The Issue The principal issue in this case is whether certain local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by the Broward County Board of Review and Appeals (BORA) comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). As to Broward County, there is the additional issue of whether Broward County is a proper party to this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, and upon the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Findings about status of Broward County Respondent Broward County is a county created pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Broward County became a charter county effective on January 1, 1975, by a referendum approved by the voters of Broward County in November of 1974. In 1976, the Broward County Charter was amended to add a new Section 8.18, which the legislative history for the charter describes as establishing BORA as “an arm of Charter government.” Broward County has not voted to adopt any local amendments to the Florida Building Code. Findings about status of BORA Respondent BORA, is a board created under the provisions of the Charter of Broward County (the “Charter”). BORA was originally created in 1971 by a special act of the Florida legislature, 71-575, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1971. That special act adopted the South Florida Building Code, as the applicable building code for Broward County and included within the South Florida Building Code as Section 203 the following language, which created BORA: 203. Board of Rules and Appeals. In order to determine the suitability of alternate materials and types of construction, to provide for reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code and to assist in the control of the construction of buildings and structures, there is hereby created a BORA, appointed by the appointing authority, consisting of twenty-four (24) members who are qualified by training and experience to pass on matters pertaining to building construction. Findings about status of Petitioners Petitioner, TRG-Aquazul, Ltd. ("TRG"), is a Florida limited partnership and is the developer of a high-rise multi- family residential building project located in Broward County (“Project”) which is subject to the Florida Building Code, as amended, in Broward County. Petitioner, Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, is a principal of Initial Engineers. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga and Initial Engineers are the mechanical engineers of record on the Project. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga's firm has designed other high-rise residential buildings in Broward County in the past and plans on doing more such projects in the future. Petitioners allege that they will be materially and adversely affected by the application of the Broward County local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code in that the application of said technical amendments to the Project will require a redesign of the mechanical systems of the Project to comply with those technical amendments and undertaking such redesign will cost significant time and money. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga submitted plans to the Broward County Building Department for approval in connection with the Project. The plans submitted included plans for smoke control measures. The smoke control measures were not approved by the chief mechanical official because in his estimation they did not comply with the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code enacted by BORA on March 1, 2002. Despite the Broward County Building Official’s suggestion that Mr. Fernandez-Fraga appeal the Building Official’s decision interpreting the applicable code, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga decided not to appeal that decision. Rather, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga chose to challenge the validity of the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by BORA, a different appeal than the one discussed with the Building Official. TRG, through its engineer and its architect of record on the project, attempted to comply with option four of the local technical amendments at issue here, which allows one to achieve an understanding with the local building official on an alternative method for smoke control. TRG could not, and did not, reach that understanding with the Broward County Building Official. The building that TRG proposes to build is over 75 feet high, which makes it subject to the local technical amendments at issue here. At the time the local technical amendments at issue here were being adopted, Petitioners were not concerned with such developments because at that time they did not have any projects in Broward County. Findings about BORA's amendment process Once it was clear that Florida was going to have a new statewide Florida Building Code, BORA embarked upon a course of action to adopt several local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code. Such amendments were allowed, with certain qualifications and requirements, by the then-new statutes providing for the implementation of a new Florida Building Code. On March 1, 2002, BORA adopted the local technical amendments that are at issue here. Those two local technical amendmants, Sections 412 and M403.6.4, contained standards for the application and testing of smoke control systems for high-rise buildings. The two amendments were more stringent than the corresponding requirements in the Florida Building Code. Each of these local technical amendments had been part of Broward County’s local building code in effect prior to the adoption of the Florida Building Code, and as set forth in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. BORA sought to maintain the status quo within Broward County with respect to the adoption of these two local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code, a status quo that had been in effect since the mid 1980's. The two local technical amendments at issue here did not introduce any new subjects that had not previously been contained in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. The process leading up to the adoption of amendments on March 1, 2002, began several months earlier with the appointment of a committee and a sub-committee to discuss and draft proposed amendments. The chairman of BORA’s Mechanical Committee appointed a subcommittee which reviewed materials and made decisions with respect to the Local Amendments and made recommendations to the Mechanical Committee which, in turn, made recommendations to BORA The meetings of BORA’s Mechanical Committee and its Smoke Control Subcommittee were not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper of general circulation. No findings or determinations made by BORA’s Mechanical Committee or Smoke Control Subcommittee with respect to the local need to enact the Local Amendments are reflected in the minutes of their meetings. On December 13, 2001, BORA held a hearing to receive and consider information from the subcommittee and the committee regarding the pending proposed amendments. BORA’s December 13, 2001 hearing was not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. Final BORA action to adopt the proposed amendments was eventually scheduled for March 1, 2002. The March 1, 2002, BORA meeting was the only BORA meeting pertaining to the local technical amendments at issue here that was publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. BORA did not make any findings or determinations at the March 1, 2002, meeting. There was no discussion or determinations made at the March 1, 2002, hearing regarding whether there was a local need justifying the subject local technical amendments. There was no discussion at the March 1, 2002 hearing regarding the subject local technical amendments. At the March 1, 2002, meeting, BORA determined that what its Mechanical Committee presented was acceptable and BORA therefore voted to adopt it without any meaningful discussion. BORA did not make any other determinations with respect to the local technical amendments at that hearing. The members of the Florida Building Commission’s Mechanical and Technical Advisory Committee, which drafted and/or made recommendations with respect to the Florida Building Code, are presently considering the possibility of putting more stringent smoke control measures into the Florida Building Code for statewide application. Findings about the challenge process Broward County does not have, and has never had, an interlocal agreement establishing a countywide compliance review board for the purpose of reviewing any challenges to local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code that may be challenged by a substantially affected party. Neither Broward County, per se, nor any of the municipalities in Broward County, is authorized to exercise any authority over the building code in Broward County. In light of this situation in Broward County it appears to have been the concensus of the members of BORA that it was simply not necessary to structure any interlocal agreement nor create any county-wide compliance review board as otherwise generally provided for in the applicable statutory provisions. Thus, when Petitioner Fernandez-Fraga advised BORA that he wished to challenge the validity of two of the local technical amendments adopted by BORA, it was initially unclear where the challenge should be filed and where it should be heard. Following discussion with Commission staff, BORA advised that the challenge should be filed with BORA and would be heard by BORA. On or about March 20, 2003, Petitioners filed an appeal with BORA challenging the validity of the subject amendments. BORA scheduled a hearing on the challenge for April 10, 2003. BORA was apparently of the initial view that it was hearing the Petitioners' appeal in the capacity of a statutory "countywide compliance review board" because BORA originally noticed the April 10, 2003, hearing as being held by “the Board of Rules and Appeals sitting as a Countywide Compliance Review Board pursuant to Florida Statutes 553.73(4)(b) to hear challenges to Broward County Local Amendments to Sections 412 and M403.6.4 by Mr. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, P.A.” Notwithstanding the notice and agenda of the April 10, 2003, BORA meeting/hearing, during the course of the hearing BORA took the position that Broward County does not have a countywide compliance review board as described in Section 553.73(4)(b)8, Florida Statutes. Counsel for BORA stated, on the record, that BORA “has exclusive authority over the building code in Broward County.” Counsel then advised the Board: That statutory section which refers to an interlocal agreement applies to counties where the county and municipalities have the authority to amend the code. In Broward County, the municipalities and the county do not have that authority. Therefore, we don’t have a Compliance Review Board in Broward County because it’s just not authorized because we operate on a different procedure here. The Board of Rules and Appeals has the sole authority to amend the code, so we’re hearing this appeal tonight really as an appeal to reconsider whether the action of this board in March of 2002, when you passed these amendments, were done properly, and that’s the sole issue. The appeal was heard by BORA on April 10, 2003. BORA voted unanimously to deny the appeal. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga promptly received a letter from James DiPietro advising him that the appeal had been rejected. Thereafter the Petitioners timely filed their petition seeking relief from the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Building Commission issue a final order which concludes that, for the reasons set forth above, the local technical amendments adopted by BORA which are challenged in this case fail to comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2001), and are invalid local technical amendments, and further concluding that Broward County is not a necessary or appropriate party to this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. PARRISH Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of June, 2003.
Findings Of Fact Respondent has been continuously, actively licensed by the Construction Industry Licensing Board since May 1983, having been issued license number RE 0043386. Since then, he has been the qualifying agent for Bradley Roofing Co. Respondent's business address of record is 3067 N.W. 54th Street, Miami, Florida, 33142. Respondent's disciplinary record (P-14) refers to imposition of discipline by fine on two prior occasions and temporary suspension for failure to pay one fine, but only one of these disciplines is documented in the attachments. That discipline was imposed for pulling a permit for an unlicensed contractor and not qualifying that contractor's name. D.O.A.H. Case No. 86-4427 (Boca Entrada) On or about October 11, 1982, Respondent entered into a contract to perform a complete reroofing job for $17,700. The invoice/contract presented at hearing as P-1 shows the job location as "10110 West Boca Entrada Boulevard, Building No. 101 of Plat 1 of Boca Entrada Subdivision, Boca Raton, Florida." This building was referred to as "Boca Entrada One" by several witnesses. Another typewritten job location on the invoice/contract has been crossed out. This exhibit indicates the job was sold to "Clinton Construction Co.," but this line has also been altered. Neither alteration was initialed by anyone. The contract was executed on behalf of Bradley Roofing Co. by Robert Bradley, the Respondent herein. One signature on behalf of the owner is illegible. The other signature reads, "E. J. Pollock, agent." Respondent testified he made out the contract to "George Pollock," who is apparently one and the same as E. J. Pollock." Mrs. Miller, a longtime resident of the Boca Entrada premises which was previously a rental unit and is now organized as a condominium, is also Treasurer of the current condominium association. She testified that Pollock did not work for either Boca Entrada Enterprises nor Clinton Construction Co. but that he was project manager for either "Boca Entrada Two" or "Boca Entrada Two" and "Boca Entrada Three" (two buildings at the same location which were built after Boca Entrada One). Respondent conceded that he contracted to do a new roof on two of the three buildings located at the address on the contract and to reroof another building at that address and that he completed the work contracted-for. Respondent failed to obtain a permit to reroof any of the buildings at the address on the contract. Respondent relied first upon George Pollock and then upon someone named George Lopez, both of whom he thought were associated with Clinton Construction, to obtain a permit for roofing the other two buildings because he felt that he, Robert Bradley, and Bradley Roofing Co. were in the position of a subcontractor to Clinton Construction Co. for the two buildings being constructed from the ground up. No other person or firm obtained a permit for the building specifically named on the contract. The three Boca Entrada buildings are located in Palm Beach County, Florida. Although no Palm Beach County ordinance was introduced to this effect, George Froehlich, an investigator for the Palm Beach County Construction Industry Licensing Board, testified that Palm Beach County requires that all roofing contractors working within the county limits be either locally certified or state certified. Respondent is not a state certified roofing contractor. See Section 489.105(6) and (7), Florida Statutes. Rather, he is a state registered roofing contractor. See Section 489.105(3)(e), Florida Statutes. The licensing package (P-14) shows he was not even a registered roofing contractor until May 1983, some seven months after contracting at Boca Entrada. He is not charged with operating without a state license, but it is clear that Respondent was not at any time relevant to the administrative complaint certified by either the State of Florida or the County of Palm Beach, nor was he even registered (licensed) in Florida. The Standard Building Code is in force in Palm Beach County. Section thereof requires that a permit be obtained before commencing the type of work Respondent did at Boca Entrada. It provides: Any individual, partnership, firm, corporation or other business organization that is the owner or lessee of property, who desires that work as described below be per- formed on said owned or leased property, shall make provisions for an applicant, properly qualified under the ordinances regulating the certification and licensing of contractors, owner-builder and lessee-builder, to file an application for and obtain the required permit from the building official prior to commencing work for the following: 2. Install, replace or resurface roofing, or make repairs. Had Respondent been a state-licensed contractor and qualifier for his company, it would have clearly been his responsibility to assure himself that all necessary permits were obtained in a timely fashion, but as it was, Respondent was simply operating outside the law by performing contracting work on the Boca Entrada job without being licensed and without obtaining or determining whether anyone else had obtained a permit for said job. Respondent gave a 10 year warranty on his work in 1982 and despite some haphazard and unsupported hearsay testimony of his failure to respond to individual tenants calls and condominium association letters, it was established that he honored his warranty by fixing or having someone fix leaks on one occasion in 1985 and one occasion in 1986. D.O.A.H. Case No. 86-4428 (Polsky Home) On or about June 11, 1985, Respondent entered into a contract with Edward Polsky to reroof Polsky's home at 10070 East Calusa Club Drive, Coral Gables, Dade County, Florida. Respondent failed to obtain a county permit to reroof the above residence before beginning work on Polsky's home. No other person or firm obtained a permit for the Polsky job during any period relevant to the administrative complaint. Respondent did obtain a county permit on February 19, 1987, long after the original reroofing project had been completed. Due to contrary testimony by others and the date of this permit in relation to the administrative complaint and hearing in this cause, Respondent's excuse that his obtaining this permit was done to replace a former lost permit for the Polsky job is rejected as absolutely without credibility. The South Florida Building Code is in force in Dade County. Section thereof requires that a permit must be obtained before commencing the type of work Respondent engaged in at the Polsky home. It provides: Permits, to be issued by the building official, shall be required for the following operations: k. The application, construction or repair on any roof covering as provided in Chapter 34, exceeding three hundred dollars ($300.00) in value of labor and materials, as determined by the building official, or for work exceeding in roofing squares in extent. It was Respondent's responsibility, as a licensed contractor and as qualifier for his company, to assure himself that all permits were obtained in a timely fashion, but Respondent performed contracting work on the Polsky job without obtaining or determining whether anyone else had obtained a permit for said job. Respondent issued a ten year warranty on his job for the Polskys. Although Respondent honored his warranty to some extent by appearing to do some repairs in response to complaints by Mrs. Polsky he did not coordinate his work to her schedule as promised. His explanation is that he could not come out to do repair work when it was raining. Although Respondent proved that he provides his home telephone number on his contract papers so that customers can reach him, it is unrefuted that Mrs. Polsky knew both numbers and called Respondent at either home or office numbers daily over a period of six months to report the problems with her roof, including persistent leaks, which she believed to be under warranty. No adequate response was made by Respondent to her requests. Charles H. Walton was accepted to give expert testimony in roofing contracting. He testified that the work Respondent did on the Polsky roof involved putting a whole new roof over the old roof. This method is not contrary to the applicable codes but it does not meet the terms of the contact which Respondent entered into with the Polskys. That contract called for the old roof to be torn off and done new. He opined that Respondent's work on the Polsky roof constituted gross negligence for the foregoing reason, because there was no insulation at all in the roof as required by the contract, because proper precautions were not taken with the details of flashings, (especially at change of elevations), and because of insufficient precautions with installation of the drain system. As mitigation, Walton noted that Respondent actually upgraded the Polsky contract specifications by installing 3/4-inch urethane which is better than the fiberboard rigid installation called for by the contract. The suggestion that the ornamental wood of the house prevented the flashings being made secure is an insufficient excuse for the poor quality of work done.
Recommendation Upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Petitioner enter a final order in its case 0066199 (Boca Entrada) dismissing that cause for lack of jurisdiction, and a final order in its case 71433 (Polsky Home) finding Respondent guilty of one violation of Section 489.129(1)(d) and fining him $1,000.00 therefor, and finding Respondent guilty of misconduct/gross negligence in the practice of contracting and suspending his license for one year therefor. DONE AND ORDERED this 13th day of July 1987, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of July 1987.
Findings Of Fact Daniel Fowler, a general contractor licensed in Florida (T. 289), qualified Raben-Pastal, A Joint Venture, under license No. CG CA15439 on August 15, 1980, and renewed the license for the period 1981 to 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. At all pertinent times, he was employed as a construction superintendent for Raben-Pastal, at a residential development in the City of Coconut Creek known as The Hammocks at Coconut Creek, Phase II (The Hammocks), and answered to Paul Pariser, president both of Raben Builders and of Pastal Construction, Inc., and himself a general contractor licensed in Florida. Before construction began, Raben-Pastal secured a building permit for a two- story building (No. 280-81), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, on February 19, 1981, and for a four-story building (No. 344-81), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, on March 4, 1981. Respondent personally signed the applications, listing certificate of competency No. CG CA15439 on each. PLANS CHANGE After work had begun, Raben-Pastal decided on a change of floor plan for the two-story building. Their architect, Donald Bryan, approached James Cowley, Director of Planning and Zoning, and building official for the City of Coconut Creek. Mr. Bryan offered the building official an amended floor plan, but, after discussing it, the two men agreed that new elevations were involved as well as plumbing location changes, which should be reflected on additional drawings. Thereafter, Mr. Bryan "went back and submitted an entirely new set of working drawings and all of the architectural sheets to reflect" (T. 246) the changes. Eight or nine of the twelve pages in the amended application differed from the original application. The only structural change was in the balcony areas. (T. 238.) At the time the change of plans application was submitted on February 27, 1981, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, work on the two-story building had progressed through completion of the foundation. STOP WORK ORDER ENTERED On March 2, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote and had delivered by hand a letter to "Daniel Fowler, Raben/Pastal" in which he stated: Please be advised that until such time that the Revised Plans have been reviewed and approved, permit #280-81 is suspended and that the previously approved plans are to be considered disapproved. All work on the building shall cease immediately. A notice to this effect will be attached to the permit board as of this date. While in all probability a new permit fee will not be necessary the standard plan examination fee shall be required prior to the resumption of work. For your reference, the following are the applicable South Florida Building Code 1/ Sections, 302.1(E), 302.4(H), 303.4 and 304.4 (A)(B). Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. The following day, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley, as follows: In response to your letter of March 2nd, it is our opinion that stopping work on the building under code numbers 301.3, 302.3, 303.4 and 304.4 is invalid. We have contacted both our architect and structural engineer and confirmed that the 2 story revised plans have no revisions to the super structure. Since for the next 3 weeks we are doing nothing but super structure work, and certainly within that time frame, you will have had enough time to process the revised plans, we will continue to build the building as per permit #280-81 with our independent inspector making inspections per the South Florida Building Code requirements. . . Respondent's Exhibit No. 16. Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley a second letter on March 3, 1981, to the same general effect enclosing a letter signed by the building's architect and an engineer, which "represent[ed] that there are no structural changes outside of a minor slab configuration." Respondent's Exhibit No. 17. On March 4, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser, with a copy to Mr. Fowler, as follows: I am in receipt of your letter of March 3, 1981, wherein you stated the stop work order issued pursuant to my letter of March 2, 1981 was invalid. My position, of course, is that my action was not only valid, but in fact mandated by code. After meeting with your architect, Mr. Bryan, I propose the following solution. The stop work order will remain in effect for Construction only, i.e. steel re-inforcement, concrete, etc. could not be placed. Site work could continue i.e. soil preparation, filling, compacting, placing of batter boards, excavation for footings and forming. If the above meets with your approval, please acknowledge. Respondent's Exhibit No. 15. To this, Mr. Pariser responded the following day with this letter: In response to your letter of March 4th, the construction that we are proceeding with is just the very 1st floor lift of columns. That lift of columns is the same as shown on the plans for permit #280-81. There is no reason why you could not look at the set of plans you now have in your office for permit #280-81 and make a determination on the number of bars, sizing and location of same. I believe there is a total of 23 columns. Independent of this, you have already received a letter from our architect and an independent engineer stating that these columns will remain the same and you will have an independent engineer's inspection signed off on the permit card. My sincere appreciation for your understanding and return of this letter with your signature below acknowledging acceptance. If however, there is any further harassment in this matter, we will have no alternative but to invoke Chapter 71-575 Section 4 a of the South Florida Building Code, which states in part. . ."if any elected or appointed officials prohibit by any means, directly or indirectly, the use of any materials, types of construction and methods of design authorized by the code or alternate materials, types of construction and methods of design approved by the provisions of the Code, then the elected or appointed official may be removed from office for nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance in office". . .Respondent's Exhibit No. 19. On March 10, 1981, the amended plans were approved. After still further correspondence, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser, with a copy to Mr. Fowler, advising that "receipt of the required $200.00 Plan Exam Fee. . .re[s]cinded the suspension of Permit #280-81," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, effective April 7, 1981. STOP WORK ORDER VIOLATED By the time the stop work order was rescinded, the two-story building's superstructure was finished. No work accomplished before April 7, 1981, differed from that called for in the original plans. Through respondent and others, Raben-Pastal placed steel-reinforced concrete and performed other work in violation of the stop work order, without testing the validity of the order before the Board of Rules and Appeals or by initiating mandamus or other judicial proceedings. Respondent directed and participated in this work deliberately and with awareness that a stop work order was outstanding. At no time between March 2, 1981, and April 7, 1981, was anybody aware of the design defects that later came to light. STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS In late April of 1981, Coconut Creek's Mr. Cowley learned of cracking in concrete slabs around columns in both the two-story and the four-story buildings. By this time, roof slabs on both buildings had been poured, but neither ground slab had been finished. On the city's behalf, Mr. Cowley engaged D. E. Britt & Associates, consulting engineers, to examine the buildings. After Duncan Britt telephoned to say the buildings should be shored, Mr. Cowley orally advised respondent Fowler that shoring was necessary, on May 6 or 7, 1981. SHORING ORDERED On May 7, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote and caused to be delivered by hand to Paul Pariser a letter in which he stated: I have just received instructions from Mr. Britt of D. E. Britt and Associates to the effect that a minimum of four shores must be placed around ALL columns in the above referenced buildings. Said shores shall be placed immediately and remain in place until such time that the structural adequacy evaluation has been completed. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. A copy of this letter reached Mr. Fowler on May 8, 1981. On May 11, 1981, Mr. Pariser replied: I am in receipt of your letter of May 7, 1981, please be advised that even though Raben-Pastal is respecting your wishes as to the reshoring, we would like to know specifically by what basis in South Florida building code you are requesting same. Also, what is the time frame which we can expect to have this lifted? Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. In a separate letter dated May 11, 1981, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley: I take exception to the fact that you have predetermined that there are structural deficiencies. According to Mr. Bromley, our structural engineer, both buildings, as they stand now, are structurally sound. We, at Raben-Pastal, will stop work on anything that is related to column and plate slabs until the Britt analysis has been submitted. Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. Also on May 11, 1982, in response to a mailgram from respondent Fowler, Mr. Cowley wrote respondent to the effect that his order requiring shores around columns should not be construed as a stop work order. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. A mailgram confirmation stamped received May 12, 1981, states, over respondent's name: Per your instructions requiring 4 post shores to be placed around our columns on building C-46 and C-47, Raben-Pastal will immediately commence this remedial work. Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. During this period, the engineers advising Raben-Pastal continued to believe that both buildings were sound and this was communicated to Messrs. Fowler and Pariser. FIRST-STORY CEILING SLAB ESSENTIALLY UNSHORED Mr. Cowley, Duncan Britt, Ron Thomas, and Henry A. Luten, Britt's chief engineer, among others, visited the site of the four-story building on May 14, 1981. The building was 240-feet long and had more than 30 columns; the slab on grade had still not been poured. The upper floors had been shored, possibly in the process of flying the forms, but there were no more than two or three shores in place underneath the lowest slab then poured, i.e., the first-story ceiling. If done properly, shoring would have begun at ground level with shores placed on the concrete pads around the columns; work would have progressed upward floor by floor; and no more than two or three shores a day, on average, would have been dislodged by the contraction and expansion of concrete in response to temperature changes. Shoring upper floors without shoring the bottom floor may have enhanced rather than diminished the risk that the building would fall. On May 15, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote respondent Fowler, as follows: Yesterday, May 14, Mr. Britt, Mr. Ludin [sic], Mr. Thomas and I made an inspection of the above referenced buildings. We were appal[l]ed to find that our reshoring instructions had not been carried out on the ground floor of the four story building, permit number 344-81. Considering that a potentially hazardous situation exists, you leave me no choice but to issue the following order. YOU SHALL IMMEDIATELY SHORE THE GROUND AND SECOND FLOOR COLUMNS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: TWO (2) SHORES ON EACH SIDE AND ONE (1) ON EACH END. ALL SHORES ARE TO BE WEDGED TIGHTLY IN PLACE. GROUND FLOOR SHORES ARE TO BARE [sic] ON FOUNDATION. Failure to comply will result in a Stop Work Order which will remain in effect until such time the engineer of record, Mr. Arthur Bromley, determines what measures are required to correct the existing structural deficiencies. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. To this letter Mr. Fowler replied, also on May 15, 1981: Please be advised pursuant to your letter of today, that to the best of my knowledge we proceeded to a completed state, the shoring on both C-46 [the four-story building] and C-47 [the two-story building] per your request on May 7th. It may appear, without further investigation, that for whatever reason some of the shor[e]s may have come loose, however in your letter of May 7th, not received until May 8th, you asked for all columns in both the 2 story and 4 story buildings, with no mention of the bearing on the foundation. As you well know, your letter was untimely since we had poured our slab on C-47 on the 7th of May and have shored from the slab on grade, on certified compacted sub soil to the 1st raised slab. However in this new letter you are only asking for 2 floors of the 4 story building. Am I to understand that that is the total requirement? On May 7th your letter, specific in nature, required only 4 shor[e]s and this new letter requires 6 shor[e]s. Which is it? Respondent's Exhibit No. 10. The last hour of the working day on May 15, 1981, Mr. Fowler ordered all his men to spend shoring the four-story building. Just how much additional time was devoted to shoring was not clear from the evidence. On May 16, 1981, respondent Fowler wrote Mr. Cowley that "we have already expended. . .64 man hours in reshoring these buildings per your specifications." Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. At the final hearing, however, Mr. Fowler testified that, on May 7, 1981, "five men working on the two buildings [did] nothing but shoring. . .four of those men eight hours and one of those men for four hours," (T. 304-305) (May 7: 36 hours); on May 8, 1981, "seven men working on the shoring on the two buildings for a period of time varying between six and eight hours per man," (T. 305) (May 8: 42 to 56 hours); on May 9, 1981, "five men for half a day. . .[did] nothing but shoring on the two buildings," (T. 305) (May 9: 20 hours); on May 11, 1981, "five men working on shoring for a period varying between five hours and eight hours on the two buildings," (T. 306) (May 11: 25 to 40 hours); on May 12, 1981, "six men working on the shoring. . .one man at four hours and one man at five hours and four men at eight hours," (T. 306) (May 12: 41 hours); on May 13, 1981, "five men working on shoring. . .two for four hours and three for eight hours," (T. 306) (May 13: 32 hours); and, on May 15, 1981, seven men each working one hour (May 15: 7 hours). In short, respondent testified at hearing that 203 hours, at a minimum, were spent shoring both buildings from May 7, 1981, through May 15, 1981. This testimony has not been credited because of the witness's interest, because it exceeds by a factor of three the contemporaneous estimate or claim in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11, and because it does not square with the time sheets, Respondent's Exhibit No. 26, or with the progress reports, Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 27 and 28, on which Mr. Fowler purported to base his testimony. Mr. Goode was one of the workmen who eventually placed shores in the four-story building, working from the ground up. Read most favorably to respondent, Mr. Goode's testimony was that two men could shore one floor of the four-story building in seven hours. This, too, supports the view that Mr. Fowler's testimony about shoring was grossly exaggerated. The record is clear, however, that work of some kind, including work that was not shoring nor incident to the load test nor remedial took place on and under the four-story building between May 7, 1981, and May 15, 1981, thereafter. See Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 26-28; Testimony of Goode, Williams, Fowler. LOAD TEST As late as May 16, 1981, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley that "Bromley's letter. . .coupled with the inspection reports list. . .should, beyond a doubt, put your mind, and anyone else's mind, at ease that the buildings. . .are structurally sound." Respondent's Exhibit No. 13. About a week later, a load test was begun by a testing laboratory using criteria agreed on by Henry A. Luten for the City and by Arthur H. Bromley for Raben-Pastal. In order to perform the load test, the shoring under two bays was removed and scaffolding was erected in its place. Afterward, the scaffolding was removed and shores were reinstalled. LAWYERS' MISUNDERSTANDING Construction at The Hammocks had received increasingly strident publicity, depressing sales of prospective condominium apartments. Raben-Pastal was concerned that premature disclosure of the results of the load test might aggravate the situation. John R. Young, Esquire, raised the matter with Paul Stuart, Coconut Creek's city attorney. Mr. Young proposed that the city be represented at the test by its consulting engineers but that no city employee observe the test, against the possibility that a Sunshine Law disclosure requirement would result in dissemination of a public employee's notes or report on the load test, before those conducting the test had been afforded time to evaluate the significance of things like cracks. Mr. Stuart agreed to communicate this proposal to Mr. Cowley and did in fact do so. Mr. Stuart left town, and Mr. Young eventually assumed that his proposal had been accepted. That it had been accepted, he told Mr. Pariser in Mr. Fowler's hearing as fact. Messrs. Pariser and Fowler were surprised to learn then, on the day of the load test, that Ron Thomas, chief building inspector of Coconut Creek, had accompanied Benjamin Eigner, an employee of D. E. Britt & Associates, to the site. Raben-Pastal employees confronted Mr. Thomas, at the edge of the property, and Lee Smith radioed Mr. Pariser's office. Mr. Fowler went to the scene of the controversy and Mr. Pariser telephoned the police. After the police arrived and while Mr. Fowler was talking to a policeman, Mr. Thomas started in the direction of the load test being performed on the second floor of the four-story building; Mr. Fowler ran toward the building and physically interposed himself, blocking Thomas's way. At this juncture, Mr. Fowler was arrested. He was eventually acquitted of criminal charges arising out of this episode. BUILDER'S ENGINEER STOPS TEST Mr. Bromley, who was also on site for the load test, recommended to Raben-Pastal that it be stopped before completion, because "the deflection was at a point that if there was anything further, it would cause permanent structural damage." (T. 234.) Most of the engineers involved later came to agree that there was insufficient post-tension cable in the slabs and that there was a "punching shear problem," a 122-percent "over-stress in the punching shear area." (T. 238.) Punching shear occurs when the "concrete that adheres around the column leaves the rest of the floor area or the floor area separates from the concrete that adheres to the column," (T. 235) with the collapse of the building a possible result. Raben-Pastal's own engineer testified at the hearing that, "It was a dangerous situation, yes." (T. 235.) (Widening the columns eventually remedied the problem.) SECOND STOP WORK ORDER ENTERED On May 28, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser that he had visited the site on Sunday, May 25, 1981, found it deserted and "observed that the load test had very prudently been stopped slightly past the half way point." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. The letter continued: With this knowledge, I have no choice but to place you on notice that the above referenced buildings are unsafe and constructed in a dangerous manner. Pursuant to section 201.9 of the South Florida Building Code and more specifically the fact that over-stressing and a danger of collapse was emminent [sic] if loading were continued. During a meeting held on May 27, 1981, with Mr. Britt, Mr. Luten, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Adams and myself in attendance, Mr. Bromley concluded that all work on the above referenced be stopped, with the exception of remedial repairs and additional testing if necessary until further notice. I am in complete accord and do so order. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. By the time Mr. Pariser received this letter, he had already ordered all work stopped on or under both buildings, except for shoring, testing, or remedial work. Neither he nor respondent ever authorized any work in violation of the stop work order of May 28, 1981. On June 1, 1981, the day after respondent returned from vacation, Mr. Thomas visited the site and observed and photographed a workman standing on the ground underneath the four-story building, even though respondent had personally ordered everybody to stay out except for replacing shores as necessary. On or before May 29, 1981, the scaffolding installed for the load test had been removed and most, but not all, of the shores had been replaced. Some rested, however, not on the concrete pads around the columns but on scrap lumber and pieces of plywood. Also on June 1, 1981, at least one workman went underneath the four-story building to fetch a piece of PVC pipe.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II 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 3rd day of September, 1982.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent Donald W. Nettles is a certified general contractor having been issued license number CO C008957. Respondent's last known address is Crown Builders International, Inc., 1175 N.E. 135th Street, North Miami, Florida. On or about April 30, 1980, Respondent as qualifying agent for Crown Builder's International, Inc., contracted with Buckley Towers Condominium to repair damage caused by a fire to a condominium owned by Lee K. Abrams, 1301 N.E. Miami Gardens Drive, Apartment 205W, North Miami Beach, Florida. Said contract included the repair and, if required, the replacement of electrical wiring and outlets that were damaged by the fire. The amount of the contract was $10,640. On or about May 29, 1980, the Respondent completed the work without pulling a building permit or calling for building inspections as required by the South Florida Building Code. The Respondent, a general contractor who is not licensed to perform electrical work in Dade County, performed electrical work on the Abrams job which was outside the scope of his contractor's license. This complaint arose due to a dispute between the Respondent Nettles and the complainant over the replacement of a $56.16 thermostat with a defective control which resulted in electric bills of approximately $60 over a four-month period. The Respondent refused to pay for the replacement thermostat when the complainant also demanded that he pay her electric bills over the four month period. The Respondent refused to pay the electrical bills because on the day the thermostat was installed, May 29, 1980, the complainant left for New York and the Respondent was unable to gain access to the apartment to replace the thermostat until her return. A subpoena was issued in this case by the Petitioner to the complainant to ensure her attendance at the final hearing. Approximately a day before the final hearing, the complainant informed counsel for the Petitioner that she would not attend the final hearing.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Respondent Donald W. Nettles be found to have violated Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes by operation of Section 489.113(3), Florida Statutes, and be placed on probation for a period of six months. DONE and ORDERED this 23rd day of December, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of December, 1982. COPIES FURNISHED: Michael J. Cohen, Esquire Suite 101 Kristin Building 2715 East Oakland Park Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33306 Donald W. Nettles 1175 N.E. 135th Street North Miami, Florida 33161 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Samuel R. Shorstein, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD DEPARTMENT OF PROFESSIONAL REGULATION Petitioner, vs. CASE NO. 0021333 DONALD W. NETTLES Crown Builders International, Inc. CG C008957 1175 Northeast 135th Street North Miami, Florida Respondent. /
Findings Of Fact By Stipulation of the parties, it is found that Respondent is, and has been at all times material hereto, a certified roofing contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued license number CC-C015772. He is also known as Tony Gory, and was the qualifying agent for Roofing Technology, Inc., at all times material hereto. On or about August 16, 1982, Respondent submitted a proposal, on behalf of Roofing Technology, Incorporated, to Lillian Perper for roofing work to be done on her residence at 3616 Flamingo Drive, Miami Beach, Florida. Mrs. Perper accepted the proposal on August 17, 1982, and testified that the written proposal contained all terms and conditions of her agreement with Respondent. Respondent obtained the permit for this job on August 23, 1982. Mrs. Perper made timely payments to Respondent, under the terms of their agreement, totaling $11,057.00. Respondent completed the work in late September, 1982 and Mrs. Perper made her final payment on October 8, 1982. Respondent's agreement with Mrs. Perper included a warranty stated as follows: All workmanship and material to be guaranteed against defects for a period of ten (10) years; except for fire, termites, windstorm, or damages caused by acts of God. Within two months after completion of the reroofing, Mrs. Perper noted leaks in her livingroom and bedroom ceilings. She called Respondent, and-he came right out and 3 inspected her roof. He then sent a crew to Mrs. Perper's house and they attempted to locate and fix the leaks. However, they were not successful and the leaks continued. Mrs. Perper made several additional attempts to reach Respondent, but was not able to personally talk with him again about her roof. She did leave messages at his office that she was continuing to have leaks in her roof. In June, 1983, Respondent sent a crew of two men to Mrs. Perper's house to work on her roof. However, she denied them access to her roof because Respondent was not present, although they did identify themselves as roofers who Respondent had sent to repair her roof. Mrs. Perper was concerned that this crew would tear her roof off without Respondent being present to supervise the job. No additional attempts were made by Mrs. Perper to reach Respondent, or by Respondent to repair her roof, after she refused access to the roofing crew in June, 1983. The South Florida Building Code has been adopted as the building code of the City of Miami Beach. Regarding roof coverings, the South Florida Building Code provides that the building official shall be notified by the permit holder upon completion of the roof covering (Section 3401.1(b)(4)), nails should not be driven through the sheathing between supports (Section 3401.1(c)), mortar used to secure roof tile shall be sandwiched between all laps at all butts and along the sides of barrel tile (Section 3403.2(e)), roof tiles shall be secured to resist uplift forces (Section 3403.2(f)) and such tile shall extend beyond roof sheathing at the eaves (Section 3403.2(h)). An inspection of Mrs. Perper's roof conducted on February 25, 1985, by Robert B. Hilson, who was accepted as an expert in roofing and the installation of Spanish-S tile, indicates there were violations of several of the above provisions of the South Florida Building Code when he made his inspection, but there is no evidence that these violations were willful or deliberate, or that they were the result of work completed by Respondent in September, 1982. Between June, 1983, when Mrs. Perper denied access to Respondent's crew and February, 1985, when Hilson made his inspection, Mrs. Perper allowed a painter to go on her roof to see about her leak problem and to repair some flashing around her chimney. There is conflicting evidence concerning whether Respondent called for a final inspection after completing the roofing of Mrs. Perper's residence. Respondent testified that he did call for the inspection, but could offer nothing to substantiate his testimony. Petitioner called Oswald Ferro, building inspector, who testified that in the limited time he had available to him he could only find a record in the City of Miami Beach building department of one inspection on this job, but this was not a final inspection on this job. He had no personal knowledge about inspections on this job or whether Respondent had failed to call for a final inspection. Based upon the conflicting evidence presented and considering the demeanor of the witnesses, it is found that Petitioner has not established that Respondent failed to call for a final inspection.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that a Final Order be issued dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against Respondent Frank A. Gory. DONE and ENTERED this 28th day of August, 1986 at Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD D. CONN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Seely, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Errol H. Powell, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Martin G. Brooks, Esquire 300 Hollywood Federal Building 4600 Sheridan Street Hollywood, Florida 33021 APPENDIX Rulings on Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact: 1,2 Adopted in Finding of Fact 1. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 2. Rejected as irrelevant. 7,8 Adopted in Finding of Fact 3. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in part and rejected in part in Finding of Fact 5, 6. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5. Adopted in Finding of Fact 7. 13,14 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Adopted in Finding of Fact 5,7. Rejected in Finding of Fact 12. 17,18 Rejected as cumulative and unnecessary. Adopted in Finding of Fact 9. Rejected in Finding of Fact 13. 21-28 Rejected as not based on competent substantial evidence. Respondent did not timely file proposed findings of fact by August 26, 1986 as required by Order entered August 6, 1986, and therefore no rulings can be made relative to any proposed findings which may be submitted by Respondent.
