Findings Of Fact At all times material to the pending Administrative Complaint, Respondent was a registered pool contractor licensed by the State of Florida, having been issued license number RP 0029202. (Petitioner's First Request for Admissions, Item 2: Pet. Exh. C) On or about December 5, 1984, Respondent, d/b/a Miller Pools, contracted with Terry Kilpatrick to construct a pool at the Kilpatrick residence. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 9-10) The contract provided for a contract price of $10,963 for the construction of the pool and $1600 for the installation of fencing. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 10) Under the provisions of the contract and pursuant to the agreement of the parties, Respondent was responsible for all aspects of the pool construction and Kilpatrick was responsible for the installation of the fencing. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 10-11) As part of the contract, Respondent gave Kilpatrick a one-year warranty on the construction of the pool. (T. 19-20) The Kilpatrick residence was located in Putnam County, Florida, within the jurisdiction of the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department. (Pet. Exh. B; T. 37) In December 1984, the 1982 Standard Swimming Pool Code was in effect in Putnam County, having been adopted by county ordinance. (Pet. Exh. E, F; T. 40- 42) The Standard Swimming Pool Code in effect in Putnam County in December 1984 required that a building permit be obtained before the commencement of construction of a swimming pool at a residence in the county. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 42) Respondent obtained the necessary building permit for the Kilpatrick pool job. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 42) The Standard Swimming Pool Code in effect in Putnam County in December 1984 also required that certain inspections be done during the course of the construction of a swimming pool. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 43) Among the required inspections was an electrical inspection and a final inspection. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 44-45) It was the responsibility of Respondent as contractor to request the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department to conduct the necessary inspections of the pool. (Pet. Exh. E; T. 44) The purpose of requiring the various pool inspections, including the electrical and the final, was to make certain that the pool had been constructed and was operating correctly and safely. (T. 45) Respondent was aware that certain inspections were required by local law. On three occasions, December 19, 1984, January 7, 1985 and January 10, 1985, inspections were performed on the Kilpatrick pool at Respondent's request. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 23, 43) Respondent did not make arrangements for the electrical or final inspections to be performed on the Kilpatrick pool. (Pet. Exh. D; T. 23, 43-44) During the construction of the Kilpatrick pool, Respondent was at the job site infrequently. (T. 12-16, 18, 19, 22) Almost immediately after the pool construction was completed, Kilpatrick began to experience problems with the pool, problems which included pitting of the marcite finish, leaks in the tiled area of the pool, and chipping of the brick and coping. (T. 24-35) The problems experienced by Kilpatrick were problems related to the construction of the pool and were covered by the one-year warranty on the pool given to Kilpatrick by Respondent. (T. 19-20) Respondent failed to take any action to correct the problems until after Kilpatrick had contacted the Putnam County Building and Zoning Department and the Department of Professional Regulation to complain about the problems with the pool. (T. 25-28, 35-36, 46-50) As of the date of the hearing in this case, Kilpatrick continued to experience problems with the pool leaking around the tile. (T. 31-31, 34) By Final Order, dated March 17, 1986, in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 0059028, the Construction Industry Licensing Board imposed an administrative fine of $1000 and suspended Respondent's registered pool contractor's license for five years as a result of Respondent's default in a disciplinary case in which Respondent had been charged with failure to supervise a swimming pool construction project and/or performing said construction in a grossly negligent and/or incompetent manner. (Pet. Exh. C)
Recommendation Having found the Respondent guilty of violating Subsections 489.129(1)(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, it is recommended that Respondent be fined $1000, and that his license be suspended for an additional year after the suspension imposed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board in its Final Order, dated March 17, 1986, in Department of Professional Regulation Case No. 0059028. STEPHEN F. DEAN 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 12th day of January, 1987. COPIES FURNISHED: David R. Terry, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Jimmy G. Miller 706 Southeast 35 Avenue Ocala, Florida 32671 Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Department of Professional Regulation Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Wings S. Benton, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto Respondent, George W. Boukater, was a certified general contractor, license number CG C012598, and a registered pool contractor, license number RP 0032042. Respondent was the qualifier for Swimming Pools by M.J. Donohue, Inc. (Donohue), under license number RP 0032042, from February 1979 until June 30, 1985. On July 29, 1984 Donohue contracted to construct a swimming pool at the residence of Ms. Loretta Hunley in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for the sum of $6,400.00. Respondent, on behalf of Donohue, applied for and received the building and plumbing permits for the pool. Apart from securing the permits, Respondent had no contact with the job and never inspected its progress. By August 30, 1984, Donohue had substantially completed the pool. All that remained to be done was to marcite the pool, hook up the pool light and plumbing, and install the pumps. However, before these items could be completed it was necessary that the area surrounding the pool be backfilled, the patio poured, and the electric installed. Under the July 29, 1984 contract Ms. Hunley did not contract with Donohue for any patio, electric or fence work. She expressly retained responsibility for that work in an effort to save money on the pool construction. The area surrounding the pool was not backfilled and the patio slab approved by the Broward County Building and Zoning Department (County) until September 14, 1984. As of September 5, 1985, the fence work was still in violation of the County code. The electric work received the County's final approval on January 8, 1986. In October 1984 demands were exchanged between Ms. Hunley and Donohue. Ms. Hunley demanded that the pool be completed. Donohue demanded adequate electrical service so the pool could be pumped and cleaned for marciting, and dates when someone would be available at the premises. In November 1984 Donohue got its pumps in operation, however Ms. Hunley disconnected them in the evenings. Consequently, the pool could not be drained and cleaned to marcite it. In November 1984 Ms. Hunley ejected Donohue from the job site. Subsequently, Ms. Hunley and Donohue formally settled their dispute.
The Issue The basic issue in this case is whether the Petitioner is entitled to a variance from some of the requirements of Rule 10D-5.097, Florida Administrative Code, regarding public swimming pools. At the hearing, both parties presented the testimony of witnesses and offered exhibits. Following the hearing a transcript was filed on March 3, 1989, and the parties were allowed until March 23, 1989, within which to file their proposed recommended orders. Both parties filed proposed recommended orders containing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. All proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties are specifically addressed in the appendix to this recommended order.
Findings Of Fact Based on the stipulations of the parties and on the evidence received at the final hearing, I make the following findings of fact. The Petitioner submitted an application for a swimming pool operating permit to the Respondent. The Respondent denied the Petitioner's request for an operating permit, whereupon the Petitioner requested a variance from the Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board. The Board recommended favorable action on the request for variance, but by letter of July 29, 1988, the Petitioner was advised that the Respondent intended to deny the request for variance. The Petitioner's request for formal hearing followed. The Petitioner operates a public swimming pool in Grassy Key, Florida. The Petitioner has never obtained a permit to operate the pool from the Respondent. The floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool are covered with glazed tile. There is no evidence that the glazed tile on the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool is anything other than ordinary glazed tile. The coefficient of friction for wet glazed tile is normally between .2 and .25. Approximately twenty-one percent of the surfaces of the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool consists of grout. The grout is located between the tiles. The top surface of the grout is lower than the top surface of the tiles. The tiles covering the vast majority of the floor and walls of Petitioner's pool are medium blue to dark blue and black in color. Specifically, the tiles are not white or light pastel in color. The tiles covering the vast majority of the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool reflect less light than would be reflected if they were white or light pastel in color. The more light present in a pool, the greater the ability to detect objects in the pool. A decrease in the amount of light in a pool increases the risk of objects in the pool not being detected. Light colors in pools also facilitate the ability to maintain proper sanitation. An epoxy coating could be placed on the floor and walls of the Petitioner's pool for approximately $1,500.00. Such a coating would improve the safety of the pool by making the pool surfaces more slip resistant. By reason of the glazed tile surface, the Petitioner's pool is a safety hazard to the public. It is not difficult to see people on the bottom of the Petitioner's pool during day or night operation, even though the pool is dark in color and does not have the characteristic of reflecting, rather than absorbing light. Objects on the bottom of the pool are visible from the pool deck. The color of the pool does not appear to be a significant safety hazard. The water clarity in Petitioner's pool is well above average. The color of the pool does not appear to cause any depth perception different from the depth perception problems inherent in any pool of water. Department inspection reports for the period 1981 through 1988 reveal no problems with cleaning the pool, reveal no findings of algae at all, and indicate that the operator of the pool has done a good job of maintaining the pool. The pool has been in continuous operation for over eight years and there have not been any accidents resulting from use of the pool.
Recommendation For all of the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that that Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services enter a final order in this case denying the Petitioner a variance from the "slip resistant" surface requirement of Rule 10D- 5.097(1), Florida Administrative Code, and granting the Petitioner a variance from the requirement of that rule that the pool floor and walls be "white or light pastel in color." DONE AND ENTERED this 15th day of May, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH 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 15th day of May, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 88-4561 The following are my specific rulings on all of the proposed findings of fact submitted by all parties. Findings proposed by Petitioner Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. The Petitioner's expert testimony regarding the coefficient of friction of the tiles in question is not persuasive and has not been used as a basis for fact-finding in this case. The measurements made by the Petitioner's expert deviate dramatically from the measurements one would expect. There is no persuasive record basis to explain the deviation. The proffered suggestion that the amount of grout affected the measurements is not persuasive, because it is unlikely that the testing equipment came in contact with the grout, inasmuch as the surface of the grout is typically below the surface of the tiles. Paragraph 4: Accepted. Paragraph 5: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. (See discussion of Paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, above.) Paragraph 6: First clause (through the word "tiles") is accepted in substance. The remainder is rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Paragraphs 7 through 20: Accepted in substance. Findings proposed by Respondent Paragraphs 1 through 6: Accepted. Paragraphs 7 through 9: Accepted in substance, but with numerous subordinate and unnecessary details omitted. Paragraph 10: First sentence rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Second sentence rejected as constituting argument rather than proposed findings of fact. Paragraphs 11 and 12: Accepted. Paragraph 13: Rejected as not completely accurate; the tiles in the subject pool reflect less light than is reflected by a white or pastel colored pool. Paragraph 14: Rejected as irrelevant, because even though the proposed statement is true, algae detection has not been a problem in the subject pool. Paragraph 15: Rejected as constituting subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 16: Rejected for same reason as rejection of Paragraph 14. Paragraph 17: Rejected as being somewhat of an over statement. The subject pool is, however, less safe than a pool that complies with all of the applicable rule criteria. Paragraph 18: Rejected as not supported by persuasive competent substantial evidence. Although the Respondent's expert testified to the opinion proposed in this paragraph, I have not made any finding based on that opinion testimony, because the basis for the opinion is essentially unexplained in the record and appears to be more of a "feeling" than a "fact." Further, other evidence in the record indicates that depth perception in swimming pools is affected by a number of variables other than pool color. Paragraph 19: Rejected as irrelevant, as well as for the reasons discussed immediately above. Paragraph 20: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraphs 21 through 23: Accepted in substance. Paragraph 24: Rejected as subordinate and unnecessary details. Paragraph 25: First sentence rejected as contrary to the greater weight of the evidence. The remainder of this paragraph is rejected as unnecessary repetition of previously proposed facts. COPIES FURNISHED: Mark A. Hruska, Esquire Vernis & Bowling, P.A. Post Office Drawer 529 Islamorada, Florida 33036 Morton Laitner, Esquire 401 North West 2nd Avenue Suite 5424 Miami, Florida 33128 Sam Power, Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 John Miller, Esquire General Counsel Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard 7 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700
The Issue This case concerns the issue of whether the Respondent's license as a certified general contractor should be suspended, revoked, or otherwise disciplined for multiple violations of Chapter 489 of the Florida Statutes. Specifically, the Respondent is charged with having been found guilty of a crime which relates directly to the practice of contracting in violation of 489.129(1)(b)(1979); willfully or deliberately disregarding and violating the applicable building code in violation of Florida Statute 489.129(1)(d)(1979); aiding and abetting an unlicensed person in his evasion of the Contracting Practice Act in violation of 489.129 (1)(e)(1979); knowingly combining or conspiring with an unlicensed person by allowing Respondent's license to be used by said unlicensed person with the intent to evade the provisions of the Contracting Practice Act in violation of Florida Statute 489.129 (1)(f)(1979); and, violating Florida Statute 489.129(1)(j)(1979) by failing to renew his license every two years and by failing to supervise a construction project. At the formal hearing, the Petitioner called as witnesses the Respondent, Frederick G. Gervia, Leroy S. Duncan, John Knezevich, and Evodio Llevado. Respondent testified on his own behalf and also called as a witness Mr. L. Perry Curtis. Petitioner offered and had admitted without objection eight exhibits. The Respondent offered no exhibits into evidence.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent is a certified general contractor holding License No. CG C003114. Respondent is also a registered general contractor having been issued License No. RG 0009802. Respondent's license CGC003114 was delinquent as of December 7, 1981, and had not been renewed for the 1981-83 licensing period. On October 11, 1981, Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. entered into a contract with Mr. Leroy Duncan to construct a fiberglass pool at Mr. Duncan's residence located at 1385 N.W. 192nd Terrace, Miami, Florida. On November 10, 1981, Respondent applied for a building permit (see Petitioner's Exhibit 2) for the pool construction at Mr. Duncan's home. The Respondent signed the application in the block designated "Signature of Qualifier or Owner-Builder". The application named Gervia Construction Company, address 2810 S.W. 78th Court as the building contractor. Gervia Construction Company was neither the general contractor nor a subcontractor in connection with the construction of the Duncan pool. At the time that he applied for the building permit, Respondent was qualifying agent for Gervia Construction Company, 2810 S.W. 78th Court, Miami, Florida 33155. The Respondent has made no request to qualify under either of his licenses as the qualifying agent for Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. Neither Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. or its principals were licensed. Prior to and during construction, Mr. Leroy Duncan had no dealings at all with the Respondent or Gervia Construction Company. Mr. Duncan's dealings were primarily with Douglas Lake of Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. Mr. Duncan observed a substantial portion of the construction, but was not present during the form work for the deck. At no time did Mr. Duncan observe the Respondent working on the construction of the pool at his home. The only work performed by Mr. Gervia on the Duncan pool contract was to check the plumbing prior to the county inspection. The pool was actually installed by two principals of Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. and two helpers. These persons were neither supervised nor controlled by the Respondent during construction. During the time period October 11, 1980, through initial construction of the Duncan pool, the Respondent was employed by Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. at a salary of $350 per week. One of his duties was to pull permits. Although the Respondent was also hired to supervise all field construction, at the time the Duncan pool was contracted for and constructed, his supervisory status had been eliminated. The Respondent performed no supervisory duties in connection with the Duncan pool construction. All payments from Mr. Duncan, including two checks totaling $950 and a cash payment of $6,230 were made to Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. No payments were made to the Respondent or Gervia Construction Company. Mr. Gervia did not hire or fire any of the persons who worked on the Duncan pool and kept no records relating to payments received or monies spent on the job at the Duncan residence. Subsequent to the pool being completed, substantial problems and flaws in the Duncan pool developed. The following problems were present in the pool: (See Petitioner's Exhibit 5.) Seven patches on South wall, below water line, are rough, discolored and flaking. The largest two are approximately 12" in diameter and 12" x 4". There is a very small depression in the shallow end seat. The pool flange at the ladder is full of depres- sions, making the edge very rough. Flange cracks at three corners are excessive and need repair. The Southwest corner has a vertical crack down the wall about 1'. See exhibits II, III, IV, and V. The pool wall thickness at corners was 3/8" but north, south and west wall were 7/32" to 1/4" thick. Several dark circles about 2" in diameter are located around perimeter flange and show where holes were drilled and patched poorly. . . Four hydrostatic valves seem high to effectively counteract buoyancy, but approved plan approves 1' above floor at deep end plus one valve in main drain [could not check with pool full]. See notes 9, 10 & 11 - William Meyers plan. 13' x 30' x 72" pool actually measures 12'-11" x 29'-8" x 71 1/8" deep. Vertical floor variations in shallow end are about 1 3/4". Seems depressions occur between ribs. A small bow occurs at Northwest corner near surface of water. Area covers about 18" square. Some concrete voids occur beneath pool lip. Pursuant to an agreement with Mr. Duncan, the Respondent and Fiberglass Pools of South Florida, Inc. have repaired those items listed in paragraph 9 in an excellent manner and to the full satisfaction of the owner, Leroy Duncan. On November 17, 1982, the Respondent was convicted in the County Court of Dade County, Florida, of unlawfully aiding and abetting an unlicensed contractor in violation of Section 10-22(h) of the Metropolitan Dade County Code. Adjudication of guilt was withheld and Respondent was required to pay a $500 fine. The Respondent has been a licensed certified general contractor in the State of Florida since November, 1971, and has had no other charges or actions against his license. There have also been no other complaints filed with the Petitioner regarding the Respondent.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent be found guilty of those specific violations as set forth in the Conclusions of Law above and that his license as a certified general contractor be suspended for a period of six months and that the Respondent be required to pay an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE and ENTERED this 20th day of July, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. MARVIN E. CHAVIS, 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 20th day of July, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Harold M. Braxton, Esquire 45 Southwest 36th Court Miami, Florida 33135 Frederick G. Gervia 2810 Southwest 78th Court Miami, Florida 33155 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202
Findings Of Fact Ronald B. Haendiges is a registered general contractor in the State of Florida holding license number RG 0039437. The Respondent was so licensed at all times material to the Administrative Complaint and at the time the Administrative Complaint issued. On May 29, 1981, the Respondent contracted with Mary Raney to put into operation a pool located at 479 East Main Street, Longwood, Florida, for a contract price of $4,025. Said pool had been partially floated out of the ground. The contract between Raney and the Respondent specifically provided that the Respondent would perform the following: Knock off existing tile; Reform beam; Reset new level of skimmer; Pressure-test existing plumbing and repair as needed (but not to exceed $300 of extra cost); Reform new deck area (450 square feet) Fill as needed; Place wire mesh in new deck area and pour new deck; Retile waterline, 6 by 6 bullnose; Re-(illegible) cracked area on bottom of pool; Recement pool with Pool-tight; Put cool deck topping on new deck area; Reform and pour new steps and tile step edge with matching tile; Replace pump and motor with new comparable. The Respondent commenced work in workmanlike fashion on or about May 29, 1981. As work progressed on the pool, he received various payments from Raney in accordance with their contract. The Respondent received a total of $2,750 of the $4,025 contract price. On or about July 13, 1981, the Respondent, nearing completion of his work, filled the swimming pool with water. At that time, additional cracks and leaks developed in the sides and bottom of the Raney pool. when these cracks developed, Raney refused to pay any of the balance of the contract price, or a total of $1,275. At that time, all work covered under the contract was completed, to include reinforcing the cracked areas with steel, except that the pool deck had not been poured. A square hole at one end of the pool and a larger area at the shallow end had not been finished. The cracks in the pool were created when the pool was filled with water because a void had been created beaten the bottom of the pool and the foundation of the pool when the pool floated up out of the ground. when the weight of the water was placed in the pool, it broke out the bottom of the pool. The problem with this void was not anticipated by Raney, the pool's owner, or the Respondent. Harvey's Bobcat Service provided fill dirt and labor to the Respondent for repairs on the pool, which were not paid for, and a lien of $382 was filed against the Raney property. Dove Henson performed marcite work and pool decking on the Raney pool for the Respondent. The Respondent was to pay Henson $400 for the work performed and, as of the date of the hearing, had not done so. The Respondent purchased Pool-tight on two occasions from Contractor's Supply of Orlando, Florida. On July 8, 1981, the Respondent purchased $275.60 worth of Pool-tight. On July 11, 1981, the Respondent purchased another $78 worth of Pool-tight from Contractor's Supply. On July 10, 1981, the Respondent paid $275.60 on this bill. This left a remaining balance of $78 due Contractor's Supply, which was not paid. Raney subsequently contracted with another contractor to repair the pool's bottom. This contract between Mary Raney and Reid Baker provided that Baker would perform the following work for a contract price of $2,780: Remove cracked bottom; Install or replace dead line and rock bottom and steel; Re-Gunite bottom and walls where necessary; Check all piping and repair; Marcite entire pool; Furnish and install grab rails; Recoat cool deck where necessary for a first-class job; Reinstall owner's filter, pump, valve, etc.; Clean up pool debris. The contract between Raney and the Respondent did not call for the replacement of the bottom of the pool, and the replacement of the bottom of the pool was not anticipated in said contract. The standard building code of the City of Longwood requires that a contractor obtain a building permit prior to construction or repair of a pool.
Recommendation Having found the Respondent, Ronald B. Haendiges, not guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(h), Florida Statutes, the Hearing Officer recommends that this charge be dismissed. Having found the Respondent guilty of violating Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, by failing to obtain a permit as required by the local building codes, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Respondent receive a letter of reprimand. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 15th day of April, 1983, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, 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 15th day of April, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Ronald B. Haendiges Post Office Box 388 Winter Park, Florida 32790 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 J. K. Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201
The Issue The issues posed for decision herein are whether or not the certified pool contractor's license issued to Respondents Licensee, Edward G. Batter, should be revoked or suspended or the Licensee's right to practice thereunder should be withdrawn based on conduct which will be set forth hereinafter in detail as set out in the Administrative Complaint filed herein on August 23, 1979.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the arguments of counsel and the entire record compiled herein, the following relevant facts are found. Edward G. Batter, d/b/a Tropicana Pools, Inc., (Respondent or Licensee) is a certified pool contractor who holds license No. CPC 012906. Respondent was first licensed on July 28, 1978, as qualifier of Tropicana Pools, Inc., which license was temporarily suspended in June, 1979, and remains in an invalid status to this date. By its Administrative Complaint, Petitioner's Executive Director took action to revoke or otherwise suspend the Respondent's rights to practice pursuant to his referenced license. As a licensed pool contractor, Respondent is subject to the Board's rules and regulations. (See Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1.) A special meeting of the Board of Adjustment, Appeals and Examiners for general building contractors for Hillsborough County was held on Thursday, July 19, 1979, for the purpose of hearing certain allegations concerning the demise of Tropicana pools, Inc. Jerry Taylor, Petitioner's field investigator, presented the Hillsborough County Board with the results of an investigation of Respondent and presented several cases wherein funds were diverted after being collected for a specific contract to other projects or for other purposes and that projects for which funds had been collected had either been left unstarted or abandoned at the time Tropicana Pools, Inc., ceased doing business. At that meeting, the Respondent's construction activities were suspended by the Board until restitution or settlement was made and verified by affected parties. The temporary suspension by Hillsborough County became final during August of 1979. (Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3.) Howard Shaw, Director of Building and Zoning for the City of Tampa, appeared and testified to substantiate the disciplinary action taken against the Respondent by Hillsborough County during the summer of 1979. On June 7, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. James R. Stanton entered into a contract with Respondent to have a pool constructed for a price of $8,182.00. Respondent was paid a 10 percent deposit to commence construction of the Stantons' pool. Respondent absconded with the deposit and never notified the Stantons that their pool would not be built nor did Respondent return their deposit. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 4 and 5.) On April 19, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Theodore Hillary entered into a contract for the construction of a swimming pool for a contract price of $8,130.00. Approximately $5,690.00 or approximately 70 percent of the contract sum was paid on June 18, 1979, and the work ceased on the Hillary project at a completion stage of approximately 40 percent. Respondent abandoned the Hillary project on approximately June 5, 1979. The Hillarys completed their pool at a price of approximately $5,000.00 over and above the contracted price. (Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 6.) On April 30, 1979, Mr. and Mrs. Leon Tope entered into a contract for the construction of a swimming pool at their residence for the contract price of $8,050.00. On June 18, 1979, the Topes had tendered to Respondent approximately 70 percent of the contract cost while the Respondent abandoned the construction of the Topes' pool after approximately 40 percent of the work was complete. Respondent abandoned the project on June 18, 1979, and the Topes completed the construction of their pool at a price of approximately $2,000.00 by engaging the services of other contractors in the area. (See Petitioner's Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10, and the testimony of Jim Moran.) Jerry Taylor, Petitioner's field investigator, attended the probable cause hearing during August of 1979 in which the Hillsborough County Board of Examiners suspended the pool license of Respondent. Investigator Taylor briefed the Hillsborough County Board respecting the results of the investigation conducted by Petitioner.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Respondent's pool contractor's license No. CPC 012906 be REVOKED. ENTERED this 10th day of March, 1980, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 101 Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Wesley Ash, currently holds license number CP C015871 issued by the Construction Industry Licensing Board to authorize Ash to engage in the pool contracting business. Dodd Complaint (Count I). Respondent, Wesley Ash, doing business as Wada Pools, Inc., contracted with Jerry Dodd on or about June 17, 1981, to build a pneumatic concrete pool with skimmer and recirculation system. The contract did not include installation of the concrete deck around the pool. Dodd decided to contract with another independent contractor to install the deck at a lower price than Ash wanted for the job. Ash completed his work by approximately August 1981. He installed the concrete pool shell, finished the inside surface and installed tile along the water line. He then attached the skimmer assembly, plumbing it so that it was level and attaching it to the concrete pool shell by means of the skimmer's PVC plumbing piping. After Ash finished his work, Dodd's other contractor came behind Ash. He used some of the dirt Ash had excavated from the pool site to raise the ground surrounding the pool by approximately six inches above grade. He then poured the concrete deck but failed to encase the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete in the process of pouring the concrete deck. It was not Ash's practice to make any special arrangements to stabilize the skimmer assembly when he installed both pool and concrete deck. He relies on the skimmer assembly plumbing to stabilize the skimmer assembly until the concrete deck is poured. In pouring the concrete deck, Ash encases the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete to stabilize the skimmer assembly and prevent leakage. In the case of the Poland pool (paragraphs 17 and 22, below), Ash used this method to install both the pool and the concrete deck, and Poland has had no complaint of leakage at the skimmer (nor was there any evidence of leakage at the skimmer). In the case of the Priests' pool (paragraphs 11 through 13, below), Ash followed the same procedures as he did with the Dodd pool, and another contractor poured the concrete deck. As with the Poland pool, there have been no complaints (nor was there any evidence) of leakage at the skimmer. Within approximately one and one-half years after installation of the Dodd pool, Dodd began to notice what he thinks is a leak in his pool. The water level in the Dodd pool drops approximately one-quarter inch per day. But the Department's own expert witness conceded that water loss of between one-eight and one-quarter inch can be explained by evaporation. It was not proved that the Dodd pool is leaking at all. If there is a leak causing a small increment of water loss above loss through normal evaporation, the leak would have to be very small and would be very difficult to detect. Ash and others have tried but have been unable to find a leak at the skimmer of Dodd pool. In approximately summer 1985, Dodd himself dug a hole under the concrete deck to expose the bottom of the skimmer assembly. The excavation revealed an unusual amount of moisture that might be the result of a leak at the skimmer. It also revealed that the contractor who poured the Dodd concrete deck did not encase the skimmer assembly as Ash had thought he would. The Department's expert - a professional engineer with a B.S. degree in civil engineering, an M.S. degree in structural engineering and a Ph.D. degree in environmental engineering - gave his opinion that a residential pool skimmer assembly should be either (1) encased with the concrete of the pool shell or (2) encased with deck concrete which is structurally tied to the concrete pool shell. He opined that the latter method would require either a very rough surface on the pool shell concrete or steel extending from the pool shell in order for the structural tie to be accomplished. But he also conceded that it is possible for deck concrete encasing a skimmer assembly to be sufficient to stabilize the skimmer assembly even without taking any extra measures to accomplish a structural tie. There was no evidence that any building code would require a pool contractor to take these measures to accomplish a structural tie between the pool shell and skimmer assembly. Nor was there any evidence that a reasonably prudent pool contractor (as opposed to a professional engineer) would be expected to take these measures. Based on this evidence, together with all the other evidence taken as a whole, the Department did not prove that Ash was either incompetent or grossly negligent in not taking any extra measurers to accomplish a structural tie between the concrete pool shell and the skimmer assembly. Based on the evidence in this case, the contractor Dodd hired to pour the concrete deck was either incompetent or grossly negligent (assuming he was even a licensed pool contractor a fact not shown by the evidence.) He did not encase the skimmer assembly with the deck concrete, allowing it to "float" unprotected in the fill under the concrete deck. Settling of the fill could have caused the deck to settle and crack, moving the skimmer assembly and causing a small leak. Ash may have been able to prevent this by warning the contractor to be sure to encase the skimmer assembly with deck concrete when he poured the concrete deck. But there was no evidence that Ash had a duty to advise the other independent contractor Dodd hired or was responsible for the other contractor's incompetence or gross negligence. Ash's failure to advise the other contractor was not incompetence or gross negligence on Ash's part. Dodd has no other complaints about the pool Ash built for him. Priests' Complaint (Count II). On or about October 11, 1984, Ash contracted with Joseph and Rita Priest to build them a pneumatic concrete pool. The Contract included a warranty that the labor, materials and workmanship would be free of defects for one year and that the shell would be structural sound and capable of holding the water for ten years. Like Dodd, the Priests contracted with another independent contractor to install the concrete deck around the pool. Ash was responsible only for placement of decorative "river rock" on top of the deck. Ash finished his work in February 1985. Like Dodd, the Priests complained of water loss from the pool although the Priests noticed the water loss sooner than Dodd (approximately March, 1985). The water level was dropping approximately one-quarter inch per day more than it was dropping in a bucket used as a control. In response to the complaint, Ash sent his employees to the Priests' pool on several occasions. They found no leak at the skimmer. To determine whether the pool's "caretaker system" 1/ was leaking, Ash's employees plugged all but one pair of the caretaker heads. After waiting a period of days, they would try to see whether the rate of water loss changed. They tested all four pairs of caretaker heads on the bottom of the pool and the pair in the spa attached to the pool. No leaks could be found. They did not replace the last two (in the spa), and Mr. Priest had to replace them. As with the Dodd pool, the Department did not prove that the Priests' pool is leaking at all. The Priests continue to complain of water loss of approximately one-quarter inch per day, within the range of water loss from normal evaporation. As with the Dodd pool, a leak responsible for a small increment of water loss above water loss from normal evaporation would be very small and difficult to find, especially if the leak were in the caretaker heads or pipes under the pool leading to the heads. Now the Priests suspect a water leak at the filter. But the Department's expert witness could not find a leak there large enough to account for much water loss. The minor leak at the filter is a normal maintenance item for a pool as old as the Priests' pool. There was no evidence how long it has existed, and there was no evidence that the Priests ever told Ash there was a leak at the filter. The Priests now also complain that one of the caretaker heads does not re-seat properly. But this has nothing to do with the leakage complaint to which Ash is charged with not reasonably responding. Taken as a whole, the evidence did not prove that Ash committed misconduct or deceit by failing to make reasonable response to warranty service requests within a reasonable time, as charged. Nor does the evidence prove misleading or untrue representations, gross negligence, incompetence or fraud in connection with the Priests' pool, as charged. Poland Complaint (Count III). On or about December 9, 1981, Ash entered into a contract with James Poland to build Poland a pneumatic concrete pool and concrete deck. Poland contracted with another independent contractor to build a screen enclosure around the pool. Before construction began, one of Ash's employees asked Poland to sign an addendum to the contract for an additional $235 to pay for foundation footers required to comply with Lee County building code provisions for the screen enclosures. Before Ash signed the initial Poland contract on December 9, 1981, he was unaware of the Lee County Aluminum Code, adopted March 18, 1981. The code requires eight inch foundation footers for "aluminum additions." Another part of the code addresses "screen enclosures with screen roofs known to the industry as birdcage swimming pool enclosures." The language of the code is not explicit that screen swimming pool enclosures are required to meet the foundation requirements for "aluminum additions," and at first Lee County did not interpret the code that way. With a change of personnel in code enforcement, Lee County began to interpret the code that way, and screen swimming pool enclosures Ash had under construction began to fail building inspection for inadequate foundation footers. Ash inquired why and was told about the aluminum code and how it was being interpreted. Ash argued that the interpretation was erroneous but, failing to dissuade enforcement personnel, began to comply. As part of his compliance efforts, Ash had his employees try to secure the contract addendum from Poland. Poland refused to sign the contract addendum, insisting on an opportunity to verify that the additional foundation footers were indeed new building code requirements. There still is a dispute between the parties whether Poland ever agreed to pay the additional $235 after he verified that the footers were being required. (He never signed the contract addendum.) But, in any event, the evidence did not prove that Ash was incompetent, grossly negligent, deceitful or guilty of fraud or misconduct in connection with the additional $235 charge. 2/ There was some evidence that Ash did not in fact comply with the Lee County Aluminum Code, as he was told it was being interpreted, in his construction of the Poland pool deck. In two places the foundation footers were 6 and 7 inches - deeper than the four-inch normal thickness of a concrete pool deck but short of the eight-inch requirement. But Ash was not charged with failure to comply with the foundation footer requirement. He had no legally sufficient notice that he should be prepared to defend against that charge and was not prepared to defend against that charge. Therefore, no finding is made whether Ash complied with the Lee County Aluminum Code. Ash performed the Poland contract between approximately January 27 and February 26, 1982. In September, 1985, Poland began to notice that some of the tile Ash installed at the waterline around the perimeter of the pool was coming loose. As explained by the Department's expert witness, the concrete deck settled in places, cracking slightly and rotating over the fulcrum created by the wall of the concrete shell of the pool. The rotating action pulled up on the tile attached to the inside of the pool wall in places, loosening the tile. In all, less than 10 percent of the 77 foot perimeter of the Poland pool experienced problems with loose tile. The loose tile easily can be removed and replaced. The minor deck cracking and loose tile problems at the Poland pool are within the normal range for a competently constructed pool under normal conditions of ground settlement. The evidence did not prove that Ash improperly installed the pool deck or that he was incompetent or grossly negligent in the construction of the Poland pool and deck. Besides the loose tile and minor cracks in the concrete deck, the Poland pool had no apparent defects. There also was evidence that the Poland pool was finished with a coating of marcite on the inside surface of the pool shell which was mottled gray in color instead of white. Poland complained persistently about the marcite3 and insisted that Ash make it white. But the discolored marcite was a factory defect of which Ash had been unable to know before he used it. There is no way to make mottled gray marcite white. Ash tried to explain this to Poland but the customer would not be satisfied. Taken as a whole, the marcite evidence did not prove that Ash was incompetent, grossly negligent, deceitful or guilty of fraud or misconduct. Nor does the evidence prove any of those violations for failure to cure the marcite problem under warranty. First, as already stated, there was no cure. Second, Ash and Poland also had a running dispute whether Poland had paid the full contract price, including the additional $235 for foundation footers, so as to entitle him to any warranty repairs. In light of this genuine dispute, failure to do warranty work, if otherwise a reasonable request, still could not be found to be misconduct, fraud or deceit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Amended Administrative Complaint that has been filed against Respondent, Wesley Ash, in these cases. DONE AND ORDERED this 9th day of December 1986, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 9th day of December, 1986.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a certified pool contractor, holding license number CP CO27486. Respondent obtained his certificate in October, 1983. His only prior discipline consists of a letter of guidance in late 1989 or early 1990. At all material times, Respondent was qualifying agent for Gold Medallion Pcol, Inc. On March 27, 1986, Respondent and Mr. and Mrs. Don Burson entered into a contract for the construction cf a swimming pool at the Bursons' residence. The Bursons had purchased the residence while it was still under construction in May or June, 1985. The lot was low and had required fill. Clearly visible behind the lot is a large marshy wetland. The contract called for the Bursons to pay $16,315 for the construction of a 20' by 40' concrete lap pool with depths of 3' at either end and 6' in the center. Paragraph 4 of the contract provides: The Owner is responsible for increased costs incurred by the Contractor due to underground conditions which may be encountered during construction, such as but not limited to, muck, inadequate soil-bearing capacity, and excessive ground water. The Contractor, upon encountering such conditions, shall notify the Owner of their existence and give him an approximate cost estimate to rectify the problem. The Owner shall have five (5) days from the receipt of the approximate cost estimate to instruct the Contractor not to proceed with the pool. . . . If the Contractor determines that additional testing is required prior to furnishing approximate costs estimates to determine the exact nature or extent of the underground condition encountered, the Owner shall be responsible for the cost of all testing and/or engineering required by the Contractor. Paragraph 8.D states that the Owner warrants that there [is] no . . . mock . . . in that portion of the owner's property which the contractor will construct the pool [and] decking . . .. The owner is responsible for the removal, repair or replacement of any underground conditions . . . encountered during construction unless he elects to terminate the contract and pay damages to the contractor as set forth in the clause on underground conditions. Paragraph 11.A provides: Contractor warrants to the original owner for the lifetime of the original purchaser, the swimming pool structure, the shell, will not leak due to cracking. . . . This Limited Structural Warranty does not cover damage to the pool shell caused by fluctuations of the water table, construction in the vicinity of the pool site, or natural phenomenon. . . . The contractor's responsibility under this Limited Structural Warranty shall be to repair the shell so that it holds water without cost to the original owner. . . . The method of repair shall be at the discretion of the contractor. THE CONTRACTOR MAKES NO OTHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES INCLUDING THE WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE IN REGARDS TO THE POOL STRUCTURE, THE SHELL. Paragraph 11.B.2, which further describes the limited warranty, states: It is anticipated the concrete deck and deck coatings may crack due to settling of deck or weather. Cracks one-quarter inch or less with no substantial deviation in elevation are not covered. . . . The plot plan, which is part of the contract, shows the pool located on the east side of the house. The pool is oriented in a north-south direction. The southern end of the pool runs toward the back of the lot, which is on a steep slope. The southern end of the pool adjoins the widest section of decking, which Respondent constructed at the time of the construction of the pool. The plot plan also shows that excavated dirt was to be placed just south of the decking on the south end of the pool. Shortly after pulling a building permit from the Seminole County Building Department on March 27, 1986, Respondent began construction of the pool. The actual construction was performed by Mid-Florida Pool Company, which is a major pool construction company in Central Florida. Construction was completed on April 23, 1986, and the Bursons paid the amount required under the contract. Prior to commencement of construction of the pool, this area of the Bursons' lot had been filled with about 2 1/2 to 3 feet of dirt. In order to construct the pool, Respondent or his subcontractors added another 2 1/2 to 3 feet of fill, at least to the southern end of site of the pool and decking. It is at this point that the land begins to slope most steeply toward the marsh in the back. Neither Respondent nor any of his subcontractors conducted any soil tests prior to commencing construction or compressed or compacted the soil beneath the pool prior to installing the shell. This omission constitutes a departure from sound contracting practices under the facts cf this case. Respondent constructed several pilasters under the southern end of the deck, but these structural supports were designed to support the deck, not the pool. In general, the depth of the excavation had to exceed the depth of the pool by one foot in order to accommodate the shell. Thus, the extreme southern end of the shell required a hole only about four feet deep. An excavation of this depth did not exceed the combined depth of the old and new fill. There is no indication that Respondent or his subcontractors encountered muck during the excavation or construction of the pool. Likewise, there is no indication that Respondent or any of subcontractors was aware that mucky, unstable soils underlaid the location of the pool, especially the southern end. The pool was completed to the initial satisfaction of the Bursons. However, within 90 days of completion, the southern half of the shell developed five or six major cracks as a result of the settlement of the southern end of the pool. This portion of the pool settled because the underlying muck had been compressed by the weight of the shell and water. Gradually, the water loss from the settlement cracks, which were mostly below the waterline, became significant. At Respondent's suggestion, the Bursons agreed to wait through the winter before commencing repairs in order to allow the cracking to stabilize. In the spring of 1987, the Bursons drained the pool at Respondent's direction. Respondent then scored the cracks with a screwdriver and applied a filling compound in order to seal any leaks. As directed by Respondent, the Bursons then refilled the pool, but before more than two feet of water had been added, the filling compound fell out of the cracks. When the Bursons informed Respondent of the failure of the repair, he responded that he had performed under the contract and had no further obligation. The Bursons exercised their right to arbitrate, as provided in the contract. The arbitrators conducted a limited investigation. Expressly noting that they were not soil engineers and thus could not determine why the soil under the pool failed to support the shell, the arbitrators determined that the contractor was not responsible for any damage to the pool, "which was built to industry standards." The Bursons next contacted various pool contractors about repair options. Most of the contractors suggested a V-cut about 2 1/2 inches deep followed by the injection of hydraulic cement. When the Bursbns informed Respondent that this type of repair appeared necessary, he refused to undertake such work. By this time, one of the contractors documented that five of the cracks, which ranged from 1/16" to 1/4" wide, were pulling water out of the pool at a rate of 1-3" daily. This contractor charged the Bursons $125 for his services. After contacting the Seminole County Building Department, the Bursons learned that the pool had never passed a final inspection. When they had an inspector visit the site on September 13, 1991, he failed the job due to, among ether things, "massive deck cracks." At the insistence of Seminole County officials, the Bursons obtained expert opinions as to the cause of the cracks in preparation for the local hearing on the Bursons' charges against Respondent. In July, 1990, the American Testing Laboratories, Inc. conducted tests and opined that the south end of the pool had settled due to muck at a level of five feet below the bottom of the shell. Additional testing found muck at depths of 3-7 feet at two points just east of the south end of the pool. These tests cost the Bursons $498. When the Seminole County officials insisted upon further testing, the Bursons hired Jammal & Associates, Inc., which performed soil borings on August 23, 1990. The boring sites were just east of a point about midway along the southern half of the pool and a point just south of the southern end of the pool. The latter boring site revealed muck after penetrating about six feet of fill. At the request of Respondent, a Jammal employee returned to the site on November 13, 1990, to determine the potential cause of the cracking of the pool shell and deck. Jammal concluded that the cracking is the result of consolidation of the highly compressible peat layer found in the [southern] boring. Based upon the [cracking] observed, we suspect the southern 1/3 or so of the pool and deck area are underlain by the buried peat layer. The remainder of the pool and deck are most likely underlain by sandy soils. Because of the nature of the buried organic soils, the pool and deck will probably continue to settle at a diminishing rate for several years. Addition of new loads such as placement of additional fill around the pool and deck area, or a significant drop in the groundwater table could cause additional and accelerated settlement of the pool and deck. Jammal offered three repair options. The first was to patch the cracks. Jammal assumed that, although continued cracking could be expected, it would occur at a lesser rate because most of the settlement of the buried muck had already taken place. The second option was to remove the pool and then remove the underlying muck. The third option was to install inside the shell a fiberglass liner. The last option had been first suggested by Respondent. If not rigidly attached to the shell, the liner probably would not reflect further cracking of the shell. The Bursons paid Jammal the sum of $300 for its services. Ultimately, the Bursons decided to install a fiberglass liner and entered into a contract on November 19, 1990, with Fibre Tech for the work. The total cost of the project was $5415. This cost excludes the cost of replacing a pool vacuum for which Respondent does not appear responsible. The liner was later installed, and the Bursons paid the contract price. In the meantime, at a meeting on October 16, 1990, the Seminole County Swimming Pool Contractor's Board revoked Respondent's County certificate of competency until he repaired the pool or made restitution to the owners. This action was based upon a violation of Seminole County Code Section 40.151 and 40.34(2) and (9). Section 40.151 provides that "[a]11 completed pools shall be absolutely watertight." Section 40.34(a) allows the Board to revoke a certificate of competency if the contractor: (2) Continue[s] performance of building work in a negligent, incompetent or unworkmanlike manner. (9) Violate[s] any provision of this Chapter. The determination of the Seminole County Swimming Pool Board became final when Respondent failed to take a timely appeal of the order.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing an administrative fine of $2500 and suspending Respondent's license until he makes restitution to the Bursons in the amount of $6338. ENTERED this 29th day of October, 1991, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of October, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Jack McCray, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32202 Craig M. Dickinson, Senior Attorney Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Merwin C. Carter, pro se 611 Ensenada Avenue Orlando, FL 32825
The Issue The issue in this case is whether the Respondent, Dominick A. Solitario, committed the offenses alleged in the Amended Administrative Complaint and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the final hearing and the entire record in this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent, Dominick Solitario, was licensed as a certified pool contractor in the state of Florida, having been issued license no. CP CA17558. At all times pertinent to this proceeding, Respondent was the licensed qualifying agent for Jade Pools, Inc. Sometime around February of 1988, Respondent contracted with Michael and Linda Skidd to remarcite the swimming pool at the Skidd's home in Coral Springs, Florida. The contract price for the remarciting of the Skidd's pool was $2000.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work. There is no evidence that there were any leaks in the Skidd's pool prior to the time the work was undertaken by Respondent. At the time the work was begun, one of the Respondent's employees discovered an expansion plug that had been inserted in the main drain. The employee inquired as to whether the Skidds had experienced any problems with the drain. The Skidds denied having any problems. The evidence presented at the hearing was inconclusive as to whether the main drain was working properly. At the time the Respondent began work under the contract, the Skidds were using a "creepy crawler" to clean the pool. This device required the main drain to be shut off. While Mrs. Skidd testisfied that she thought the main drain was working properly, she admitted that her husband was more familiar with the cleaning and mechanical aspects of the pool. Mr. Skidd did not testify. Respondent contends that Mr. Skidd was present at the time the plug was removed from the main drain and that the condition was brought to his attention. However, it does not appear that either Respondent or Mr. Skidd knew why the drain was plugged or the significance of the situation. Respondent proceeded with his contractual work without conducting any tests to determine whether there was a leak in the main drain. When the work was completed, the workers directed the Skidds not to use their main drain. No explanation was given for this instruction. After the work was completed, the Skidds turned on the main drain and lost approximately four inches of water from the pool in a relatively short time. The Skidds turned off the drain and called Jade Pools. An employee of Jade Pools came out and inspected the premises. He advised the Skidds not to use the main drain, but instead to use their "creepy crawler." The Respondent's employee indicated that there was a leak in the main drain. It is not cler how he reached that conclusion. In order to complete the work on the Skidd contract, Respondent's employees were required to install a pressure release valve near the pool's main drain by drilling through the bottom of the pool. The hole for this valve was drilled several inches away from the main drain and its plumbing. Petitioner suggests that the Respondent's employees may have punctured the main drain or its plumbing when this hole was drilled. However, no persuasive evidence was introducted to prove this allegation. Respondent contends that the pool was improperly constructed and/or that the main drain line had been previously damaged and plugged shut to avoid detection of the leak. In order to perform the contracted work, Respondent's employees unplugged the drain and the alleged preexisting leak became evident. Respondent has inserted a plug into the main drain and claims that the pool is now in the same condition it was when he began his work. Respondent has refused to repair the main drain or perform any additional work unless he is paid for it. At the time that Respondent first proposed to enter into a contract with the Skidds, he was told by the Skidds that there was a suction leak at the pump. In retrospect, Respondent contends that this suction leak confirms the preexisting problem with the main drain. No conclusvie evidence was presented to establish why the pool is leaking. As of the date of the hearing, the Skidds are still unable to use their main drain. The Petitioner did not present persuasive evidence to establish that Respondent was responsible for the leak in the Skidds' pool. While it is possible that the Respondent's employees caused the leak when they drilled the hole for the pressure release valve, an equally likely explanation is that there was an existing problem that had been obscured by the prior plugging of the main drain. On or about June 29, 1987, Respondent contracted with Anthony Gallagher to construct a swimming pool and a deck at Mr. Gallagher's home in Coral Springs, Florida for the contract price of $17,800.00. Respondent has been paid in full for this work less $100 for damage caused during construction. The contract with Mr. Gallagher called for Respondent's company to top the existing patio slab and tie it into a newly added patio deck surrounding the pool. The building permit for this work was pulled by Jade Pools. Although the work on the Gallagher deck and pool was completed sometime in late 1987 or early 1988, the pool and deck have still not passed final inspection by the City. The local building officials have refused to approve the final inspection on the Gallgher's deck because of the excessive slope from the back of the house to the pool. The pitch of the deck constructed by Respondent's company from the back of the Gallagher's house to the pool is very severe, effectively rendering a portion of the deck unusable. A table cannot sit flat on this portion of the deck because of the slope. The Respondent's construction of a deck with such a severe slope that it is incapable of passing final inspection constitutes incompetency in the practice of contracting. In order to provide a usable deck, Respondent should have ripped out the existing deck or placed the pool at a higher elevation. Respondent contends that his contract did not call for him to rip out the existing deck, but only to top it. He claims the existing deck that was topped had a similarly severe pitch. Nonetheless, Respondent is responsible for insuring that his final product is functional and able to pass inspection. Respondent has failed to take any remedial action to obtain a successful final inspection. During construction, the Gallaghers, on several occassions, expressed displeasure with the deck and its excessive slope in some areas. On two occasions, Respondent sent his workmen out to correct certain aspects of the construction that the Gallaghers found unacceptable. Ultimately, the homeowners paid the Respondent in full and instructed Respondent to stay off their property. Although Respondent's presentation was somewhat unclear, he appears to argue that these actions by the Gallaghers relieve him of any liability for his work under this contract. However, the evidence established that the Respondent was never able to obtain a successful final inspection of his work at the Gallagher home. This failure is the direct result of the excessive pitch in the patio he constructed. While the Gallaghers have paid the full amount of the contract and are apparently using the pool and patio, these facts do not relieve Respondent from responsibility for the incompetently constructed deck. The City of Coral Springs requires a deck electrical inspection to insure that all the steel in the deck is on the same electrical field (same electrical bond) as the pool. Jade Pools failed to call for this electrical bond inspection before pouring the Gallagher's deck. Ultimately, the city building officials required the Respondent's company to expose a portion of the steel in the deck to confirm that the pool was properly bonded. This test indicated that the pool was in fact properly bonded. On or about August 10, 1988, Respondent contracted with Kevin Fusco to construct a swimming pool and deck at Mr. Fusco's home in Boca Raton, Florida for a total contract price of $10,030.00. Respondent has been paid in full under this contract. Jade Pools obtained the building permit for the Fusco's pool. Therefore, Respondent's company was responsible for obtaining all of the inspections for the construction, including the final inspection. Prior to the time that work was begun on the Fusco contract, Respondent's employees inspected the property and were advised as to some existing problems with drainage in the backyard of the house. The Fusco's lot was designed to drain from back to front. A berm runs behind the Fusco property and causes water to drain through the backyard. On some occasions prior to construction, this drainage situation resulted in standing water against the back of the house. The installation of the Fusco's pool seriously affected the drainage plan for the property. After the pool was installed, there was often standing water all around the deck following a rain. After construction was started and the deck was formed out, the county refused to give approval for pouring the deck because of anticipated problems with drainage in the backyard. One of Respondent's employees advised the Fuscos that if they removed approximately three feet of soil from around the deck, the county would allow them to proceed with pouring the deck. Based upon this recommendation, the Fuscos entered into a contract with a company recommended by Respondent. That company removed approximately six or eight feet of soil all around the deck and installed a rock bed in the area. The cost of this removal was in addition to the contractual price agreed to between Respondent and the Fuscos and was borne by the Fuscos. As indicated above, the installation of the pool greatly exacerbated the drainage problems that previously existed on the property. Respondent did not warn the homeowners prior to construction to expect this result nor did the Respondent take steps to preclude these additional drainage problems. While Respondent contends that the Fusco's property was inappropriately graded prior to the time the work was initiated, Respondent never brought this fact to the attention of the homeowners until after the pool was installed and the increased drainage problems became evident. After the work was completed, the county inspectors advised the homeowners that the pool did not pass final inspection because of drainage problems caused by the pool and deck. By the time the Fuscos found out the pool had not passed final inspection, Respondent had been paid in full under the contract. The Fuscos contacted Jade Pools, which refused to take any corrective action. The Respondent claimed that drainage problems were not part of his company's responsibility and refused to return to the property to correct the problem even though the pool had not passed final inspection. The Fuscos hired an engineer to design an acceptable solution to the drainage problem and arranged for the completion of the work at their own expense. In accordance with this solution, the homeowners installed a series of french drains around the back yard in order to try to get the water to percolate into the ground. After this additional work was completed, the pool passed final inspection by the county. It was approximately one year after Jade Pools finished its work before the final inspection was passed. The Fuscos continue to experience increased drainage problems on their property as a result of the installation of the pool and deck. These problems include standing water around the deck after a heavy rain and, in some instances, an overflow of water into the pool. While the Respondent was installing the Fusco's pool, Respondent was concurrently installing a pool at the house next door. There has been no drainage problems on the property next door because the elevation on that house is higher. The Fusco's pool was actually installed at a level that was at or below the surrounding ground level. The problems associated with such an installation were never explained to the homeowners prior to the time the work was commenced. Respondent contends that this situation was necessary because of the existing elevations of the house and lot. He says that the pool and deck had to be installed in a manner that provided a four inch step down from the house and also matched the existing slab. The drainage problems could have been minimized by swaling out from the pool area to the side of the house. While Respondent contends that such "landscaping" efforts were not part of his contract, he should have not undertaken the work unless he could adequately deal with the drainage problem and ensure that the final installation would pass inspection. The pool contractor is responsible for insuring that, after the pool is built, proper drainage is obtained around the pool. The efforts undertaken by the Respondent were insufficient to deal with the resulting drainage problems and constitute incompetency in the practice of contracting.
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 violations of Section 489.129(d) and (m), Florida Statutes, in connection with the Fusco and Gallagher contracts, issuing a reprimand and imposing a fine on Respondent in the amount of $2,000.00 for having committed these violations. In addition, Respondent should be placed on probation for two years and required to reimburse the Fusco's for the money they have expended to correct the drainage problems caused by Respondent. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 8th day of February, 1991. J. STEPHEN MENTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of February, 1991.
