Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Caldo Corporation, d/b/a Calypso Bay Club, operates a place of business in Clearwater, Florida, where consumption on the premises is permitted under license number 62-928, Series 4-COP SRX. The licensed premises consist of some 18,000 square feet. Seven permanent bars are located within the perimeter walls of the licensed premises. No interior walls separate the bars, and they are not located in separate rooms. The seven bars are located in different parts of one large, generally open room. A customer entering the Calypso Bay Club first enters a combination foyer/seating area. From this area, a customer can see throughout the area where the seven bars are located. All seven bars in the licensed premises are visible, at least in part, from the entrance foyer/seating area, although the view to some parts of the premises may be blocked. Two of the bars are located within an unobstructed, open lower level which is generally in the center of the premises. There is a dance floor in this lower level. The other parts of the licensed premises are located on deckings that are raised to varying heights above the dance floor area. One of the bars, known as the Oyster Bar or bar number 7, is located on its own decking to one side of the dance floor area (to the customer's right on entering the premises.) It is three and a half steps, or approximately 18 inches, above the dance floor level. The other bars are arrayed on deckings on the other side (to the customer's left on entering the premises). Except for a lower, middle decking, the deckings on the left side of the premises are two steps, or approximately 12 inches, above the dance floor level. In the middle of that side, the decking is slightly lower than either the decking in front of it or the decking to the rear of it. One of the bars, known as the Fufu bar or bar number 5, is located on the middle decking. The other bars on that side are on one of the two higher deckings. The bar known as Deck 1 (bar number 4) is on a decking that wraps around to the entrance foyer/seating area. The bars known as Deck 2 (bar number 3) and the Corner bar (bar number 2) are on a decking located beyond the lower, middle decking. Throughout the premises, where the flooring changes elevation, there is a wide, flat wood rail approximately 42 inches above the floor of the raised decking. The railing sits on top of, and is supported by, thick wood posts similar to posts used in the construction of docks. Thick hemp rope, consistent with a waterfront motif, also is wound around the posts and draped between them under the rails (as Christmas garland would be draped on a stairway bannister). All except in the area of the Oyster Bar (bar number 7), a smaller slat of wood about the size of a one by four also is nailed to the posts about five inches above the floor of the decking, forming a lower fence rail as well. In some places, banners are also hung from the railing. The railing separating the different elevations serves two primary purposes. First, it is for safety to prevent customers from accidentally falling from a higher to a lower floor elevation. Second, it also serves as a counter on which customers standing or sitting on the higher elevation can set drinks or ash trays. Openings in the railing permit customers to walk from one bar area to another. The deckings are accessible from the dance floor area by six fairly wide stairways. As previously mentioned, the stairway to the Oyster Bar has three steps; the others have just two steps. Nothing separates the Corner bar (bar number 2) from the Deck 2 bar (bar number 3). Likewise, there is direct access from part of the Deck 2 bar to the Fufu bar (bar number 5). To one side of the Deck 2 bar, a railing separates the two elevations, but a railed ramp in the middle of the railing connects to two areas. It also is possible to get from the Fufu bar to the Deck 2 bar, without having to descend to the dance floor level, by walking from the Fufu bar, around a wood column, and step up one step to the area of the Deck 2 and Corner bars. The Deck 1 bar (bar number 4) is the closest to the entrance foyer/seating area of the bars on that side of the premises. There are two ways to get from the Fufu bar to the Deck 1 bar. First, there is virtual direct access between the Fufu bar and the Deck 1 bar. Bar number 5 (the Fufu bar) is in an area one step lower than the other bars on that side of the dance floor area, including the Deck 1 bar. There is a short railed ramp that goes up alongside a wood column standing between the two bars. From the top of the ramp, there is direct access to the Deck 1 bar; from the bottom of the ramp, there is direct access to the Fufu bar. There also is indirect access by walking to the side opposite the ramp side into a small seating area. The seating area is separated from the Deck 1 bar by the one-step change in elevation and by a railing and two video games. There are two gaps in the railing where one can step up into the area where the Deck 1 bar is located.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Petitioner, the Department of Business Regulation, Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, enter a final order dismissing the Notice to Show Cause in this case. RECOMMENDED this 15th day of January, 1992, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of January, 1992. 1/ The Petitioner also offered in evidence Petitioner's Exhibit 7, a videotape to which the Respondent objected. At the hearing, ruling was reserved. At this time, the objection is sustained. The videotape is immaterial and irrelevant to the issue in this case, which is whether the Calypso Bay Club "has more than three separate rooms or enclosures." See Conclusion of Law 9, below. 2/ The evidence of the legislative history in this record may not be clear and complete. No such evidence was introduced at the final hearing. The Department attached to its proposed recommended order what appear to be certified copies of committee reports on the legislation. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 91-5784 To comply with the requirements of Section 120.59(2), Fla. Stat. (1989), the following rulings are made on the parties' proposed findings of fact: Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1.-3. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. Accepted and incorporated to the extent not subordinate or unnecessary. However, the lines referred to in the last sentence did not completely separate the five bars from the two bars; the drawings included the designation of steps leading from one elevation to another. Accepted but subordinate and unnecessary. There are two proposed findings 6. This addresses the first of them. Subpart d. is rejected as not proven. The "small exposed part of bar 3" is not "cordoned off," and there is no wall. It is accessible from the steps from the dance floor area closest to the bar by walking from the steps to the bar, passing between the railing along the dance floor area and the partial wall (actually more like a wood column). (There also is access from the Corner bar and from the Fufu bar.) Subpart e. is rejected as not proven. There is direct access, as well as indirect access, as stated above, subpart d. Subpart f. is rejected as not proven. The "cordoned" railing has an opening through there is access to the Deck 1 bar (bar number 4). The Deck 1 bar also is directly accessible from the Fufu bar and from the entrance foyer/seating area. Subpart g. is rejected as not proven. Bar number 5 is not enclosed. It is accessible by four alternative routes. There is direct access between part of the Deck 2 bar (bar number 3) and bar number 5. There also is access to other parts of the Deck 2 bar from the steps from the dance floor area closest to the bar, as described in subpart d., above, as well as via a ramp through an opening in the railing along the change in elevation between the two bars. Finally, bar number 5 is accessible from the Deck 1 bar as described in subpart f., above. Otherwise, the first proposed finding 6 is accepted and incorporated. The second proposed finding 6 is rejected in part as not proven. As previously stated, there is direct access between the Corner bar (bar number 2) and the Deck 2 bar (bar number 3), as well as between part of the latter bar and bar number 5 (the Fufu bar.) Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Rejected in part as not proven. The televisions hang from the ceiling or are on a wood column, and the game machines are placed next to railings. Neither serves to form a separate barrier. The ropes do not in all cases, and in any case were not primarily intended to, separate bar areas. They are all along the upper level at an elevation change or are along steps or a ramp between two different elevations. 8.-9. Rejected as irrelevant to the question whether there are more than three "rooms or enclosures." See Conclusion of Law 9, above. Rejected in part as not proven (last sentence); in part, accepted but subordinate to facts contrary to those found (first three sentences). The evidence suggested that the railings are there for two primary purposes. See Finding of Fact 6, above. The effect of the use of the railings as a bar counter was as much to join as to separate the various parts of the bar. A customer could put a drink, food or ash tray on one of the railings, or lean on it, and observe parts of the premises on the other side of the railing. Rejected in part as argument and in part as not proven. The testimony regarding shortness of funds was part of an answer to a question on cross examination as to why there were different kinds of chairs and stools on the premises. The owner's intent and desire to increase profits does not prove liability for the additional $1,000 fee. The critical issue is the existence of more than three rooms or enclosures, a fact not proven by the evidence. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact. 1. Accepted but unnecessary. 2.-3. Accepted and incorporated. Rejected as being conclusion of law or argument. First sentence, rejected in part in that it is not "completely open." Third sentence, rejected in part in that there was no evidence to prove that the ramps are "fully handicap accessible." Fourth sentence, rejected in part in that there was no evidence to prove what the building code requirements were. Otherwise, accepted and incorporated. Accepted and incorporated. 7.-8. Rejected as conclusion of law. COPIES FURNISHED: Monica Atkins White, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Harold F. X. Purnell, Esquire Oertel, Hoffman, Fernandez & Cole, P.A. 2700 Blair Stone Road Post Office Box 6507 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-6507 Richard W. Scully, Director Div. of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Dept. of Business Regulation The Johns Building 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1000 Donald D. Conn, Esquire General Counsel Department of Business Regulation 725 South Bronough Street Tallahassee Florida 32399-1007
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaints dated June 3, 1998, and December 23, 1998, and, if so, the penalty that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing and on the entire record of this proceeding, the following findings of fact are made: The Department is the state agency responsible for investigating and prosecuting complaints made to the Department for violations of Chapter 489, Part I, Florida Statutes. Sections 489.131(7)(e) and 455.225, Florida Statutes (1997). Pursuant to Section 489.129(1), Florida Statutes (1997), the Construction Industry Licensing Board ("Board") is the entity responsible for imposing discipline for any of the violations set forth in that section. At all times material to these proceedings, Mr. Esquinaldo was a licensed swimming pool contractor, having been issued license number CPCO50527 by the Board, and he was the qualifying contractor for Challenger Pools, Inc. ("Challenger Pools"). Mr. Esquinaldo has been a licensed swimming pool contractor since 1987. In that time, Mr. Esquinaldo has been cited by the Department once, in June 1992, and Mr. Esquinaldo paid an administrative fine of $50.00 for the violation, which was failure to obtain a final inspection after completing a swimming pool. At the times material to these proceedings, Challenger Pools had several offices in south and central Florida, and built approximately 1,500 pools each year. Mr. Esquinaldo was the only qualifier for the company. The building code that governed each of the projects at issue herein was the South Florida Building Code, 1996 Edition. This Code required a number of inspections: For the structural portion of the pool, three inspections were required: the pool steel, the pool deck, and the final inspection. For the plumbing portion of the pool, three inspections were required: the main drain, pool piping, and the final inspection. For the electrical portion of the pool, three inspections were required: the electrical grounding of the steel structure, the pool deck grounding, and the final inspection. In addition, a final inspection was required for any fencing to be installed. It is the responsibility of the pool contractor to call for the required inspections for work over which it has responsibility. The South Florida Building Code, 1996 Edition, also provided that building permits, including permits for the construction of swimming pools, would expire if 180 days elapsed without the contractor calling for an inspection. It is not unusual in the pool contracting industry for inspections to reveal code violations. The contractor is, however, expected to correct the violations and any other deficiencies noted in the inspection reports. During the times material to these proceedings, it was the policy of Challenger Pools that, whenever a customer threatened a lawsuit or filed a lawsuit, it would stop work immediately on the customer's pool and it would cease all direct communications with the customer. Work would recommence at the direction of Challenger Pools' attorney. This policy was adopted on the advice of Challenger Pools' attorney. DOAH Case No. 98-3713 - Irving Jovellar On May 7, 1996, Challenger Pools, Inc., and Irving Jovellar entered into a Swimming Pool Construction Agreement for the construction of a swimming pool and spa at 188 Truxton Drive, Miami Springs, Florida. Addenda to the agreement were executed on June 6 and 22, 1996, and on September 6, 1996. The contract price was $14,000.00, with $1,600.00 added pursuant to the September 6, 1996, addendum. The full contract price of $15,600.00 was paid by Mr. Jovellar, and the check for the final payment was processed by the bank on October 2, 1996. 2/ On June 11, 1996, Challenger Pools applied to the City of Miami Springs, Florida, for a building permit for the pool. Challenger Pools began work on Mr. Jovellar's pool on June 13, 1996, and the swimming pool, plumbing, and electric permits were issued on July 12, 1996. Challenger Pools worked on Mr. Jovellar's pool throughout the summer of 1996. The steel installation was approved on July 19, 1996, and the slab was approved September 12, 1996. The pool was plastered on September 28, 1996, and the pool was filled with water and operating on September 30, 1996. 3/ In a letter dated September 26, 1996, Mr. Jovellar's attorney notified Challenger Pools that the gate to Mr. Jovellar's fence had been damaged during the pool excavation and that Mr. Jovellar expected to be compensated for the damage. Challenger Pools advised Mr. Jovellar that the excavator, Tom Waters, was responsible for the damage and that he should look to Mr. Waters for compensation. Mr. Jovellar filed suit against Mr. Waters in small claims court, served Mr. Waters in early February 1997, and recovered approximately $450.00 in damages from Mr. Waters. Mr. Jovellar's pool did not pass the plumbing final inspection dated November 8, 1996, because the pool heater was not properly installed. Challenger Pools renewed the structural and plumbing permits on July 24, 1997. In a letter dated October 30, 1997, Mr. Jovellar's attorney notified Challenger Pools that, if it did not correct the defects in the swimming pool, suit would be filed against Challenger Pools. Challenger Pools responded in a letter dated November 6, 1997, that it was prepared to correct the problems with the pool. Challenger Pools further advised that, because the pool permits had expired, it would apply to renew the permits so that work could begin. Challenger Pools renewed the structural, plumbing, and electrical permits on January 19, 1998. Challenger Pools went back to work on Mr. Jovellar's pool in January 1998. The next inspections of Mr. Jovellar's pool took place between July 15, 1998, and January 6, 1999, the date on which the pool passed its final inspection. Notwithstanding the plumbing inspection conducted on November 8, 1996, and the permit renewal on July 24, 1997, Mr. Esquinaldo testified that, on the advice of its attorney, Challenger Pools ceased work on Mr. Jovellar's swimming pool in early October 1996, when it received the September 26, 1996, letter from Mr. Jovellar's attorney regarding the broken fence gate. On the basis of Mr. Esquinaldo's testimony, it is established that Challenger Pools ceased work on Mr. Jovellar's pool in early October 1996. The evidence also establishes that work recommenced in early 1998. Accordingly, Challenger Pools failed to work on Mr. Jovellar's pool for a period in excess of 90 consecutive days between October 1996 and January 1998. The evidence further establishes that Challenger Pools ceased work because Mr. Jovellar threatened a lawsuit to recover damages for repair of a fence damaged by the person who excavated the pool. Under the circumstances, the threatened lawsuit did not constitute just cause for Challenger Pools' failure to work on Mr. Jovellar's pool between October 1996 and January 1998 even though Challenger Pools stopped work on the advice of its attorney; Challenger Pools advised Mr. Jovellar to proceed against the excavator to recover for the damages to the fence, which Mr. Jovellar did in early 1997. The Department did not present evidence sufficient to establish that Challenger Pools failed to work on Mr. Jovellar's pool for 90 consecutive days subsequent to January 1998. As of October 6, 1999, the Department had expended $160.52 in investigative costs and $2,433.90 in prosecutorial costs with respect to Mr. Jovellar's complaint. DOAH Case No. 99-2654 - David Casadona On September 30, 1996, Challenger Pools entered into a Swimming Pool Construction Agreement with David Casadona for construction of a residential swimming pool at 14910 Southwest 70th Place, Davie, Florida. The full contract price was $9,000.00, and Mr. Casadona made the final payment on the pool in March 1997. Mr. Casadona was building a house at this address, and, a representative of Challenger Pools advised Mr. Casadona that construction on the swimming pool would begin after construction on the house was completed. Mr. Casadona moved into the new house on November 6, 1996, and Challenger Pools began excavating the pool approximately a week and a half later, in mid-November 1996. Challenger Pools submitted applications to the Town of Davie for the electrical, plumbing, and structural permits for Mr. Casadona's pool on November 19, 1996. The permits to construct the swimming pool were issued on January 2, 1997. Mr. Casadona contracted separately for installation of a fence around the pool, and, pursuant to the agreement between Mr. Casadona and Challenger Pools, Mr. Casadona was responsible for ensuring that the fence met local building codes. Challenger Pools was not licensed to install fences, and the installation of a fence was not included in any of Challenger Pools' swimming pool construction agreements. The permit for the fence was issued January 2, 1997. The Town of Davie conducted a special inspection of Mr. Casadona's property on December 18, 1996, before the permits were issued for construction of the pool, to determine whether a fence existed on the property and the height of the fence, if one existed. At that time, the inspector discovered that the pool had already been excavated and that the rebar was in place. The inspector also noted that part of the footer for the rear patio of the house had been undermined. A permit is required before a pool is excavated, but it is not unusual for a pool contractor to begin excavation before the permit is issued. An inspection of the plumbing pool main drain was conducted on January 3, 1997, and approved without comment. An inspection of the electrical pool grounding was conducted on January 3, 1997, and approved without comment. An inspection of the structural pool steel was conducted on January 6, 1997. The pool steel was approved with an exception. The inspector noted that an area under the existing structure had been undermined, and Challenger Pools was directed to pour the gunnite for the pool as soon as possible and to consult an engineer for directions on how to return the existing structure to its original specifications. The inspector further required that an engineer provide certification that the existing structure had proper support in the area in which it was undermined. The face of the footer under the structure was exposed, and the earth underneath the structure was undermined about three or four inches; the undermining did not threaten the integrity of the existing structure. An inspection of the plumbing pool piping was conducted on January 16, 1997, and approved without comment. An inspection of the electrical pool deck bonding was conducted on January 27, 1997, and disapproved with the comment that all metal within 5 feet of the water must be bonded. An inspection of the structural pool deck steel was conducted on January 27, 1997, and disapproved with the comment that the item was not ready for inspection because the form boards were not completed. The electrical pool deck bonding was inspected on February 3, 1997, and approved without comment. The structural pool deck steel was inspected on February 4, 1997, and approved without comment. Challenger Pools worked on Mr. Casadona's pool from November 1996 through March 1997, when Challenger Pools applied the plaster to the pool and filled the pool with water. Once the pool was filled, Mr. Casadona began using the pool. Because Mr. Casadona had not installed the fence when Challenger Pools plastered the pool and filled it with water, Challenger Pools created a temporary enclosure for the pool by surrounding the pool with an orange plastic barrier. A plumbing pool final inspection was conducted on April 15, 1997, and disapproved because no approved plans or permit cards were available on-site. An electrical pool final inspection was conducted on April 15, 1997, and disapproved with the comment that no approved plans or permit cards were available on the site. Between April 1997 and October 1997, Challenger Pools corrected the violations noted on the inspection reports and made several service calls to work on Mr. Casadona's pool. By October 1997, Mr. Casadona had installed the required fence, but the gate was not in compliance with the South Florida Building Code. Challenger Pools requested a replacement set of plans for Mr. Casadona's pool on October 3, 1997, and they were provided on October 7, 1997. A plumbing pool final inspection was conducted on October 8, 1997. The work was disapproved because the pool's main drain was missing one screw. On October 8, 1997, an electrical pool final inspection was conducted. The electrical work was disapproved with seven comments identifying violations of the National Electric Code, as follows: NEC 110-3B Listed and labeled (insulate unused lead) NEC 680-22(a)-(l) Bond all metal within 5' x 12' (must see bond at handrail) NEC 110-16(a) Working clearance at service and controller NEC 680-20-B-1 Must see potting compound (5) NEC 680-6(A)(2)+(3)+(1), Receptacle (B)-(1), Light (6) NEC 680-10 UG. wiring not permitted within 5' of pool (8) [sic] Speaker wire not approved Item (1) refers to insulating the unused leads on the pool light. Item (2) refers to the lack or apparent lack of bonding on a handrail installed in the pool deck. Item (3) refers to the requirement that there be sufficient working clearance in front of the pump controller, which is a time switch transformer; with respect to this item, a hedge had been planted in front of the pool pump and filter by someone other than Challenger Pools, the shrubs blocked access to the pump controller, and Mr. Casadona refused to move the shrubs. Item (4) refers to the requirement that potting compound be used in the wet light niche in the pool to prevent the chemicals in the water from corroding the ground bonding connection; with respect to this item, Richard Boyette, a licensed professional engineer, certified in a letter to the Town of Davie dated April 3, 1998, that potting compound had been properly placed in the lighting niches in the pool. Item (6) refers to wiring being installed within 5 feet of the pool. Item "(8)" refers to speaker wires that are not allowed in the pool area. With respect to items (6) and "(8)", the violations were not the responsibility of Challenger Pools because they related to wiring for Malibu lights and two speakers installed by someone other than Challenger Pools. A structural pool deck final inspection was conducted on October 8, 1997, and approved without comment. A structural pool steel inspection was conducted on October 8, 1997, and disapproved with the comment that the pool had been completed without a pool steel inspection. In a letter dated April 3, 1998, Richard Boyette, a licensed professional engineer, certified to the Town of Davie that the pool steel had been properly placed according to the permit plans. A structural fence final inspection was conducted on October 8, 1997, and disapproved with the comment that "all fences and gates must be 5' high for yards with pools." The fence contractor was identified in the inspection report as Cercas Isla - Island Fence. Challenger Pools did not call for any inspections on Mr. Casadona's pool after it corrected the deficiencies noted in the October 1997 inspection reports until January 1999 because Mr. Casadona did not correct the violations for which he was responsible, that is, the fence gate height, the shrubs in front of the pool pump, and the electrical wires for the Malibu lights and speakers. Mr. Casadona was aware of these violations as a result of the October 8, 1997, inspection reports. Mr. Casadona and Challenger Pools' personnel were in regular contact during the October 1997 to January 1999 hiatus. Challenger Pools repeatedly asked Mr. Casadona to correct the fence gate height so that a structural pool final inspection could be approved and to remedy the electrical violations for which he was responsible. Challenger Pools let the situation remain unresolved because, on the basis of conversations Challenger Pools' personnel had with Mr. Casadona, there was no reason to believe that Mr. Casadona would not cooperate and correct the deficiencies. As of January 1999, Mr. Casadona had not made the required corrections. He did, however, file a complaint with the Department. At that time, Challenger Pools' attorney advised the company to finish Mr. Casadona's pool and close out the permit. Based on this advice, Challenger Pools renewed the permits and called for the final inspections. A plumbing pool final inspection was conducted on January 25, 1999, and approved without comment. A structural fence final inspection was conducted on January 25, 1999, and disapproved with the comment that "[t]here is no reference to a fence anywhere in the pool plans. The front gate is not self closing, self latching and is about 6" from being the 5' heighth [sic] requirement." An electrical pool final inspection was conducted on March 9, 1999, and disapproved with the comment that "working clearance violated at pump controller." The electrical final inspection was disapproved because Mr. Casadona would not remove the shrubs he had planted in front of the pool pump. An electrical pool final inspection was conducted on March 22, 1999, and approved, but the inspection report contained the comment that "working clearance violated at pump controller." A structural pool deck final was conducted on March 24, 1999, and approved with a comment that it had already been approved by another inspector. A structural fence final inspection was conducted on March 24, 1999, and disapproved with the comment that the fence was "not ready[;] the gate and latch are not 5' high." A structural fence final inspection was conducted on March 26, 1999, and rejected because the gate was not 5 feet high and was not self-closing and self-latching, as required by ordinance. The inspector also noted that no plan or permit for the fence was posted on the property and that no one was at home at the time of the inspection. A structural pool steel inspection was conducted on March 31, 1999, and disapproved because no one was at home and neither the plans nor the permit cards were posted. The inspector noted, however, that the pool was completed. In a letter to the Town of Davie dated February 18, 1999, and received by the Town of Davie on April 12, 1999, Mr. Boyette stated that the "steel and main drain inspection was bypassed due to a lack of communication on the above referenced pool. However, steel and main drain were in per code." An electrical pool final inspection was conducted on April 14, 1999, and disapproved with the comments "disconnect required for pump motor ahead of controller" and "unused transformer tap to be insulated at connection end." These were two items that the electrical inspector did not catch during the March 22, 1999, inspection. A structural pool final inspection was conducted on April 19, 1999, and was approved with the comments that the engineer's letter should be consulted regarding the missed pool steel inspection. A note was made in the report of the structural pool final inspection conducted on April 19, 1999, stating "Fence Final" with the comment that the fence and wall and existing front gate were 5 feet high and self-closing and self-latching. The permit for Mr. Casadona's pool was closed out by the Town of Davie Building Division on April 19, 1999, when the structural pool final inspection was approved. After the inspections conducted in October 1997, Challenger Pools corrected the violations noted in the inspection reports for which it was responsible. Challenger Pools did not do any work on Mr. Casadona's pool after it corrected the violations noted in the October 1997 inspection reports because it considered its work on the pool complete. The violations noted in the inspection reports for Mr. Casadona's pool were not unusual for the industry and were relatively minor. Challenger Pools corrected all of the violations and deficiencies noted in the inspection reports for Mr. Casadona's pool. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Challenger Pools failed to work on Mr. Casadona's pool for 90 consecutive days during the period from March 1997 until October 1997. However, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Challenger Pools failed to work on Mr. Casadona's pool for 90 consecutive days during the period from October 1997 until January 1999. Challenger Pools could have done more to encourage Mr. Casadona to correct the height of his fence gate, remove the shrubs from around the pump controller, and remove the prohibited electrical wiring around the pool. Nonetheless, Challenger Pools had just cause to cease work on Mr. Casadona's pool because Challenger Pools could have reasonably concluded that its work on the pool was completed and that the only things remaining to be corrected were items for which Mr. Casadona was responsible. All of the violations noted on the inspection reports from January 1999 through April 1999 were the responsibility of Mr. Casadona with the exception of two minor code violations noted in the electrical pool final inspection conducted April 14, 1999, which violations were corrected by Challenger Pools prior to April 19, 1999. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the work Challenger Pools did on Mr. Casadona's pool was below industry standards. 4/ The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Challenger Pools commenced construction on Mr. Casadona's pool before the Town of Davie issued a building permit. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient, however, to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Challenger Pools worked on Mr. Casadona's pool without having obtained the proper inspections. The inspection history establishes that, notwithstanding the notations on subsequent inspection reports, both the pool main drain and the pool steel were approved on January 3, 1997, and January 6, 1997, respectively. In addition, Challenger Pools called for final inspections of the plumbing, electric, and structural components of the pool on October 8, 1997, and again in January 1999, and closed out the permit on April 19, 1999. DOAH Case No. 99-2655 - Jameel Quadri On August 15, 1995, Challenger Pools entered into a Swimming Pool Construction Agreement with Jameel Quadri for construction of a residential swimming pool and spa at 239 Landings Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The full contract price was $12,240.00. Mr. Quadri was building a house on the property, and the agreement between Challenger Pools and Mr. Quadri provided that construction of the pool would not start until construction on the new house was completed. On October 3, 1996, Challenger Pools and Mr. Quadri entered into a contract addendum to the agreement that provided for the addition of brick pavers, a screen enclosure, and electrical work for the screen enclosure. The price of the additional items was $7,860.00. Mr. Quadri made the final payment on the pool agreement and addendum in April 1997. The applications for the building, screen enclosure, plumbing, and electrical permits for Mr. Quadri's swimming pool and spa were received by the Broward County Building and Permitting Department on October 15, 1996, and the permits were issued on October 29, 1996. The building, screen enclosure, and plumbing permits were issued to Challenger Pools as the contractor; and the electrical permit was issued to Specialty Device Installers. Even so, Challenger Pools remained responsible for the electrical work on the pool because it was included in the agreement. The permits were based on the plans for construction submitted with the permit applications, including the plans for the spa and the pool deck. Challenger Pools began construction on Mr. Quadri's pool on October 25, 1996, when the pool was excavated. A plumbing pool and spa main drain inspection was conducted on October 31, 1996, and was disapproved because the work was not ready for inspection and no safety railing had been installed around the excavation. An electrical pool grounding inspection was conducted on October 31, 1996, and disapproved for several reasons. A structural pool steel inspection was conducted on October 31, 1996, and disapproved for several reasons. The plumbing pool main drain was inspected on November 15, 1996, and disapproved because no Notice of Commencement had been recorded and because the safety fence was not completely around the pool. The electrical pool grounding was inspected and approved on November 15, 1996. The structural pool steel was inspected on November 15, 1996, and disapproved because of unsafe conditions, with the comment that safeguards were required. The plumbing pool and spa main drains were inspected on November 20 1996, and disapproved because the pool and spa main drains had only 38 and 33 pounds of pressure, respectively, when the code requires 40 pounds. The plumbing pool and spa main drains were inspected and approved on November 26, 1996. The structural pool steel was inspected on November 26, 1996, and approved. A plumbing pool piping inspection was conducted on December 9, 1996, and disapproved because the piping was not properly bedded, the dirt on the job site was not proper clean fill, and the piping was "within the angle of repose." The plumbing pool piping was inspected on December 20, 1996, and disapproved because the piping was not properly bedded. The plumbing pool piping was inspected and approved on December 24, 1996. An electrical pool deck grounding inspection was conducted on February 20, 1997, and disapproved for several reasons. A structural pool deck inspection was conducted on February 20, 1997, and disapproved for several reasons. The electrical pool deck grounding was inspected and approved on February 28, 1997. The structural pool deck was inspected and approved on February 28, 1997. Challenger Pools worked steadily on the pool until it was plastered on April 21, 1997, and filled with water. In April and May 1997, Challenger Pools received several telephone calls from Mr. Quadri regarding problems with his pool. In May 1997, Mr. Quadri called an attorney and asked that the attorney write a letter to Challenger Pools regarding what Mr. Quadri perceived were problems with the pool construction. In a letter dated May 22, 1997, Mr. Quadri's attorney identified the problems as follows: The deck area is not level, causing the pavers to break. The vacuum system has never been delivered or installed. The underwater pool light is dangling from its fixture and has exposed wires sitting in the water. The spa and jets do not work. The waterfall does not work. There are open and exposed wires at the pump. One of your trucks damaged the right side corner of Mr. Quadri's house and that condition has not been repaired. The ceramic underwater handles on the exterior of the spa are the wrong color. Mr. Quadri was promised white handles and you installed grey ones. The "exposed wires" mentioned in reference to the pool light were designed to be submerged in water, and the "exposed wires" at the pump were bonding wires running from the timer to the pump. Mr. Quadri's attorney notified Challenger Pools in the May 22, 1997, letter that, unless the defects identified in the letter were corrected within ten days of the date of the letter, Mr. Quadri would file suit against Challenger Pools for breach of contract. Challenger Pools did not respond to the letter of May 22, 1997, and no one from Challenger Pools came to the property to work on the pool and spa in response to that letter. In accordance with company policy, Challenger Pools ceased working on Mr. Quadri's pool and spa when it received the May 22, 1997, letter from Mr. Quadri's attorney threatening a lawsuit. In a letter dated August 14, 1997, Mr. Quadri's attorney sent Challenger Pools a letter demanding treble damages for theft arising out of the failure of Challenger Pools to complete Mr. Quadri's pool and spa after having been paid in full. In August 1997, at the request of Challenger Pools' attorney, Challenger Pools' vice president, Tom Camburn, and Challenger Pools' Fort Lauderdale field supervisor visited Mr. Quadri's property to view the pool and spa. Mr. Camburn and the field supervisor were in the vicinity of Mr. Quadri's pool for only 10 to 15 seconds before Mr. Quadri came out of the house and told them to leave the property, asserting that he was going to sue Challenger Pools. During those few seconds, Mr. Camburn observed that there was water in the pool and that some of the pavers forming the pool deck were sunken. He did not measure the pool and spa to determine if they were larger than represented in the original plans, although he did note that the pool and deck were larger than Challenger Pools usually builds. Challenger Pools' attorney responded to the August 14, 1997, letter with a letter dated August 20, 1997, advising Mr. Quadri's attorney of the outcome of the visit to Mr. Quadri's property and advising him that Challenger Pools would not go back to Mr. Quadri's property to inspect and repair any legitimate warranty complaints unless Mr. Quadri paid Challenger Pools a reasonable amount for the larger pool and spa. Challenger Pools based its contention that Mr. Quadri received a larger pool and spa than that specified in his contract on the fact that the invoice received for the pavers used in the pool deck was much higher than expected and showed that many more pavers were delivered to Mr. Quadri's property than were included in the original plans for Mr. Quadri's pool deck. The pavers were added to the contract in the addendum executed October 3, 1996, but neither the size of the deck nor the number of pavers was shown in the contract or in the addendum. 5/ In addition, no Change of Plans form was filed with the Broward County Building and Permitting Department indicating that there were any deviations from the original construction plans in the construction of Mr. Quadri's pool and spa, and no deviations from the original construction plans were noted by any of the building inspectors who conducted inspections of Mr. Quadri's pool and spa. In a notice dated August 27, 1997, Mr. Quadri was advised by the Broward County Building and Permitting Department that the permit for his pool and spa had expired. These notices are routinely sent by the Broward County Building and Permitting Department to both the property owner and the contractor when 150 days have elapsed without an inspection having been requested. The notice advises the property owner and the contractor that the permit will expire 30 days from the date of the notice. Challenger Pools did not receive a copy of the notice. Mr. Quadri renewed the permits on September 12, 1997, to avoid the penalties set forth in the notice; Challenger Pools continued to be named as contractor on the permits. A plumbing pool final inspection was conducted on September 15, 1997, and disapproved, with the comments that the main drain grid required two screws; 6/ the spa water level was low, possibly because of a leak; and the pavers were sinking around the spa. An electrical pool final inspection was conducted on September 15, 1997, which was disapproved, with comments that the pool screen was not bonded; the pool light was not in place; a bonding wire on the pool pump needed to be covered; and "[s]ealtite to pump motor in grass," meaning that the flexible electric conduit running from the timer/transformer subpanel to the pool pump was lying in the grass. No unsafe conditions were noted on the inspection report. A structural pool final inspection was conducted on September 15, 1997, and rejected, with the comments that there had been no final approval of the pool plumbing and electrical; that the paver deck was washed out in numerous places and needed to be repaired; that the riser at the rear steps was not to code; that the handholds were missing; and that the exterior wall of the raised spa needed finishing. Challenger Pools had installed ceramic underwater handholds on the pool, but Mr. Quadri was not satisfied with them because they were gray in color rather than white, the color he had selected. Challenger Pools did not remove the handholds. Neither Mr. Quadri nor Challenger Pools called for the inspections of Mr. Quadri's pool conducted on September 15, 1997. Rather, those inspections were apparently triggered by the renewal of the permits. Mr. Quadri did not file suit against Challenger Pools, but, by letter dated December 12, 1997, Mr. Quadri notified the Department that Challenger Pools had abandoned construction on his pool and spa and that the pool and spa still had numerous defects. After Challenger Pools received notice of the complaint filed by Mr. Quadri with the Department, Challenger Pools was advised by its attorney to obtain final inspections on Mr. Quadri's pool. An electrical pool final inspection was conducted on March 17, 1998, and disapproved because the screen enclosure needed to be bonded on both sides of the column. An electrical pool final inspection was conducted on March 27, 1998, and approved. A plumbing pool final inspection was conducted on October 9, 1998, and disapproved because the building permit had expired, the equipment was defective in that there was a cracked filter, and the equipment needed to be anchored. 7/ A structural pool final inspection was conducted on October 9, 1998, and disapproved because the permit had expired, and because of damaged sidewalks, no handholds, and a problem with a stairway. A plumbing pool final inspection was conducted on November 6, 1998, and disapproved because the permit card was not displayed on the site. Challenger Pools renewed the permits for Mr. Quadri's pool on November 16, 1998. A structural pool final inspection was conducted on November 20, 1998, and disapproved because the permit card was not at the site. A structural pool final inspection was conducted on November 30, 1998, and disapproved because of "previous inspections" and because the marcite was coming off and stucco was needed around the steps. A structural pool final inspection was conducted on December 3, 1998, and approved. A plumbing pool final inspection was conducted and approved on December 7, 1998. The Certificate of Occupancy for Mr. Quadri's swimming pool and spa was issued by the Broward County Building and Permitting Department on December 8, 1998. At the time of the final hearing, the pavers around Mr. Quadri's pool were uneven and sinking. Pavers are used for pool decks instead of concrete because concrete cracks as the earth beneath the deck settles. They are set on sand and are not grouted but, rather, are locked in with fine sand. It is not uncommon for paver decks to settle because strong rains can wash out the sand under the deck and cause erosion. As a result, pavers will sink or lift as the earth underneath shifts. The degree to which a paver deck shifts varies. Pressure washing a paver deck can cause the sand beneath the pavers to erode and shift, which causes the pavers to sink and lift. Mr. Quadri has cleaned the pavers around his pool and spa with a pressure cleaner at least every six months since it was installed. The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish that Challenger Pools did not work on Mr. Quadri's pool between the end of April 1997 and March 1998 and between the end of March 1998 and October 1998. Challenger Pools may have been justified when it ceased work on Mr. Quadri's pool after the May 22, 1997, letter from Mr. Quadri's attorney threatening a lawsuit if the enumerated defects with the pool were not corrected. It was not justified, however, in failing to perform work on Mr. Quadri's pool after August 20, 1997; the evidence presented by Challenger Pool to justify the statement in the August 20, 1997, letter that it would not correct the problems with Mr. Quadri's pool until Mr. Quadri paid a "reasonable amount for the larger pool and spa he received" is not sufficient to establish that the pool and spa was, indeed, larger than the one for which Mr. Quadri contracted. In addition, Challenger Pools was not justified in failing to perform work on Mr. Quadri's pool between March 27, 1998, when the electrical pool final inspection was approved, and October 1998, because its attorney, in response to the December 1997 complaint to the Department, advised it to obtain final inspections and close out the permit. Accordingly, the evidence presented is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Challenger Pools failed to perform work on Mr. Quadri's pool for a period of 90 consecutive days without just cause. The evidence presented by the Department is not sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that the work Challenger Pools did on Mr. Quadri's pool was below minimum industry standards. 8/ The evidence presented by the Department is sufficient to establish with the requisite degree of certainty that Challenger Pools began excavating Mr. Quadri's pool after it applied for the necessary permits but before they were issued. The Department presented no evidence to establish that Challenger Pools proceeded with work on Mr. Quadri's pool without receiving the required inspections. In addition, Challenger Pools called for final inspections of the plumbing, electric, and structural components of the pool and closed out the permit on April 19, 1999. As of October 6, 1999, the Department had expended $1,088.47 in investigative costs and $1,307.47 in prosecutorial costs with respect to Mr. Quadri's complaint.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order: Finding that Challenger Pools violated Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1997), in DOAH Case No. 98-3713 and DOAH Case No. 99-2655; Dismissing Count II of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 98-3713; Dismissing the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 99-2654; Dismissing Counts II and III of the Administrative Complaint in DOAH Case No. 99-2655; and Imposing the following penalties on Bruce E. Esquinaldo, Jr., as qualifier of Challenger Pools: Assessing an administrative fine in the amount of $2,500.00 in DOAH Case No. 98-3713 and in DOAH Case No. 99-2655 for the violations of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1997), for a total administrative fine of $5,000.00; Placing Mr. Esquinaldo's license on probation for a period of one year, subject to such terms and conditions as the Board may impose; and Assessing the costs of investigation and prosecution attributable to the violations of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1997), in DOAH Case No. 98-3713 and DOAH Case No. 99- 2655. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of June, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. PATRICIA HART MALONO 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 27th day of June, 2000.
The Issue Whether Respondent's license as a pool contractor should be disciplined and, if so, what penalty to recommend.
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant hereto John A. Bennett, Respondent, was licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board as a residential pool contractor, having been issued license number RP 0033592. He is the qualifying contractor for Quality Pools and Products, Inc., 2912 Forest Wood Drive, Seffner, Florida 33584 (Exhibit 2). On or about January 25, 1988, Evelyn L. Dittmer and James W. Dittmer entered into a contract with Quality Aquatech Pools & Spas (Quality Pools), 1500 N. Parsons Avenue, Brandon, Florida, to replace the liner and repair the bottom of the pool (Exhibit 5). This contract was signed by the Dittmers and Andy Priess, presumably the foreman of Quality Pools. The Dittmers never met Respondent, but they "understood" he owned the pool company. Printed on the bottom of Exhibit 1 is Respondent's state registration number. Employees of Quality Pools arrived on the site and removed the old liner. At this time, the bottom of the pool was in bad shape, but the workers attempted to replace the liner without repairing the bottom of the pool. They were stopped from replacing the liner and departed as they had brought no equipment with which to repair the bottom. Workers returned for the next several days to attempt to repair the bottom of the pool. Due to excessive ground water entering the pool, this task was onerous. The initial contract provided that if it became necessary to establish well points to keep excess water out of the pool, an additional fee of $200 would be required. The Dittmers paid this fee, but well points were not established. An addendum to the contract was prepared for additional work needed to get the bottom of the pool back in shape (Exhibit 1) and was signed by John A. Bennett. This provided for an additional payment of $600, but was not accepted or signed by the Dittmers. The new liner was ultimately installed, but was torn in the process and the unnatural hole in the bottom of the pool was not repaired. Although the Dittmers had paid Quality Pools the full contract price of $2700, which included a $200 charge for installing well points, the work was never satisfactorily completed, and Quality Pools failed to perform the work for which they had contracted. The project was finally abandoned by Quality Pools, and two of the pumps used to dewater the pool were left on the site. At no time did anyone from Quality Pools obtain a permit from Sarasota County where this work was done, and Quality Pools was not licensed to work in Sarasota County (Exhibit 3). After it became evident Quality Pools would not complete the repairs for which they had contracted, the Dittmers hired another contractor to whom they paid an additional $2945 to restore the pool to an operating condition (Exhibit 7).
Recommendation It is recommended that the charges against John A. Bennett arising out of the contract between the Dittmers and Quality Aquatech Pools & Spas be dismissed. RECOMMENDED this 5th day of January, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. K. N. AYERS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Desoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 5th day of January, 1990. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 89-4839 Proposed findings submitted by Petitioner are accepted with the exception of findings 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17 which are rejected for the reason that the evidence submitted does not show Respondent to be the owner or qualifying contractor of Quality Aquatech Pools and Spas with whom the Dittmers contracted. Findings of fact cannot be founded in uncorroborated hearsay evidence not admissible over objection in civil proceedings. COPIES FURNISHED: Andrea Bateman, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 Michael S. Edenfield, Esquire 206 E. Mason Street Brandon, FL 33511 John A. Bennett 1500 Parsons Avenue Brandon, FL 33511 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, FL 32201 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 N. Monroe Street Suite 60 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0792 =================================================================
The Issue The legal issues raised and the status of the parties in this cause are seemingly complex due to the manner in which the case was presented on the initial pleadings to the Division of Administrative Hearings. At bearing, it was determined that Fairways was seeking approval of a permit for use of its swimming pool. This application had been denied by the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on the grounds that the pool failed to meet the requirements of Rule 100-5.50, Florida Administrative Code. In order to place the parties in their proper positions, the Respondent, Fairways, was determined to be the movant party and its cross-petition considered to be the petition. The ultimate issue presented is whether the subject pool meets the requirements of Rule 100-5.50 and its use should be approved. PRELIMINARY RULINGS Fairways collaterally attacks the manner of application of the rule by the Department to its pool, asserting that the manner of application of the rule constitutes an unpromulgated rule. Fairways also alleges in its proposed findings that Rule 100-5.50 is an invalid exercise of validly delegated legislative authority, and that the Department is estopped to assert the pool fails to comply with Rule 100-5.50 because of a failure to communicate properly the conditional approval of construction of the pool. The allegations that the Department's application of Rule 100-5.50 constitutes an unpromulgated rule and that Rule 100-5.50 is invalid are raised for the first time in Fairways' proposed findings. The original petition (cross-petition) makes no allegation that Rule 100-5.50 is invalid, and makes no allegation that the manner of measurement is an invalidly promulgated rule. These allegations would not be properly raised within the context of a Section 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, proceeding. Although invalidity of the rules on constitutional grounds is preserved in the record for appellate review, the nature of the allegations in this instance are not grounded in a constitutional challenge. Having failed to raise these issues in their pleadings under the appropriate provision of Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, these attacks will not be considered in determining the issue presented in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is a six-building complex containing 13 condominium units, each building being situated on a separate lot circumscribed by property lines outlining the property within the exclusive possession and control of the occupants of the condominiums. The pool in question is located upon jointly held property and is not intended to be and has not been open for use by the public or persons other than the occupants of the condominiums and their guests. On April 2, 1979, Fairways submitted a site plan (Joint Exhibit number 4) to Petitioner at the Manatee County Health Department. The site plan showed the proposed location of the pool in relation to the condominium buildings. Approval of these plans by the Department was necessary in order for a construction permit to be issued for the pool. By a letter dated May 30, 1979 (Joint Exhibit number 2), Mr. O. P. Randle, Jr., Engineer for the Department, granted approval for the pool plans with the condition that "Wet facilities shall be provided within two hundred (200) feet of the pool." Between April 4 and May 30, 1979, Ms. Rosemary Wiley, Engineering Technician with the Department, orally informed Fairways' "project engineer" that several units were more than 200 feet from the proposed pool and that wet facilities would be required. During this period, Wiley also informed Fairways' pool contractor of the same condition and requirements. A construction permit for the pool was secured by Fairways' pool contractor on June 4, 1979. Construction of the pool began during the first week of June, 1979, and was substantially finished by July 5, 1979. Shortly after June 17, 1979, Fairways contacted the Department's local pollution control director, who visited Fairways and measured the distance between the water's edge of the pool and the farthest building. The method of measurement employed by the Health Department was to measure the shortest distance between the edge of the pool and the structure of the building. The method of measurement used by the Department has been in use 16 years and evolved because measurement from the pool to the actual sanitary facility located within a building is impractical. The only building which was not within 200 feet of the water's edge of the pool was Building 6, containing two dwelling units, which was 241 feet from the edge of the pool. Part of Building 5 is more than 200 feet from the edge of the pool; however, its closest edge is within 200 feet of the pool, meeting the requirement for wet facilities. The only toilets and lavatories constructed at this site are those contained in the individual condominium units. These facilities are not open to use by the public or other condominium owners. By letter dated June 23, 1979, the local pollution director, at the request of the Health Officer, requested from the Chief of Public Health Engineering Services an interpretation of the method of measuring the 200 feet provided in Rule 100-5.50. The request of the Health Officer was precipitated by a request for section interpretation by Fairways' agent. The request dealt specifically with what was required to be within the 200-foot radius of the pool. The interpretation of the Chief of Public Health Engineering Services was contained in his letter dated July 5, 1979, addressed to the District VI pollution control director. This interpretation advised that the building's edge must touch or fall within a 200-foot radius of the pool. This letter also advised that the Department had no power to consider or grant variances or exceptions to the rules. The information contained in this interpretation was communicated to Fairways' agent. Other proposed findings of fact presented by the Petitioner and Respondent are specifically rejected.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Department deny the application of the applicant for a permit of use. DONE and ORDERED this 6th day of February, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Amelia Park, Esquire Department of HRS W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, 4th Floor Tampa, Florida 33614 Janice Sorter, Esquire Department of HRS W. T. Edwards Facility 4000 West Buffalo Avenue, 4th Floor Tampa, Florida 33614 David Paul Montgomery, Esquire 2103 Manatee Avenue, West Bradenton, Florida 33505
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent, John R. Misiak, was a registered pool contractor, having been Issued license No. RP0033942. Respondent acted as the qualifying agent for Pool Masters, Inc., and also sewed as president of that company. On or about August 21, 1979, Respondent, on behalf of Pool Masters, Inc. , contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Rolf Schneider to construct a pool at the contract price of $9,400 at their residence at 4253 Sugar Pine Drive, Boca Raton, Florida. Pursuant to the terms of that contract, Pool Masters, Inc., guaranteed completion of the pool within eight weeks from the date of issuance of a building permit. On August 23, 1979, the Schneiders paid Pool Masters, Inc., a down payment of $948 On September 23, 1979, Respondent obtained a building permit for the pool and commenced construction. Thereafter, the Schneiders made two additional equal payments to Pool Masters, Inc., of $2,820 on October, 30, 1979, and November 4, 1979, respectively. After receipt of these payments, a remaining unpaid balance on the contract of $2,892 resulted. Work progressed on schedule through November 4, 1979, when Pool Masters, Inc., applied "shot crete" to the pool, and the Schneiders made their last payments of $2,820 as indicated above. Thereafter, work did not progress according to schedule, and the Schneiders became concerned about completion of their pool. There ensued a series of correspondence no conversations between the Schneiders, Respondent, and other officers of Pool Masters, Inc., concerning completion of the pool. Actual work on the pool continued through early December of 1979. At some time between December 4 and December 14, 1979, rough plumbing was installed in the pool. The rough plumbing was inspected and approved by the Palm Beach County Building Department on December 14, 1979. Pool Masters, Inc., had experienced financial difficulty as earl as August of 1979. Negotiations between the company and its creditors continued through late 1979 in the company's attempts to remain in business. In late November of 1979, Respondent spoke with Mrs. Schneider and informed her that the company was experiencing financial difficulties and might not be able to complete construction of the pool. On December 12, 1979, an officer of Pool Masters, Inc., spoke with Mr. Schneider, and informed him that the company would not be able to complete construction of the pool and further would be unable to refund their money. Respondent attempted to arrange completion of the Schneider's pool through another company. Under the proposed arrangement, the pool would have completed at the second company's cost, and Pool Masters, Inc., would have contributed $1,000 toward completion. At the time Respondent proposed this arrangement for completion of the pool, it appears from the record that the the pool could have been completed for approximately $2,000 above the original contract price. The Schneiders refused any offer or completion that would have exceeded the original contract price Pool Masters, Inc., was unable to make satisfactory financial arrangements with its creditors. As a result, the company filed a Voluntary Petition Under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on January 29, 1980. No work was performed by Pool Masters, Inc., on the job after the period of December 4 through December 14, 1979. There is no evidence of record in this proceeding from which a conclusion can be drawn that any of the monies paid by the Schneider to Pool Masters, Inc., was applied other than in the partial construction of the pool pursuant to the contract. The Schneiders subsequently contracts with another firm for completion of the pool at a cost substantially in excess of the original contract price. The Schneiders also filed a civil suit for damages against Pool Masters, Inc. Respondent, and other corporate officers. In the course or that proceeding, the Schneiders recovered $1,750 from one of the corporate officers.
The Issue At issue is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, the Department, is the state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of contracting pursuant to Chapters 20, 455 and 489. At all times material to the allegations of the Administrative Complaint, Mike H. Kargar, d/b/a Kargar Construction, Inc., was licensed as a Florida State Certified Building Contractor and a Florida State Certified Pool/Spa Contractor, having been issued license numbers CBC 37867 and CPC 52530 respectively. His licensure status for each license is designated as "Current, Active." The Department's records establish that at no time material hereto did Kargar Construction apply for or obtain a Certificate of Authority as a Contractor Qualified Business in the State of Florida. On or about July 14, 1999, Respondent, doing business as Premier Pools, entered into a contract with Ronald and Gina Steger (the Stegers) for construction of a residential swimming pool to be located at 466 Champagne Circle, Port Orange, Florida. The contract price was $26,469.00. Respondent was paid in full by the Stegers for the construction of the swimming pool at their residence. While Respondent verbally informed Mr. Steger about the Construction Industries Recovery Fund, the contract does not contain a written statement explaining the consumer's rights under the Construction Industries Recovery Fund. Respondent has constructed thousands of residential pools during his career. Respondent proceeded with the construction of the Stegers' pool in the same manner as with all other pools he constructed. That is, he reviewed the contract documents, visited the job site to inspect the site during the various stages of construction, and was in charge of scheduling. As is his typical practice, Respondent also had superintendents who oversaw the project and subcontractors who performed most of the actual work on the excavation and construction of the pool. Respondent visited the Stegers' job site at least twice. He went to the pool site before the pool was "shot." During that visit, he did not observe anything that raised concerns regarding the soil conditions that existed at the Steger residence. He inspected the Stegers' job site after the shell was poured and did not observe any problems. He also observed the control joints for the concrete for the pool deck. The spacing of the control joints at the Stegers' job site was the same as his company usually utilizes in constructing pool decks. Robert Fleming is the owner/operator of Fleming Excavating, which is in the business of excavating for swimming pools. He has been in the business of excavating pools for about ten years and has excavated between 5,000 and 6,000 pools. He and persons who work for him performed the excavation of the Stegers' pool. As is typical on a pool excavation job, Mr. Fleming performed what he refers to as "LDS" on the Stegers' pool. That is, layout, dig, steel, and be ready for inspection. He staked out the pool, determining its shape, then excavated the dirt. After the dirt was excavated, he and his workers put in the steel for inspection. In digging the Stegers' pool, Mr. Fleming did not encounter any unusual subsurface soil conditions to give him any indication that there would be problems for the pool in the future. About two weeks after the project was completed, Mr. Steger observed what he perceived to be a half inch rotation of the pool shell in the ground. When the pool was initially filled with water, the water level followed the grout line of the tile around the pool. After a couple of weeks, the water level against the pool tile furthest from the home was at a different level than the tile toward the area of the pool closest to the home. This was reported to Respondent. Mr. Steger then noticed a crack in the pool deck on the backside of the pool. He described the shape of the initial crack to be the same shape as the backside of the pool shell in the decking. Other cracks formed. One is evident where pieces of tile around the pool shell have come off at the place where the crack in the pool deck meets the pool shell. The cracking is all on the deck, not in the pool itself. A representative of Respondent's company went to the Stegers' home in March of 2000 and documented on a warranty form as follows: Southwest deck, [less than] 1/32 separation around the perimeter south of beam. Northwest near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion northeast. Near expansion tile needs to be regrout. Watch for further expansion. Between December 1999 and March 2000, Mr. Steger made two other requests for warranty work. These conditions were corrected by Respondent and signed off as satisfactorily completed by Mr. Steger. Sometime in the year 2000, Respondent became aware of the cracking problems in the Stegers' deck. He went to the Stegers' home and met with Mr. Steger. He observed that the cracks were in a circular type of pattern following the pool shape. Respondent offered to repair the deck cracks by "v- ing" out the cracks and inserting a urethane 500 product to stop the cracks from coming through. Once that process was completed, Respondent proposed that he would then "respray and re-acrylic the affected area of the deck." Respondent has used this process numerous times to cover cracks in decks, and once it is used, the cracks do not show. Mr. Steger did not agree to Respondent's proposal to repair the cracking of the deck area as illustrated by his testimony at hearing: Mr. Kargar came out and told me that he would, in fact, grind out the concrete in the cracks themselves, fill them in with some sort of epoxy substance in order to mask the cracking. However, that does not address the original problem of the pool shell shifting and the deck moving away from the pool. So, no, I did not accept that as a solution to the problem. Richard Kushner is a civil engineer with a concentration in geotechnical engineering and construction engineering. He works for Universal Engineering Science (Universal). Mr. Steger called Universal which conducted an investigation as to why the pool deck was cracking. A field representative from Universal went to the Stegers' home and performed four manual auger borings into the soil to test the type and condition of the soil under the pool deck, ran density and compaction tests to see how tight the soils were underneath the pool deck, and observed the cracking and the cracking patterns in the concrete. Mr. Kushner did not personally go to the Stegers' as it is customary in the field of geotechnical and construction engineering to review data, do whatever analysis is necessary, and come to a conclusion using an investigative report. Regarding the cause of the pool deck cracking, Mr. Kushner had three concerns: the compaction of the soil underneath the concrete slab was less than 90 percent, whereas the industry standard is 95 percent; evidence of wood rot was found at one of the auger borings, indicating that the original soils were not well stripped and cleared of debris, such as sticks and roots; and insufficient spacing of control joints in the concrete. Mr. Kushner concluded that the contractor and subcontractors who constructed the pool deck were responsible for the cracking in the pool deck. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that two of the three concerns, i.e., the soil compaction and the evidence of organic debris, are circumstances that may cause future problems but were not the cause of the current problems with the deck cracking. Mr. Kushner also acknowledged that the pool cracking is a problem which is cosmetic or aesthetic in nature and that the cracks in the pool deck are not structural problems. Universal's investigation and Mr. Kushner's report relate exclusively to the pool deck, not to the pool shell or the subsoil conditions under the pool shell. Mr. Kushner was not aware when he wrote the report relied upon by Petitioner that there was an issue regarding whether the pool shell was shifting; was not involved in any discussions about the pool shell; and was not aware that the cracks in the pool deck follow the shape of the pool. Mr. Kushner acknowledged that any shifting of the pool shell could be caused by soil conditions underneath the pool shell and could be the cause of deck cracking that followed the shape of the pool. However, the investigation conducted by Universal and his report were exclusively related to the cracking of the pool deck and did not examine anything regarding the pool shell itself. As of July 18, 2003, the Department's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding legal costs, totaled $384.63.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order imposing a $100.00 fine to be deposited in the Construction Industries Recovery Fund for a violation of Section 489.1425, issue a notice of noncompliance pursuant to Section 489.119(6)(e), and require Respondent to pay $384.63 in costs of investigation and prosecution. DONE AND ENTERED this 22nd day of August, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ___________________________________ BARBARA J. STAROS 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 22nd day of August, 2003.
Findings Of Fact In 1975 and 1976 John Morris, d/b/a Morris Pool Service, maintained the swimming pool at the Sunland Center in Miami, Florida under a contract with HRS. The contract for the year commencing July 1, 1976 and expiring June 30, 1977 (Exhibit 1) provided generally for Morris to maintain the Sunland Center pool for which he would be paid $520 per month. This contract further provided that a representative of Morris Pool Service check each day except Saturday and Sunday with Ms. O'Donohue, the Director of Training, or her successor. Recreation personnel at Sunland Center hoped to open the pool on Memorial Day; however, an impeller for the pump needed replacement and the pool was inoperative for some six weeks in May and June awaiting this part. During this time petitioner did little or no maintenance and the pool's condition was bad enough for the Superintendent to become involved and request a report from the Programs and Services Director (Exhibit 4). When the impeller did arrive in mid-June, 1977, the pool was in such bad shape it was necessary to drain the pool, scrub, and acid-wash the walls and floor of the pool to remove the accumulated algae and scum. Even a colony of frogs had taken up residence in the pool during this period. As a result of additional delays the next hoped-for opening date of July 4 was also missed. The pool was finally ready for operation and was opened the week following July 4, 1977. Although opened the water in the pool was not properly maintained by cleaning and chlorinating. In the latter part of July the gas chlorinator became inoperative and the pool's condition deteriorated as no chlorine was being added to the water. Under the contract Petitioner was to provide materials necessary to keep the pool water in a balanced condition. This contract expired on June 30, 1977. Nevertheless, Petitioner purported to continue working under the expired contract, pending the issuance of a new contract for 1977-1978. While the gas chlorinator was inoperative Petitioner did not hand-feed chlorine to the pool to maintain the proper chlorine level and to keep algae from growing. By early August, 1977, the pool had become so bad the supervisory personnel at Sunland Center called the Dade County Health Department to inspect the pool. A report of that inspection showing the pool unfit for use was admitted into evidence as Exhibit 3. Following the Superintendent's inquiry to Ms. Titus about the condition of the pool in June, 1977, she contacted Petitioner, who told her the pool would he hack in operation as soon as the impeller was received. Ms. Titus was the successor to Ms. O'Donohue and she told Petitioner to keep her advised regarding the status of the pool. Although the contract (Exhibit 1) required Petitioner to report to Ms. Titus daily (except Saturday and Sunday) she did not see him again, nor did she receive any report that he came to her office. Petitioner contends that he attempted to report to Ms. Titus but was unable to find her in her office and after a few attempts stopped trying. Ms. Titus and her assistant were both equipped with beepers and could be contacted any time of day by their office if they were out of the office. Following the Health Department's inspection on August 9, 1977, the pool was closed for several days, then reopened around mid-August after the chlorinator was repaired. When the pool was reopened in August its condition was barely satisfactory. Shortly after Labor Day the pool was again closed and remained closed throughout the balance of 1977. By October, the Sunland Center officials decided they should notify Petitioner that his contract would not be renewed for the 1977-1978 year and a letter dated October 27, 1977 (Exhibit 2) was forwarded to him by registered mail. This letter was mailed to an old address for Petitioner, was returned to the sender and remailed to the proper address. As a result, the letter was not received by Petitioner until December 14 or 15, 1977. Petitioner submitted bills to Respondent for services for the period July 1, 1977 through December 15, 1977, the approximate date he received Exhibit 2. Following August 10, 1977 some of Respondent's employees in the maintenance department saw Petitioner in the cafeteria at Sunland Center and on the premises, but none of them reported seeing Petitioner do any work on the pool. Petitioner contends he worked on the pool on a daily basis, however, the condition of the pool casts serious doubts on this testimony.
Findings Of Fact Based on the evidence presented, the following facts were found: At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent held two active contractor's licenses issued by the State of Florida, RP 0033354 and CP 015029. Respondent's current address is 1316 Hoffner Avenue, Orlando, Florida 32809. At all times pertinent to this case, Respondent owned the firm Family Pools and did business as a pool contractor under that name. At no time did Respondent ever qualify his firm, under whose name he did business, with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board (CILB). On some date not specified, in June, 1980, Alphonse J. and Pauline L. Rodier contracted with Family Pools to build a pool at their residence at 601 Michigan Avenue, Englewood, Sarasota County, Florida for a price of 6,700. The contract was signed by Respondent for Family Pools. The pool price was to include a screened enclosure and deck, and the entire package was to be completed by July 4, 1980. The pool was paid for by two checks from Coast Federal Sayings and Loan Association in Sarasota from the proceeds of a home improvement loan and by a final check in the amount of $900 from the Rodiers, direct, on October 13, 1980. Respondent subcontracted the pool enclosure to Climatrol Screen Company of Enqlewood, Florida, for $2,065 but failed to pay this subcontractor. As a result, on November 26, 1980, Climatrol filed a lien against Rodier's property which was released only when the Rodiers paid an additional $790 which had not been satisfied by the Respondent. Respondent had satisfied part of the debt to Climatrol by relinquishing title to a truck he owned. On July 3, 1980, Family Pools contracted with Elmer J. and Carla T. Taylor, of Bunnell, Florida, to build an above-ground pool on their property for $4,800.00. The pool was to have a one year warranty against defective parts and a 20-year prorated replacement policy. According to the contract, the pool price included the pump, liner, filter, and walls, along with all other parts. The pool was constructed by employees of Family Pools about three or four weeks after the contract was signed. Not long after the pool was completed and filled, Mr. Taylor noticed that the vinyl liner was protruding out beneath the bottom of the metal retaining wall. His calls to Family Pools were never answered by Respondent with whom he asked to talk and repair work on this problem was not accomplished by the Respondent or Family Pools. Mr. Taylor had to do the work himself and Family Pools would not honor the warranty. Respondent offers the completion certificate executed by the Taylors on August 21, 1980,as evidence the pool was installed properly and the Taylors were satisfied. Mr. Taylor indicates he signed that certificate in blank under pressure from Respondent's agent, who cajoled him into doing it on the basis that if he did not, Family Pools could not be paid by the finance company under the installment sales contract. Also, during the period of the one year warranty, the pool pump burned out. Mr. Taylor had to replace that and pay for it himself, as the warranty was not honored. Respondent contends only a 90-day warranty on the pump, but that appears nowhere in the contract, which, in its description of the pool covered by the one year warranty, includes the pump. On August 29, 1980, Family Pools contracted with Janice Conover to build a swimming pool at her home in Venice, Florida for $4,780. The pool was to be completed approximately 30 days after excavation at the site. Between August 29, 1980, and December, 1980, Ms. Conover paid Family Pools a total of $4,741 by checks which were endorsed by "P. Vescera d/b/a Family Pools" or "Pasquale M. Vescera." On October 2, 1980, Respondent pulled a permit No. 7330- N from the Sarasota County Building Department, in his own name, to construct Ms. Conover's pool. In February, 1981, when the pool was only about fifty percent complete, Respondent ceased work on Ms. Conover's pool without giving her any notice or reason therefor. When Respondent stopped work, he had only dug the hole for the pool. The liner had been delivered but was not installed. The braces were there but not affixed, notwithstanding Ms. Conover had paid almost in full for the pool. As a result, she contracted with Richard Thompson, Respondent's former employee, to finish the work Respondent had started because at this point she could not find the Respondent. Thompson installed the brackets, the liner, and the deck. She had to pay extra for the pump, the chemicals, and the sweep--all of which, except for the sweep, she had paid for when she paid Respondent's price. Respondent never returned to complete Ms. Conover's pool. On July 7, 1980, Family Pools contracted with Robert A. and Florence L. Peipher to build a pool at their property in Port Charlotte, Florida, for a price of $6,900. Between July 7 and November 28, 1980, the Peiphers paid Family Pools, by checks, the sum of $6,905. All checks-were endorsed for deposit, "P. Vescera d/b/a Family Pools." The pool price was to include a screened pool enclosure and in September 1980, Family Pools contracted with Climatrol to build the screened enclosure for Peipher's pool for $1,807. Respondent and Family Pools failed to pay Climatrol for the enclosure and as a result, Climatrol filed a lien against the Peipher's property for $1,807 which was satisfied on March 9, 1981, by the Peiphers who paid Climatrol the amount owed. On March 2, 1981, the Peiphers filed a complaint against Respondent with the Contractor License Division of the Charlotte County Building Department because of Respondent's failure to pay Climatrol and the resultant cost to them. As a result of this complaint and the subsequent investigation into the allegations, the matter was referred to the Charlotte County Building Board which, at its meeting on May 7, 1981, after notice to Respondent, voted to revoke Respondent's permit privileges in Charlotte County until he made restitution to the Peiphers and to notify the State of Respondent's actions requesting state action against his license. Respondent suffered severe financial setbacks just about the time of these incidents. He was hospitalized for a period of five or six weeks and upon his return to his business found that he had been "robbed" of approximately $50,000 worth of fully paid for inventory. When he reported the shortage to the local law enforcement officials, they told him that since there was no evidence of a breaking in, they could do nothing about it. In addition, he could not recover from his insurance company for the same reason. There was no evidence other than Respondent's sworn testimony that there was a shortage or that he reported the loss to either agency. Respondent has been in the pool business in Florida for five years and in New Jersey for 32 years before that. He feels the cause of his problem is the fact that he trusted the people who worked for him who took advantage of him. During the entire period of time he was in business in Florida he took no money from the company for his personal use, living instead on income from a mortgage he owned in New Jersey. He subsequently filed for bankruptcy on March 9, 1981. The $15,000 in current accounts receivable he had on the books at that time was utilized in the bankruptcy proceeding to pay creditors. He got-none of it. He is now working in Orlando, Florida, for a pool rehabilitation company owned by his wife and her father. Respondent alleges that on July 15, 1980, he paid Richard Thompson $1,100 to complete work started on several pools, including that of Ms. Conover. Review of the prior findings of fact, however, shows that the contract with Ms. Conover was not entered into until approximately 45 days after Respondent supposedly made this payment to cover the work left undone on her pool. In light of that development, I find his contention completely without merit or basis in fact. Respondent admits that people were hurt as a result of his actions and he regrets this. However, he claims these few incidents are insignificant when compared with the over 500 satisfied customers he alleges he has served over the years. Finally, Respondent contends that early in 1980, after being advised that he had passed the test to be a certified pool contractor, he wrote to Petitioner and, after advising how he was registered and doing business, asked if he needed to make any changes in license registration. He did in fact do this and received no reply. He thereafter assumed he was acting correctly in that regard and that appears to be a justified assumption.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license as a contractor be suspended for two years and that he be assessed an administrative fine of $500. RECOMMENDED this 16th day of May, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK, 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 16th day of May, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles F. Tunnicliff, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Pasquale M. Vescera 1316 Hoffner Avenue Orlando, Florida 32809 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Findings Of Fact The Warwick Condominium Association, Inc., operates a swimming pool at its condominium located at 5100 DuPont Boulevard, Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The swimming pool is licensed as a commercial swimming pool, and it has satisfactorily passed the inspections conducted by Respondent over the past two years. The Warwick pool has a perimeter gutter system which meets Respondent's regulations. The Condominium Association plans to renovate the pool. The renovation plans, which must be approved by Respondent, involve changing the pool from the approved gutter system to a recessed automatic surface skimmer system. The pool dimensions are approximately 25' x 46', and the pool surface water area is approximately 1,035 square feet. Respondent's rules prohibit the use of recessed automatic surface skimmers for pools larger than 800 square feet and for pools wider than 20'. Therefore, Petitioner's proposed modifications to the pool do not meet existing rule requirements for commercial pools. The pool renovation plans were not approved by Respondent since the plans do not meet the standards set by the Department's rules. Petitioner submitted its proposed plans to the independent Public Swimming and Bathing Facilities Advisory Review Board, and that Board recommended to the Department that Petitioner's request for a variance from the Department's rules be granted. The Department denied Petitioner's request for a variance. There is no evidence that the Department considered the Advisory Review Board's recommendation to approve a variance, and there is no evidence as to what standards the Department has used in approving variances, if any variances have been approved. The location of the Warwick pool is unique and causes the Warwick to experience extraordinary problems in maintaining the cleanliness of the pool. The Warwick pool is located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway and a bascule bridge crossing the Waterway. The pool receives an extraordinary amount of highway soot and dirt due to its location next to the elevated highway and bridge. Additionally, grease and oils from boats idling next to the swimming pool waiting for the bridge to open are deposited on the surface of the Warwick swimming pool. Swimming pools at nearby condominiums are not located directly on the Waterway. They are located either on the roofs of those condominium buildings or on the other side of those buildings away from the Waterway. Accordingly, the location of the Warwick pool is unusual. A prevailing southeast wind blows across the Waterway and across the Warwick pool. It then hits the wall of the condominium building and reverses its direction. It creates a great deal of turbulence on the surface water of the pool, pushing the water and the debris on the surface of the water to the south wall of the pool which is located at the pool's deep end. The dirt, debris, grease, and oil deposited by the vehicular and boat traffic accumulate at, and adhere to, the south wall of the pool at the deep end. Cleaning the tile at the south end of the pool requires constant effort. The accumulation of grease and oil at the deep end of the swimming pool is unusual. The perimeter gutter at the deep end of the Warwick pool is slightly higher than the gutters around the other three sides of the pool. Accordingly, the surface water does not overflow the gutter at the deep end except when there are a number of bathers in the pool, thereby altering the water level and creating additional turbulence. At such times and during heavy rains, the gutters flood, and the debris and grease are carried back into the pool where they come in contact with bathers. There is no guarantee that attempting to lower the level of the south gutter will make the perimeter gutter system ideally level. The condominium manager and one of the condominium owners, each of whom have substantial expertise and experience in constructing and operating swimming pools, have determined that the unique problems of the Warwick pool can be resolved by the installation of recessed automatic surface skimmers at the south end of the pool. All witnesses in this proceeding agree that proper skimmer location is determined by the prevailing wind. The amount of surface water removed is the same for both the perimeter gutter system and the recessed automatic surface skimmer system. The accessibility to debris is greater with a gutter system than with the skimmer system since the skimmer system collects debris and retains it in baskets which are then manually emptied. There are greater losses of water with the gutter system than with the skimmer system. Department employees visited the Warwick pool on one occasion for approximately 45 minutes. They placed the gutter system into operation and found that it was working. They testified that the Warwick's system is operational and therefore should simply be improved. The Warwick's witnesses agreed that the system is operational but have shown that the system does not operate properly based upon their extended familiarity with that particular swimming pool. The opinion of the experts with extended experience with the Warwick pool has been given more weight than those who visited the pool on one occasion for less than-one hour, particularly since the Department's witnesses admitted that the conditions at the Warwick during their site visit were not the normal conditions. Although the Department's witnesses clearly have a preference for gutter systems over recessed skimmer systems, no evidence was offered to show that the skimmer system (allowed by the Department in smaller swimming pools) would pose a threat to the health or safety of the bathing public should a variance be granted.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED THAT: A Final Order be entered approving Petitioner's request for a variance. DONE and RECOMMENDED this 9th day of February, 1989, at Tallahassee, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings, The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this day 9th day of February, 1989. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER D0AH CASE NO. 88-3045 Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 1 4, 5, 7-14, 16, and 17 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 2 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration in this cause. Petitioner's proposed finding of fact numbered 6 has been rejected as being subordinate to the issues under consideration herein. Petitioner's proposed findings of fact numbered 3 and 15 have been rejected as not constituting findings of fact but rather as constituting argument of counsel or conclusions of law. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 1-3 and 9 have been adopted either verbatim or in substance in this Recommended Order. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 4- 6, 10, and 11 have been rejected as not being supported by the weight of the evidence in this cause. Respondent's proposed findings of fact numbered 7 and 8 have been rejected as being contrary to the evidence presented herein. Respondent's proposed finding of fact numbered 12 has been rejected as being irrelevant to the issues under consideration herein. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory L. Coler, Secretary Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Sam Power, HRS Clerk Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1323 Winewood Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Lois J. Minetti, Manager Warwick Condominium Association, Inc. 5100 DuPont Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33308 Martha F. Barrera, Esquire Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 2421 Southwest Sixth Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315
