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.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent Robert Kegan (Mr. Kegan) committed violations of Chapters 455 and 468, Florida Statutes, as alleged in an Administrative Complaint filed by Petitioner Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department).
Findings Of Fact Mr. Kegan has a Certificate of Licensure from the Florida Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board. He was first licensed in 1994, and, unless he renewed it, the license expired on November 30, 2008. At all times pertinent, he was the Building Code Administrator in Mt. Dora, Florida. Mr. Kegan has never been employed by the City of Leesburg in any capacity. The Department is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of building code administration and inspections pursuant to Section 20.165 and Chapters 455 and 468, Florida Statutes. Linda Renn purchased a home located at 2407 Winona Avenue, Leesburg, Florida, from Mr. Kegan and his wife pursuant to a contract entered into during March 2001. Prior to entering into the contract for sale, Ms. Renn walked through the house with Mr. Kegan. Ms. Renn was aware that it was an older home and testified, "And I felt very comfortable after leaving the home and doing the walk through that even though I was buying an older home with older home obsolescent issues types, but that the renovations were enough that I felt comfortable." Ms. Renn typed up an addendum to the contract prior to execution that stated Mr. Kegan would level a part of the house that required leveling, install an HVAC, install a 220-volt outlet for the clothes dryer, and would accomplish certain other improvements prior to closing on the home. The addendum became part of the contract for sale. Mr. Kegan provided Ms. Renn with his business card indicating that he was the Building Code Administrator in Mt. Dora. Ms. Renn observed Mr. Kegan in a shirt with the Mt. Dora logo upon it, indicating that he was a building official of Mr. Dora, and she visited him in his office in Mt. Dora. There is no question Ms. Renn was aware that he was a building official in Mt. Dora. Ms. Renn claimed that because he was a building official she completely relied on the representations he made to her. However, this assertion lacks credibility because she employed an independent home inspector prior to closing. During the walk-through, the HVAC was resting upon the floor of the home's garage. However, at a time between March 17 and April 29, 2001, Mr. Kegan had the HVAC installed, as he agreed. Subsequently, Ms. Renn discovered this work was accomplished by an unlicensed individual. An inspection of the premises was conducted by Guy Medlock of Benchmark Building Inspections, Inc., on March 29, 2001. A report was issued on March 30, 2001. The report noted that the dwelling was 53 years old and had problems that one would expect from a home that old. Mr. Medlock also noted that the house had a lot of charm. Mr. Medlock's inspection noted that the dwelling required roof repairs and wood rot repairs. It was noted that it was necessary to ameliorate water leaks and correct electrical deficiencies, among other items. There were seven items noted with estimated costs of repair ranging from $50.00 to $150.00. At the time of the inspection, the 220-volt receptacle had not been installed for the washer and dryer. Mr. Medlock further noted that there was no plumbing available for the washer. Because of Mr. Medlock's report, Ms. Renn was well aware of the defects he noted, and she knew this prior to closing. The report stated that he, Mr. Medlock, had discussed the electrical deficiencies with Ms. Renn and suggested that she have an electrician inspect the dwelling. Ms. Renn testified that she gave greater weight to Mr. Kegan's knowledge than to the home inspector that she hired, but there is no basis in the record for her to arrive at that conclusion. On April 29, 2001, the day before closing, Economy Electric of Eustis, Florida, installed a 220-volt line, and Mr. Kegan paid for this work. Economy Electric's principal is Larry New. He is licensed to accomplish electrical work. He performed additional electrical work that was paid for by Ms. Renn, including upgrading wires so that her computer would not be damaged by bad wiring. On April 30, 2001, Mr. and Mrs. Kegan conveyed the premises to Ms. Renn by warranty deed. Subsequently, Ms. Renn concluded that she was not happy with certain facets of the house, and tried to contact Mr. Kegan to have her perceived problems corrected. Mr. Kegan was difficult to contact. In a letter dated November 4, 2001, Ms. Renn filed a 16-page complaint with the Department alleging numerous Florida Building Code violations by Mr. Kegan. She requested that the Department investigate these alleged violations. Sometime immediately prior to January 10, 2002, Ms. Renn had Raymond Anderson of Suter Air Conditioning, Inc., of Leesburg, inspect the HVAC. He made Ms. Renn aware of several city code infractions involving the HVAC. Sometime immediately prior to January 11, 2002, Ms. Renn had someone named James A. Dolan inspect the electrical service at the premises. In a letter dated January 11, 2002, Mr. Dolan stated that there were "national electrical code violations" at the house and that it was his opinion that an electrical inspector or building code official should look into the situation. Ms. Renn believed this to be true. Sometime immediately prior to February 5, 2002, Ms. Renn had the electrical service inspected by Bronson Electric Service, Inc., of Eustis, Florida. In a letter dated February 5, 2002, David E. Bronson reported numerous electrical deficiencies, including an improperly fused air conditioning unit. Mr. Bronson found that the electrical service to the house required an upgrade to 150 amps because the current service was inadequate. He quoted a price of $1,546.00 to accomplish the required modifications. Ms. Renn believed this to be accurate. Ms. Renn employed an inspector from Ocala, Florida, who prepared an inspection report dated May 10, 2002. She learned there were plumbing, electrical, and mechanical problems. She also learned that the roof did not meet building code standards. She noted that for a period of two and one-half years, the HVAC neither cooled nor heated, although it did make some noise. Permits were required for the electrical upgrade and for the air conditioning installation in Ms. Renn's house. No permits were obtained by Mr. Kegan, or his friends, or persons he employed to work on Ms. Renn's house, as were required by the City of Leesburg. By April 18, 2002, all permits had been obtained. Unlicensed persons worked on both the HVAC installation and the electrical upgrade. Work of that sort is lawful only if accomplished by licensed persons. The work accomplished without the appropriate permit and the work done by unlicensed persons, was done under the control of Mr. Kegan. Ultimately, Larry New, a licensed electrician, and Jimmy Harris, a licensed person, fixed all of the problems; got the work inspected; and ensured that all permits were in place. After her complaint to the Department which was drafted November 4, 2001, and submitted in early 2002, Ms. Renn was informed by the Department that she should handle the case locally. Complaints were made by Ms. Renn to the Leesburg Building Department and to many other officials of the Leesburg municipal government. Ultimately, a hearing regarding Mr. Kegan was held before the Lake County Board of Building Examiners (County Board) on August 7, 2003, in Tavares, the county seat of Lake County. Both Leesburg and Mt. Dora are in Lake County. The County Board heard charges against Mr. Kegan's contractor's license for accomplishing work in the trades of roofing, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing using unlicensed workers and failing to obtain permits. It imposed sanctions, including a $1,000 fine. The County Board required Mr. Kegan to do the work he promised, but it was clear that he had already accomplished that work, except for some roofing issues not further identified. The County Board did not address his position as the Building Code Administrator in Mt. Dora, Florida. The action of the County Board was subsequently reversed by a circuit court. Relations between Ms. Renn and Mr. Kegan eventually deteriorated to the point where Ms. Renn had a trespass warning served on Mr. Kegan and sought to have the state attorney prosecute him for trespass. She was not successful in this. She also sued Mr. Kegan civilly, but eventually she voluntarily dismissed the case. None of the actions taken by Ms. Renn, resulted in Mr. Kegan being disciplined. At some point thereafter, Ms. Renn appeared to be satisfied with her house and the retaliation she had visited upon Mr. Kegan. However, while Ms. Renn was "working on legislation" in Tallahassee, Florida, in 2006, she was asked by a Department attorney to reopen the case. Other than the transcript from the County Board hearing of August 7, 2003, nothing had changed. Every problem she had with the house that should have been ameliorated, had been ameliorated. Nevertheless, she did as asked by the Department attorney, and this case was filed. Ms. Renn sent two letters dated April 3, 2006, and one letter dated April 21, 2006, to the Chief Professions Attorney of the Department. The latter missive was a follow-up to the April 3, 2006, communications. The April 3, 2006, communications are considered complaints as contemplated by Subsection 468.619(4), Florida Statutes (2005). There is no evidence of record that Mr. Kegan was informed of the complaint or that he was permitted 30 days to respond as contemplated by Subsection 468.619(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2005). There is no evidence of record that the Department submitted the complaint regarding Mr. Kegan to a probable cause panel for review as contemplated by Subsection 468.619(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2005), within 180 days. There is no evidence to the contrary, either. In summary, the Department has proven that Mr. Kegan, during 2001 and 2002, caused work to be accomplished at 2407 Winona Avenue, Leesburg, Florida, when he owned the house, as well as after he sold the house to Ms. Renn, and this work was done without proper permits and, on occasion, by persons who had no license when a license was required.
Recommendation Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation dismiss the Administrative Complaint in the case of Robert Kegan. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of January, 2009, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HARRY L. HOOPER 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 13th day of January, 2009. COPIES FURNISHED: Harry T. Hackney, Esquire Harry Thomas Hackney, P.A. 3900 Lake Center Drive, Suite A1 Mount Dora, Florida 32757 Elizabeth F. Duffy, Esquire Charles Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Robyn Barineau, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced at the hearing, the following facts are found: At all times material to these proceedings Respondent was licensed by the State of Florida as a registered residential contractor, having been issued license number RR 0033727. Respondent's license was first issued in February, 1974. In April, 1983, Respondent submitted a change of status application and requested to qualify Regency Builders, a proprietorship. License number RR 0033727 was then issued to William B. Pitts, qualifying Regency Builders. Regency Builders, Inc., has never been qualified by a license of the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes or any predecessor of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes. There is nothing in the record to show that Regency Builders was ever properly incorporated in the State of Florida. However, the record reflects that Respondent did register Regency Builders under the fictitious name statutes Section 685.09, Florida Statutes and complied with the requirements of Section 489.117, Florida Statutes after being contacted by Petitioner's employee sometime in February, 1983. Respondent has been a contractor in Bay County, Florida for 10-12 years and has constructed 150-200 homes during this period of time without any disciplinary action against him, excluding the present proceeding. Respondent prepared a proposal for the construction of a home for Mr. and Mrs. Lee Munroe under the name of Regency Builders, Inc., and submitted the proposal to them. Although the Agreement which was prepared by Lee R. Munroe and signed by Respondent on April 11, 1982 and signed by Lee R. Munroe and Sara W. Munroe (Munroes) but undated, incorporates certain portions of the Proposal, the record reflects that the proposal, per se, was never accepted by the Munroes. The Agreement referenced in paragraph 5 was an agreement entered into by the Respondent and the Munroes for the construction of the Munroes' residence in Gulf Air Subdivision, Gulf County, Florida. The agreed upon contract price was $74,129.33 but, due to changes requested by the Munroes, the Respondent was paid approximately $95,000.00. The Munroes' residence was constructed by Respondent pursuant to the Agreement and was essentially completed in December, 1982. The Munroes moved into this "completed" residence in December, 1982. DeWayne Manuel, building inspector for Gulf County, Florida, during the construction of the Munroe's residence by Respondent, performed the framing inspection, the rough electrical inspection, the rough plumbing inspection, the mechanical inspection (the heating and air conditioning systems) and all other inspections required by the 1982 Southern Standard Building Code, as adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, Gulf County Florida (Code) with the exception of the final inspection. At the beginning of construction, but before the framing inspection, Lee Munroe contacted Manuel with a general concern about the construction. As a result of this meeting with Lee Munroe, Manuel requested Charles Gaskins (Gaskins) an architect with Gaskins Architect of Wewahitchka, Florida, to inspect the pilings, girders and floor joist. After this inspection, Gaskins made some recommendations in regard to the attachment of girders to the pilings which Respondent followed in making the corrections to the attachments. Gaskins Architect provided the Piling Layout 1st and 2nd Floor Framing (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8) at the request of the Munroes. Generally, Gaskins found no major problems with the pilings and girders other than the work was "sloppy". Both Manuel's and Gaskins' inspection revealed that Respondent had complied with the requirements of the Piling Lay Out and Manuel found no Code violations. After Gaskins inspected the pilings and girders, Respondent was allowed to continue construction by both Manuel and Munroe. The House Plans (Plans) for the construction of the Munroes' home were prepared by the Munroes' daughter who is an unlicensed architect. Although in several instances the Plans requirements were less stringent than Code requirement, the Plans were approved by the Gulf County Building Department. While the Plans were lacking in detail a competent licensed contractor should have known how to fill in the details. Once the Plans were approved, Manuel would allow a change in the Plans provided the change was as stringent as the Code and would allow the structure to be built in compliance with the Code. The change could be a downgrade or an upgrade provided the Plans, as changed, complied with the Code requirements. Respondent did not request any additional or more comprehensive plans from the Munroes or inform the Munroes in any manner that the plans were inadequate. The Plans called for 2 x 12 solid floor joists to be placed on 16 inch centers. The house as constructed by Respondent had engineered floor truss (I- Beams) placed on 24 inch centers. Those I-Beams carrying a significant load were not blocked and in some instance the I-Beams were not "end-blocked." The Code allows the use of wood I-Beams in place of solid wood floor joists provided the wood I-Beams are constructed in accordance with Code requirements. The record does not reflect that the I-Beams as used in this construction were built in accordance with the Code, and the testimony of both consulting engineering experts, that the placement of I-Beams in this structure required blocking along both sides and the end went unrebutted. There were holes and notches in the plywood web of the I-Beams. However, in reviewing the photographs in Petitioners Exhibits Nos. 11 and 14, and, in particular, photograph 1 of Exhibits 11 and photographs 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Exhibit 14, and the testimony surrounding those photographs, there is insufficient evidence to determine: (1) the size of the holes or notches (2 inch hole, 4 inch notch, etc.); (2) placement of hole or notch in relation to depth of I-Beam (upper 1/3, lower 1/4, etc.); or, (3) the depth of the I-Beams. Although there was no testimony concerning the size of the hole for the duct work and the depth of the I-Beam in photograph 7 of Exhibit No. 14, it is clear that the hole for the duct work is greater than 1/3 the depth of the I-Beam. The evidence is insufficient to show that Respondent did not use 5 - 2 x 12's in the main girder as required by Piling Layout. The evidence is clear that the 2 x 12's used in girders were not always butted at a support. The evidence is insufficient to show where the 2 x 12's were butted in the span or if the butting was staggered. No set-in braces or plywood sheathing was used in the bracing of exterior stud walls. However, diagonal metal strapping and thermoply was used and two layers of weatherboard were put on horizontally. The evidence was insufficient to show that water penetrated into the wood framework after the second siding was put on. A 32/16, 1/2 inch plywood was used for subflooring. There was no top plate on dining room wall which was a weight bearing wall. Ventilation in the attic was in accordance with plans but no cross ventilation was provided in the attic. The evidence is insufficient to show that hurricane clips were not applied to the center exterior wall in that neither engineer inspected the outside of the wall to determine if hurricane clips were on the outside. Manuel did not find a violation of Code in regard to the hurricane clips. In February, 1983, James Van Orman (Orman), a licensed engineer, was employed by the Munroes to do a structural analysis of the home constructed by Respondent. Orman's report (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10) contained certain calculations in regard to the structural integrity of the home. The calculations and Orman's testimony surrounding the calculations went unrebutted. Orman and Lee Munroe were associated through their work and Orman, also a general contractor, was hired to make the necessary corrections in the construction to make it structurally sound. On December 5, 1984, after reviewing the case file and exhibits, Harold Benjamin, Jr. (Benjamin), a licensed consulting engineer, conducted an inspection on the structure. While Benjamin's inspection was cursory and he made no calculations Benjamin noted the same Code violations as did Orman and concurred in Orman's conclusion that the structural integrity of the home had been compromised. Respondent was notified in March, 1983, of the problems with the structure but due to problems with the Munroes and with his subcontractor he was only able to replace the siding and do some cosmetic work between March, 1983 and October, 1983. In October, 1983, the Munroes contracted with Orman to correct what Orman had determined to be structural deficiencies and notified Respondent that they no longer wanted him on the job. On September 30, 1983, the final inspection was conducted by the Gulf County Building Department. The Respondent was not present at this inspection having failed to pick up a certified letter from Manuel advising him of the date for the final inspection. By letters dated February 7, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4), October 13, 1983 (Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5) and February 13, 1984 (Respondent's Exhibit No. 1), Manuel expressed his thinking about the Code violations and Orman's report. At the hearing Manuel testified that his thinking had not basically changed from what he had expressed in the letters. Neither the Respondent nor the Gulf County Building Department have had the residence structurally analyzed by a licensed engineer. Respondent deviated from the Plans without first obtaining approval of the Gulf County Building Department when he substituted I-Beams on 24 inch centers for 12 x 12 solid floor joists on 16 inch centers. The only evidence that this change was discussed with the Munroes was in regard to running heating and air conditioning duct work through the I-Beams because Mrs. Munroe did not want to drop the ceiling down to 7 feet to accommodate the duct work. While this change may not have affected the structural integrity of the house had the I-Beams been properly constructed and the strength of the subfloor material adjusted to account for the increased span, the evidence shows that the I-Beams were not properly constructed and that the subfloor material used was not of sufficient strength on account of the increased span. Therefore, this change affected the structural integrity of the house. It was apparent from the testimony that certain other changes in the Plans were made without prior approval of the Gulf County Building Department. However, it was also apparent from the evidence that these changes were at least verbally approved by the Munroes and there was no evidence that these changes affected the structural integrity of the house. Due to a grandfathering provision in the law, William Pitts has never taken an examination for licensure and has never been examined as to the provisions of the Code. Respondent in his testimony exhibited: (1) an awareness of the applicable provisions of the Code but not a complete understanding of them; and (2) an acceptable knowledge of he applicable construction practice.
Recommendation Based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law recited herein, it is Recommended that the Board enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the violations alleged in Count I and Count II of the Administrative Complaint and for such violations it is Recommended that the Board impose an administrative fine of $1 000.00 and suspend Respondent's residential contractor license for a period of one (1) year, staying the suspension and placing Respondent on probation for that period provided the Respondent: (1) pays the $1,000.00 fine within ninety (90) days; (2) obtains a current copy of the Southern Standard Building Code and agrees to keep it current; and (3) proves to the Board that he has read and is familiar with the applicable Sections of the Code that relate to his license. Respectfully submitted and entered this 2nd day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. CAVE Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of July, 1985. COPIES FURNISHED: Edward C. Hill, Jr. Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Charles S. Isler, III, Esquire Post Office Box 430 Panama City, Florida 32402 Fred Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville Florida 32202 =================================================================
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-33.003(2), and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Florida Board of Professional Engineers is the administrative agency charged with the licensing and regulation of engineering pursuant to Section 20.165(4)(a) and Chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was, and remains, a licensed professional engineer, having been issued license number PE 15252. In or about March 2007, Respondent prepared, signed and sealed plans for a project to remodel an existing building for use as a church. Respondent was the only engineer to sign and seal the church plans, and no limitation on his responsibilities as engineer of record were disclosed on the plans. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 consists of three sheets of plans related to the church project: 1) the structural plan, labeled "S"; 2) the existing floor plan, demolishing floor plan, and new floor plan, labeled "A-1"; and 3) the electrical lighting recepts plan and plumbing plan, labeled "E,P." The S sheet contained drawings for the foundation plan, the platform framing plan, and the framing layout plan, along with detail sections for each. The S sheet contained notes for the contractor, and design criteria for structural material. Petitioner makes no claims that there are deficiencies in the structural plans. Sheet A-1 contains drawings for the seating plan, the new floor plan, and the existing floor plan/demolishing plan, as well as a drawing of the typical interior wall section. Sheet A- 1 includes a box listing the scope of work to be performed, and a separate listing of the applicable codes and code summary. Included in the listed applicable codes are the Florida Building Code, 2005 revision; the Florida Plumbing Code of 2004; the National Electric Code 2005; the Florida Mechanical Code 2004; and the Florida Fire Prevention Code 2004. The plans specify that the building will be used as a church, with an occupancy load of 127. Sheet E,P contains drawings for the new plumbing plan, toilets layout, existing water heater detail in the attic; the sewer riser plan; and the electrical lighting and recepts plan. There are work notes for both the plumbing and electrical work, as well as an electrical legend. The electrical plans do not include an electrical riser diagram, and contain no information as to the amount of electrical power coursing through the structure. There are also no load computations or load summary or circuitry reflected on the plans. It cannot be determined from the plans how much load was used prior to the renovation and how much load will exist afterwards. No information is provided to demonstrate how power is delivered to an HVAC unit or water heater, even though the units themselves are shown on the design. The plumbing plans do not include any information regarding the location of a cleanout for purposes of maintenance of the sewage system. Respondent did not include this information because there was already a cleanout in place for the building that was not being disturbed. The plans signed and sealed by Respondent do not contain any mechanical plans. Respondent claimed that mechanical design was beyond the scope of his services and that he discussed this with his client. However, the plans themselves reference the Florida Mechanical Code as being applicable to the plans and nothing expressly excludes mechanical work from the work to be performed. There is no mention in the plans for the provision of "outside air" to the users of the structure. The plans were submitted to and reviewed by the City of Jacksonville permitting office, and were approved for permitting. All required inspections were conducted and passed.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order finding that Respondent is guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-33.003(2). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded, fined $1,000, that his license be placed on probation for a period of two years, and that costs be assessed pursuant to Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: John Jefferson Rimes, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Kamal Yazji, P.E. 5488 River Trail Road, South Jacksonville, Florida 32277 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Lewis C. Medlin, Respondent, is the holder of Certificate of Registration no. 2603, as an architect, held with the State of Florida, Division of Professions, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, Florida State Board of Architecture. The Petitioner has accused the Respondent of affixing his name and seal as an architect to plans, drawings and/or specifications for a two bedroom apartment building, at 8th Avenue, South, Jacksonville Beach, Florida, when the plans, drawings and/or specifications were not prepared by the Respondent or under his responsible supervising control, in violation of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21B-5.02(5), Florida Administrative Code. The facts reveal that William Stanley Smith, Jr., the President of Universal Environmental Control, Inc., had hired Donald C. Peck, a licensed Florida architect, to draw certain plans for a group of apartment buildings that were being constructed by Smith. The Petitioner's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, is a blueprint of the original plans. The original plans were used five or six times in constructing apartments in the Jacksonville Beach, Florida area. These plans had been submitted to the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulations, Division of Hotels and Restaurants and the Jacksonville Beach, Florida Municipal Officials, for their approval. These plans had been accepted by the mentioned agencies. Donald C. Peck moved his base of operation from Jacksonville Beach, Florida, and notified Mr. Smith of his move. The significance of this move related to the fact that Smith needed to get an architect to replace Peck on the future building projects which he intended to construct. In terminating their relationship, Peck released the original tracings to Smith, these original tracings being the basis of the blueprints which are Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The letter of release may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, and this letter allowed Smith to use these plans in whatever fashion he deemed appropriate. In accordance with the release, Smith hired Lewis Medlin to draw site plans for the apartment complex to be constructed at 8th Avenue, South, Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Smith also intended for Medlin to review the originals of the plans which are Petitioner's Exhibit 1, as a prelude to getting the necessary approval of the various state and local agencies. Medlin did in fact draw a site plan which is page one of Respondent's Exhibit 2, admitted into evidence. He also reviewed pages two through six of Respondent's Exhibit 2. The pages two through six are for the most part the same as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, to include mistakenly leaving the description of the property as being located at 10th Avenue and not 8th Avenue. The change noted in the Respondent's Exhibit 2 compared to Petitioner's Exhibit 1 was that involving the title block of the architect in certain pages of the drawing. The work that Medlin did on the project was in accordance with the desires of his client, Mr. Smith, and with the permission of the former architect, Peck. The question then becomes one of whether or not the Respondent has affixed his name and seal as an architect to the plans, drawings and/or specifications of the 8th Avenue, South, Jacksonville Beach, Florida project, when said plans, drawings and/or specifications were not prepared by him or under his responsible supervising control and thereby constituted violations of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21B-5.02(5), Florida Administrative Code. The pertinent part of the statute in question reads as follows: Revocation of registration certificate; reinstatement procedure, process, attorneys and counsel. - Any architect's certificate of registration issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall remain in full force until revoked for cause as provided in this chapter. Any architect's registration certificate and current renewal may be suspended for a period not exceeding 12 months, or may be revoked by the unanimous vote of the members of the board setting, with a minimum of four members, in any hearing for: (c) Affixing or permitting to be affixed his seal or his name to any plan, specification, drawing, or other related document which was not prepared by him or under his responsible supervising control; (The citation of Rule 21B-5.02(5) , Florida Administrative Code is not germane to the substance of the violation and merely deals with the procedural requirements on the part of the Petitioner. Therefore, further reference to that provision is not necessary.) The key to the resolution of the issue in this cause lies in the analysis of the terms "prepared" and "responsible supervising control". This terminology has been addressed in the case of Markel v. Florida State Board of Architecture, 268 So.2d 377, (Fla. 1972). This case involved the disciplining of an architect in the State of Florida for allowing his name and seal to be affixed to certain documents which had been prepared by non-architects operating outside his control and supervision. In that particular case the initial contact with the client and the bulk of the drafting was done by the non- architect. Markel's involvement was to the extent of reviewing those plans drawn by the nonprofessionals and affixing his name and seal. The court in Markel, in addressing the question of whether this review constituted supervision, stated that it would be a "close" question. However, after considering the matter the court held that the after-the-fact ratification of a nonprofessional's drafting, would constitute approval of the prior unsupervised work product of a nonprofessional and was felt to be alien to the standards of the architectural profession. Therefore the action taken by Markel was felt to be in violation of Section 467.14(1)(c) Florida Statutes. It is evident that the drawing in question in the case at bar was not prepared by Medlin, in the sense of a line by line production or reproduction by his hand. Nor was the drawing prepared in his office where he could make periodic checks of the work product of Mr. Peck. Nonetheless, his review of the questioned document and the changes which he made constitute sufficient compliance with the law in terms of calling for his preparation and responsible supervising control. Medlin did in fact "prepare" the documents to which his name and seal were affixed as an architect and responsibly supervised and controlled that document, when perceived in the sense of making the document ready for use by his client and by the various governmental officials who would need to approve the clans. The case at bar is distinguished from that in Markel, supra, because of Medlin's direct contact with his client; the involvement of a professional in the preparation of the base document; and the fact that this close question inures to the benefit of the Respondent and not the agency. Moreover, any other result would seem to defeat the purpose of this form of regulation of the acts of the members of a profession; in that it would create unreasonable expense and hardship for the clients of this profession, without promoting any form of reasonable protection of the public against the bad acts and motives of the members of the profession or those persons with whom they may be in league. Consequently, there has been no violation of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes. The undersigned has received and reviewed the Proposed Recommended Orders of the parties and has specifically incorporated the substance of those Recommended Orders herein, with the exception of the Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the Petitioner which are rejected for the reasons set forth in this Recommended Order.
Recommendation It is recommended that the action by administrative complaint against Lewis C. Medlin, the Respondent, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Selig I. Goldin, Esquire Post Office Box 1251 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Frederick B. Tygart, Esquire 609 Barnett Regency Tower Regency Square Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether disciplinary action should be taken against Respondent's license as a professional engineer as a result of violations of Section 471.023 and Subsection 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2004), as alleged in the Administrative Complaint.
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Respondent, Lawrence L. George, P.E., was a licensed professional engineer in the State of Florida, License No. PE21282. Florida Engineer Management Corporation is charged with the duty of providing administrative, investigative, and professional services to the Board of Professional Engineers (Board). The Board is charged with regulating the practice of engineering in Florida. On or about June 7, 2002, Respondent began to provide engineering services to Atlantic, a manufacturer of window and door units with glass encased in polyvinyl chloride frames, through the auspices of Highlands. Highlands did not have a certificate of authorization until October 20, 2003. Respondent provided to Atlantic a signed and sealed letter dated June 24, 2002, certifying that the Royal A-135 vinyl windows using laminated glass (two and one-eighth inch glass layers with one-eighth inch laminate) met the requirements of the 2001 Florida Building Code (the Code). Respondent's June 24, 2002, letter certified that the windows met the large missile/small missile impact requirements of the Code. The June 24, 2002, letter, certifying that the windows met the large missile/small missile impact requirements of the Code, as submitted, supported the conclusion that insulating glass windows manufactured by Atlantic complied with the Code. Royal A-135 windows made by Atlantic are insulating glass windows. Insulating glass has two or more layers of glass separated by air spaces. Test data submitted for Royal A-135 insulating glass windows does not meet the missile impact test of the Code. Section 1606.1.4 of the Code and the tests referenced therein require testing of entire window assemblies to comply with the large missile/small missile impact tests. The Royal A-135 insulating glass windows manufactured by Atlantic were not tested as required by the Code. At the final hearing, Respondent admitted that his engineering analysis in lieu of testing did not meet the requirements of the Code. The June 24, 2002, letter was also submitted to the City of Dunedin Building Department as a representation that the Royal A-135 windows made by Atlantic met the Code as far as missile impact tests. The wind load analyses provided by Respondent to Atlantic were required to be filed with the building department of the City of Dunedin in order to get construction permits. Pursuant to the Code, the City of Dunedin is wholly within an area designated a wind-borne debris region. On or about July 27, 2002, Respondent sent to Atlantic a signed and sealed letter that confirmed that a mullion detail satisfied the Code requirements in wind zones up to 140 mph wind speeds. On or about August 3, 2002, Respondent signed and sealed a drawing on Atlantic stationery of a mullion detail. The mullion detail is for a structural element between individual window assemblies. It forms a connection extending the length of the windows. The mullions designed by Respondent were not tested to determine compliance with the Code. On or about August 3, 2002, Respondent also provided to Atlantic a signed and sealed wind load analysis for the installation of replacement windows for a seventh floor apartment located at Nine Forbes Place, Dunedin, Florida (Forbes Place). On or about January 16, 2003, Respondent provided to Atlantic a signed and sealed wind load analysis for the installation of replacement windows for a second-story apartment in a multi-story building located at 634 Edgewater Drive, Dunedin, Florida (Edgewater Drive). On or about June 10, 2003, Respondent provided to Atlantic a signed and sealed wind load analysis for the installation of 150 replacement windows for a two-story apartment complex, Victoria Apartments at 1101 Victoria Drive, Dunedin, Florida (Victoria Apartments). On or about January 6, 2004, Respondent submitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) a validation that the windows described in paragraph five complied with the Code. This validation was for the purpose of establishing the windows as "approved products," or standards, published on the Florida Building Code Information Systems' website for design professionals. Respondent submitted test results to the DCA for laminated glass windows manufactured by other companies, but those tests do not support the conclusion that insulated glass windows made by Atlantic would pass the missile impact tests. Respondent never provided test results for laminated glass windows made by Atlantic. Respondent did not provide an engineering design to show that the mullion would be directly connected to the substrate supporting the window. Respondent did not provide an engineering analysis to address deflection of the mullion under design pressure loads. A mullion of the type certified in the July 27, 2002, letter was used in the Victoria Apartments. Respondent designed the mullions to be constructed on-site at the Victoria Apartments as the windows were installed. The annealed glass insulating replacement windows for Victoria Apartments were not impact resistant. The Victoria Apartments with the Atlantic replacement windows are partially enclosed structures within the meaning of the Code. Respondent did not provide calculations in the wind load analysis for Victoria Apartments to show that the structural elements of the apartments could resist design load for a partially enclosed building after replacement of all the windows. It is not necessary to determine whether the mullions used at Victoria Apartments were integral parts of the units or connectors that had to be directly attached to the substrate. If the windows used integral mullions, they were not tested as required by the Code; if the windows employed mullions that were not integral, they were not engineered as required by the Code. Wind load calculations for Forbes Place used one-third increase in allowable stress to the structure and assemblies, which is contrary to the Code. Wind load calculations for Forbes Place did not take into account the height of the building. Wind load calculations for the Edgewater Drive project used an improper importance factor of 0.77. Use of an importance factor of 0.77 was a misinterpretation of the Code. Wind load calculations for Edgewater Drive did not take into account the height of the building. Respondent did submit an application for product approval to the Florida Building Code Information System for Royal A-135 windows on or about January 6, 2004. The application for product approval included Respondent's letter of June 24, 2002. The product approval system is a vehicle by which manufacturers can get statewide approval for products through a website operated by the Florida Building Commission. Beginning in 2003, manufacturers could submit documentation for particular products through the website. When the manufacturer submits its documentation, it may also present a validation through the website, such as the one Respondent presented in Exhibit P4. After a product has been validated, the submission may be forwarded to the Florida Building Commission for approval, but the fact the validation appears on the website does not mean it has been approved. Approval by the Florida Building Commission is limited to whether required documents have been properly filed; it does not mean that the documents submitted by the validating engineer contain technically correct information. Technical information and analysis is not reviewed by the Florida Building Commission. The Board is the only entity currently charged with the responsibility to investigate whether a validating engineer has provided accurate engineering in a submission to the product approval system. Respondent's June 24, 2002, letter is confusing and misleading in its references to both insulating and laminated glass. Respondent had difficulty navigating the Florida Building Code Information System website and repeatedly submitted an application for product approval to authorities. Respondent continued to enclose the June 24, 2002, letter with the application to represent that insulating glass windows comply with the missile impact requirements of the Code. Continued use of the letter in his application process manifests continuing negligence or incompetence by Respondent. However, Respondent, later in 2004, adopted procedures for submittal to local building departments that would better explain his wind load calculations.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings and Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Professional Engineering adopt the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and enter a final order imposing a penalty of: a reprimand; six months' suspension, followed by five years' probation; and an administrative fine of $12,000, plus the costs of these proceedings. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of December, 2004, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL M. KILBRIDE 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 21st day of December, 2004. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce A. Campbell, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Lawrence L. George, P.E. 5920 Winewood Drive Lakeland, Florida 33813 Teresa Baker, Clerk Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Doug Sunshine, Esquire Vice President for Legal Affairs Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Leon Biegalski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Natalie A. Lowe, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267
