. On July 2, 1998, Deputy Secretary Osborne found probable cause, and the Department filed an Administrative Complaint against Palacios, charging a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes. The Department never served Palacios with the Administrative Complaint filed on July 2, 1998. The Department did not notify Palacios that the Administrative Complaint had been filed and did not prosecute the Administrative Complaint. At the time the Administrative Complaint was filed, the Department believed that the Legislature was in the process of enacting legislation to repeal Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes. Chapter 98-419, Laws of Florida, which became law on June 17, 1998, repealed Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, effective October 1, 1998. Because of the repeal and the lack of a savings clause for pending cases, the Department determined that as of October 1, 1998, the Department did not have authority to take disciplinary action based on a violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes. On December 18, 1998, the Department presented the Department's Case Nos. 97-17133 and 97-1732 to the PCPs for a second time with a recommendation to find probable cause that Johns and Palacios had violated Section 489.129(1)(p), Florida Statutes, for proceeding on any job without obtaining applicable local building permits and inspections. Mr. McCharen was present to provide legal advice to the PCPs. Ms. Perera was also present during the meetings of the PCPs. Documentary materials presented to the PCP considering Palacios' case included the materials on the Bonzon and Martin cases which had been previously presented to the PCP panel in June 1998 and the investigative files on Palacios. The investigative file included letters with attachments from Palacios' attorney Rene Alsobrook concerning the materials contained in the Bonzon and Martin cases as they related to Palacios and the investigative file on Palacios. Additionally, the investigative file contained a report from Frank Abbott, a general contractor who had been asked by the Department to review the file on Palacios. Mr. Abbott concluded that Palacios had violated several provisions of Chapters 489 and 455, Florida Statutes, including Section 489.129(p), Florida Statutes. The PCPs found probable cause in the Johns and Palacios cases. On December 23, 1998, the Department filed administrative complaints against Palacios and Johns alleging violations of Section 489.129(1)(p), Florida Statutes. The cases were forwarded to the Division of Administrative Hearings for assignment to an administrative law judge. Palacios and Johns claimed that they were relying on the authorization from Bonzon when they proceeded on the above-grade construction work. No formal administrative hearing was held on the administrative complaints filed on December 23, 1998. On December 18, 1998, a Recommended Order was issued in the related case against Lee Martin, Department Case No. 97-11278, finding that Mr. Martin, the building official who replaced Bonzon and assumed responsibility for the Port of Miami project, had the discretion to allow the remaining construction to proceed while taking action to expedite the plans processsing. A Final Order was entered by the Department dismissing all charges against Mr. Martin. On February 26, 1999, Petitioners Palacios' and Johns' Motions to Dismiss and Respondent's responses were filed. The Motions to Dismiss did not request attorney's fees or costs and did not reference Section 120.595(1), Florida Statutes. The motions did contain the following language: The DBPR has acted in an improper and malicious manner by precluding the Respondent from asserting his response to the second draft Administrative Complaint and requesting the Panel to find probable cause for reasons other than whether there was probable cause to believe the Respondent violated specific disciplinary violations. On March 19, 1999, the cases were consolidated and noticed for hearing on May 12-13, 1999. Section 489.129, Florida Statutes, was amended during the 1999 legislative session to provide: A contractor does not commit a violation of this subsection when the contractor relies on a building code interpretation rendered by a building official or person authorized by s. 553.80 to enforce the building code, absent a finding of fraud or deceit in the practice of contracting, or gross negligence, repeated negligence, or negligence resulting in a significant danger to life or property on the part of the building official, in a proceeding under chapter 120. . . . On April 15, 1999, the Department filed a Motion for Leave to Revisit Probable Cause Panel and to Hold in Abeyance. On April 20, 1999, Petitioners filed a response, stating they did not object to the granting of the motion to hold in abeyance. The final hearing was cancelled, and the cases were placed in abeyance. On May 24, 1999, the Department submitted a Status Report, stating that the cases would be placed on the next regularly scheduled PCP meeting scheduled for June 16, 1999. By order dated May 25, 1999, the cases were continued in abeyance. On July 1, 1999, Palacios and Johns filed a Status Report, indicating that the cases would be presented to the PCPs sometime in July and requesting the cases be continued in abeyance for an additional 30 days in order for the parties to resolve the issues. On July 30, 1999, Palacios and Johns filed a Status Report, stating that the cases were orally dismissed on July 28, 1999, and that a hearing involving issues of disputed facts was no longer required. Based on Johns' and Palacios' status report, the files of the Division of Administrative Hearings were closed by order dated August 3, 1999. No motion for attorney's fees and costs was filed during the pendency of the cases at the Division of Administrative Hearings. On August 3, 1999, orders were entered by Cathleen E. O'Dowd, Lead Attorney, dismissing the cases against Palacios and Johns.
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material to these proceedings Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license number RR 0033727. Respondent's license was first issued in February, 1974. In April, 1983, Respondent submitted a change of status application and requested to qualify Regency Builders, a proprietorship. License number RR 0033727 was then issued to William B. Pitts, qualifying Regency Builders. Regency Builders, Inc., has never been qualified by a license of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes or any predecessor of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. There is nothing in the record to show that Regency Builders was ever properly incorporated in the State of Florida. However, the record reflects that Respondent did register Regency Builders under the fictitious name statutes Section 685.09, Florida Statutes and complied with the requirements of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes after being contacted by Petitioner's employee sometime in February, 1983. Respondent has been a contractor in Bay County, Florida for 10-12 years and has constructed 150-200 homes during this period of time without any disciplinary action against him, excluding the present proceeding. Respondent prepared a proposal for the construction of a home for Mr. and Mrs. Lee Munroe under the name of Regency Builders, Inc., and submitted the proposal to them. Although the Agreement which was prepared by Lee R. Munroe and signed by Respondent on April 11, 1982 and signed by Lee R. Munroe and Sara W. Munroe (Munroes) but undated, incorporates certain portions of the Proposal, the record reflects that the proposal, per se, was never accepted by the Munroes. The Agreement referenced in paragraph 5 was an agreement entered into by the Respondent and the Munroes for the construction of the Munroes' residence in Gulf Air Subdivision, Gulf County, Florida. The agreed upon contract price was $74,129.33 but, due to changes requested by the Munroes, the Respondent was paid approximately $95,000.00. The Munroes' residence was constructed by Respondent pursuant to the Agreement and was essentially completed in December, 1982. The Munroes moved into this "completed" residence in December, 1982. DeWayne Manuel, building inspector for Gulf County, Florida, during the construction of the Munroe's residence by Respondent, performed the framing inspection, the rough electrical inspection, the rough plumbing inspection, the mechanical inspection (the heating and air conditioning systems) and all other inspections required by the 1982 Southern Standard Building Code, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, Gulf County Florida (Code) with the exception of the final inspection. At the beginning of construction, but before the framing inspection, Lee Munroe contacted Manuel with a general concern about the construction. As a result of this meeting with Lee Munroe, Manuel requested Charles Gaskins (Gaskins) an architect with Gaskins Architect of Wewahitchka, Florida, to inspect the pilings, girders and floor joist. After this inspection, Gaskins made some recommendations in regard to the attachment of girders to the pilings which Respondent followed in making the corrections to the attachments. Gaskins Architect provided the Piling Layout 1st and 2nd Floor Framing (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8) at the request of the Munroes. Generally, Gaskins found no major problems with the pilings and girders other than the work was "sloppy". Both Manuel's and Gaskins' inspection revealed that Respondent had complied with the requirements of the Piling Lay Out and Manuel found no Code violations. After Gaskins inspected the pilings and girders, Respondent was allowed to continue construction by both Manuel and Munroe. The House Plans (Plans) for the construction of the Munroes' home were prepared by the Munroes' daughter who is an unlicensed architect. Although in several instances the Plans requirements were less stringent than Code requirement, the Plans were approved by the Gulf County Building Department. While the Plans were lacking in detail a competent licensed contractor should have known how to fill in the details. Once the Plans were approved, Manuel would allow a change in the Plans provided the change was as stringent as the Code and would allow the structure to be built in compliance with the Code. The change could be a downgrade or an upgrade provided the Plans, as changed, complied with the Code requirements. Respondent did not request any additional or more comprehensive plans from the Munroes or inform the Munroes in any manner that the plans were inadequate. The Plans called for 2 x 12 solid floor joists to be placed on 16 inch centers. The house as constructed by Respondent had engineered floor truss (I- Beams) placed on 24 inch centers. Those I-Beams carrying a significant load were not blocked and in some instance the I-Beams were not "end-blocked." The Code allows the use of wood I-Beams in place of solid wood floor joists provided the wood I-Beams are constructed in accordance with Code requirements. The record does not reflect that the I-Beams as used in this construction were built in accordance with the Code, and the testimony of both consulting engineering experts, that the placement of I-Beams in this structure required blocking along both sides and the end went unrebutted. There were holes and notches in the plywood web of the I-Beams. However, in reviewing the photographs in Petitioners Exhibits Nos. 11 and 14, and, in particular, photograph 1 of Exhibits 11 and photographs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Exhibit 14, and the testimony surrounding those photographs, there is insufficient evidence to determine: (1) the size of the holes or notches (2 inch hole, 4 inch notch, etc.); (2) placement of hole or notch in relation to depth of I-Beam (upper 1/3, lower 1/4, etc.); or, (3) the depth of the I-Beams. Although there was no testimony concerning the size of the hole for the duct work and the depth of the I-Beam in photograph 7 of Exhibit No. 14, it is clear that the hole for the duct work is greater than 1/3 the depth of the I-Beam. The evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent did not use 5 - 2 x 12's in the main girder as required by Piling Layout. The evidence is clear that the 2 x 12's used in girders were not always butted at a support. The evidence is insufficient to show where the 2 x 12's were butted in the span or if the butting was staggered. No set-in braces or plywood sheathing was used in the bracing of exterior stud walls. However, diagonal metal strapping and thermoply was used and two layers of weatherboard were put on horizontally. The evidence was insufficient to show that water penetrated into the wood framework after the second siding was put on. A 32/16, 1/2 inch plywood was used for subflooring. There was no top plate on dining room wall which was a weight bearing wall. Ventilation in the attic was in accordance with plans but no cross ventilation was provided in the attic. The evidence is insufficient to show that hurricane clips were not applied to the center exterior wall in that neither engineer inspected the outside of the wall to determine if hurricane clips were on the outside. Manuel did not find a violation of Code in regard to the hurricane clips. In February, 1983, James Van Orman (Orman), a licensed engineer, was employed by the Munroes to do a structural analysis of the home constructed by Respondent. Orman's report (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10) contained certain calculations in regard to the structural integrity of the home. The calculations and Orman's testimony surrounding the calculations went unrebutted. Orman and Lee Munroe were associated through their work and Orman, also a general contractor, was hired to make the necessary corrections in the construction to make it structurally sound. On December 5, 1984, after reviewing the case file and exhibits, Harold Benjamin, Jr. (Benjamin), a licensed consulting engineer, conducted an inspection on the structure. While Benjamin's inspection was cursory and he made no calculations Benjamin noted the same Code violations as did Orman and concurred in Orman's conclusion that the structural integrity of the home had been compromised. Respondent was notified in March, 1983, of the problems with the structure but due to problems with the Munroes and with his subcontractor he was only able to replace the siding and do some cosmetic work between March, 1983 and October, 1983. In October, 1983, the Munroes contracted with Orman to correct what Orman had determined to be structural deficiencies and notified Respondent that they no longer wanted him on the job. On September 30, 1983, the final inspection was conducted by the Gulf County Building Department. The Respondent was not present at this inspection having failed to pick up a certified letter from Manuel advising him of the date for the final inspection. By letters dated February 7, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4), October 13, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) and February 13, 1984 (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), Manuel expressed his thinking about the Code violations and Orman's report. At the hearing Manuel testified that his thinking had not basically changed from what he had expressed in the letters. Neither the Respondent nor the Gulf County Building Department have had the residence structurally analyzed by a licensed engineer. Respondent deviated from the Plans without first obtaining approval of the Gulf County Building Department when he substituted I-Beams on 24 inch centers for 12 x 12 solid floor joists on 16 inch centers. The only evidence that this change was discussed with the Munroes was in regard to running heating and air conditioning duct work through the I-Beams because Mrs. Munroe did not want to drop the ceiling down to 7 feet to accommodate the duct work. While this change may not have affected the structural integrity of the house had the I-Beams been properly constructed and the strength of the subfloor material adjusted to account for the increased span, the evidence shows that the I-Beams were not properly constructed and that the subfloor material used was not of sufficient strength on account of the increased span. Therefore, this change affected the structural integrity of the house. It was apparent from the testimony that certain other changes in the Plans were made without prior approval of the Gulf County Building Department. However, it was also apparent from the evidence that these changes were at least verbally approved by the Munroes and there was no evidence that these changes affected the structural integrity of the house. Due to a grandfathering provision in the law, William Pitts has never taken an examination for licensure and has never been examined as to the provisions of the Code. Respondent in his testimony exhibited: (1) an awareness of the applicable provisions of the Code but not a complete understanding of them; and (2) an acceptable knowledge of he applicable construction practice.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $1 000.00 and suspend Respondent's residential contractor license for a period of one (1) year, staying the suspension and placing Respondent on probation for that period provided the Respondent: (1) pays the $1,000.00 fine within ninety (90) days; (2) obtains a current copy of the Southern Standard Building Code and agrees to keep it current; and (3) proves to the Board that he has read and is familiar with the applicable Sections of the Code that relate to his license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE 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 2nd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr. Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Panama City, Florida 32402 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent engaged in conduct, set forth hereinafter in detail, which amount to wilful or deliberate violation of local law and thereafter abandoned a construction project without just cause, prior to completion.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. The Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting. Respondent is, and has been at all time material hereto, a registered general contractor having been issued license number RG 0006192. On July 15, 1985, Respondent contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Louis Mara to renovate a garage at the Mara home in Hollywood, Florida for a price of $3,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Respondent was given, prior to commencement of the job, a $2,000 deposit. Respondent commenced performing the Mara job in Hollywood without first obtaining a building permit. About one month after Respondent commenced completion of the Mara's project, he left the project having completed less than 20% of the work he contracted to perform. Respondent has not returned to the Mara's project in more than two years despite the Mara's plea that he return to complete the work. A review of the official records for the City of Hollywood reveals that Respondent did not obtain any permit to complete the garage renovation for Mr. and Mrs. Louis Mara. Pursuant to Chapter 71-575, Laws of Florida, special acts of 1971, the City of Hollywood has adopted the South Florida Building Code, as revised from time to time, as the building code for the City of Hollywood and its regulations governed the construction, maintenance, repair and condemnation of buildings for the City of Hollywood. (Ordinance #0-71-158, Section 1, 12 22-71 Petitioner's Exhibit 6). As noted, Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear at the hearing to contest or otherwise refute the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license number RG 0006192 as a registered general contractor be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of January, 1988.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Section 4-67 of the Building Regulations, Supplement Number 44, Pasco County Ordinances were in effect and said regulation is the applicable local law. During the applicable time period, the Respondent, ROBERT G. FELLENZ, SR., was registered by the State of Florida as a roofing contractor and held license number RC0027998. Mr. Fellenz is the qualifying agent for Fellenz Roofing Co., Inc. On or about March 24, 1987, the Respondent, FELLENZ entered into a contract with James J. Hoover to re-roof a portion of his residence located at 822 Crestfield Avenue, Holiday, Pasco County, Florida. On April 1, 1987, the Respondent went to the building department in Pasco County to acquire the necessary permit to begin the Hoover project. During the processing of the permit, the Respondent learned that a stop order had been placed on the job. His work crew had disobeyed his direct orders and began work before the permit was obtained. While the Respondent was in the process of having the stop order removed, he learned that his liability insurance had expired. Proof of liability insurance coverage was needed by the Respondent in order for the building permit to be issued by Pasco County on the Hoover project. The Respondent contacted his customer, Mr. Hoover, and explained that he had an insurance coverage problem which he needed to straighten out before work could continue on the roof, and before he could obtain the building permit. Mr. Hoover was not home on the day the re-roofing project was begun and completed by the Respondent. On April 3, 1987, the Respondent obtained liability insurance coverage which went into effect on that date. He began and completed the Hoover re- roofing project on that date. On April 6, 1987, the building department issued the building permit on the Hoover project. A final inspection was never called for by the Respondent. The Respondent has previously been found to have violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in Case No. 69097 Construction Industry Licensing Board.
