The Issue The issues in this case are whether the Board of Professional Engineers should discipline either Sam G. Gillotti on charges made against him in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 86-4800 on or about September 26, 1986, or Charles B. Bland on charges made against him in the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 87-1213 on or about November 14, 1986, or both. The Administrative Complaint against Gillotti in Case No. 86-4800 alleges essentially that he falsely certified both to Bland, as a part-owner, the owner representative, the engineer of record and the building contractor of record, and to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department, that the structural members of an eleven-story project known as the Marlborough House, located in Winter Haven, Florida, was built according to approved plans and according to applicable building codes. The Administrative Complaint alleges that this constitutes violations of: (a) Section 471.033(1)(e), Florida Statutes, which prohibits the making or filing of a report which the licensee knows to be false; (b) Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, which prohibits negligence or misconduct in the practice of engineering; (c) F.A.C. Rule 21H- 19.01(5)(b), which is alleged to prohibit being untruthful, deceptive, or misleading in any professional report whether or not under oath; and (d) F.A.C. Rule 21H-19.01(5)(m), which is alleged to prohibit knowingly failing to report a violation. The Administrative Complaint against Bland in Case No. 87-1213 alleges in three counts that Bland: (Count I) was negligent in light of several specified deficiencies in the structural members of the Marlborough House, in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g) and (k), Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule 21H-19.01(3); (Count II) falsely certified to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department that the design of the Marlborough House was in accordance with applicable building codes (when combustible materials were designed to be used in the penthouse roof, in violation of the Southern Building Code), in violation of Section 471.033(1)(g), which prohibits fraud or deceit or misconduct in the practice of engineering, and F.A.C. Rule 21H-19.01(5)(b), which is alleged to define misconduct to include being untruthful in any professional report; and (Count III) signed and sealed electrical drawings for the Marlborough House when he was not competent through adequate training and experience to do so, in violation of Sections 471.033(1)(g) and (k), Florida Statutes, and F.A.C. Rule 21H-19.01(5)(d).
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to the issues raised by the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 86-4800, Gillotti was licensed by the Department of Professional Regulation, Board of Professional Engineers, as a licensed professional engineer, having been issued license number PE 0012849. Indeed, Gillotti has been licensed to practice engineering in Florida for 23 years and, including practice in another state, has practiced engineering for 40 years. Besides this Administrative Complaint, Gillotti has never had a disciplinary proceedings brought against him as a licensed professional engineer. Bland, too, is and at all times material to the issues raised in the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 87-1213 has been a licensed engineer in the State of Florida, having been issued license number PE 0019406. Bland is licensed as an engineer in other states--17 at the time of the final hearing, plus approximately another ten in years past. He has been practicing engineering since 1962. He has provided engineering services for the construction of approximately 200 high-rise masonry buildings, including three in progress at the time of the hearing. Like Gillotti, this is Bland's first disciplinary action during his career as an engineer. Bland became involved in a project in Winter Haven, Florida, known as the Marlborough House in the late 1970s. Bland, doing business as Wellington Construction Corporation, was a part-owner of the project, and he also represented the joint venture that owned the property. The project was the development of an eleven-story condominium across the street from Cypress Gardens. Bland also served as the engineer of record for the project. He created the structural design and did the structural drawings for the planned condominium building. The design called for the construction of reinforced masonry bearing walls. The design transferred weight from the eleven stories to the foundation through a combination of wall types. On the higher floors, where the loads would be least, cement block walls sufficed. As the weight accumulated and increased progressively towards the lower floors, the wall was designed to bear the increased weight with a margin of safety against structural damage or collapse. First, the cement blocks comprising the walls were designed to be filled with grout for increased strength. On lower levels, reinforcement bars (rebars) were required to be inserted in the cement blocks, along with the grout, for even more strength. Still lower in the building, reinforced cements block and steel tube columns were required in the spaces between the walls. Finally, at the lowest levels, the reinforced columns had to be poured concrete to withstand the heaviest loads. The structural design called for special inspections to be made to assure that construction of the varied and relatively complex masonry bearing wall system would be according to plans. Bland coordinated his structural design with the architectural drawings 1/ and had both approved by the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department. It was decided that the Marlborough House would be inspected by affidavit, as permitted under the 1976 Standard Building Code, which Polk County had adopted. Under the affidavit system, the owner or designer of the building swears under oath that the building will be built according to approved plans and applicable local codes. Then, at the end of construction, before issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the owner or its designated representative must swear under oath that the building has been built according to approved plans and applicable local codes. However, the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department was unfamiliar with the affidavit system of inspection, never having used it before, and allowed letters to serve in place of a sworn affidavit. At some point after approval of the plans for the Marlborough House, the structural plans were revised. The revised plans called for "poured-in- place" concrete flooring instead of the precast concrete floor system in the approved drawings. The revised drawings also called for a wood truss roof system for the penthouse roof. Otherwise, the structural drawings were essentially the same and also called for special inspections to be made to assure that construction of the varied and relatively complex masonry bearing wall system would be according to plans. The wood truss roof system for the penthouse was discussed and coordinated with the architect on the project. It is not clear whether the other structural revisions were discussed and coordinated with the architect. It is clear, however, that the architectural drawings were not modified to coordinate with the changes in the structural drawings. The the structural revisions were not formally approved by the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department. At least one change, allowing cantilevered balconies instead of corner column supports for the balconies, was approved as a field change. At some point early in the construction of the Marlborough House, the major investor in Bland's joint venture, Des Peres Financial Corporation of Missouri, and Bland decided that, since Bland was both engineer of record and part-owner, as well as owner representative and building contractor of record on the project, it would be wise for an engineer other than Bland to inspect the project for progress for purposes of requisition draws. Bland and Neil Luton, owner of the Neil Luton Planning Group, which Bland had hired to coordinate the development and obtain the necessary government permitting, decided to hire Gillotti for this purpose. Gillotti knew Bland slightly from a prior business relationship but that was the extent of Gillotti's knowledge of Bland. Gillotti had more of a working relationship with Luton, having being retained by him in connection with more than one development project in the past. Gillotti was not hired to, and was not relied upon by Bland and Luton to, provide the special inspections of the construction of the masonry bearing wall system called for in the structural drawings. In December, 1980, Bland gave the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department a letter representing that the Marlborough House would be built according to approved plans and applicable structural provisions of the local code. In another letter to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department, Bland acknowledged that, although he had "associated" himself with another Florida licensed professional engineer, Gillotti, "concerning the progress inspections," he (Bland) had "ultimate responsibility concerning the structural aspects of the project." Gillotti's first requisition inspection was during the construction of the fourth level of the Marlborough House. It was known to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department that Gillotti was not present, or any way involved with the project, during the construction of the lower levels. Altogether, Gillotti made only three inspections during construction of the structural members of the Marlborough House, during construction of the fourth, eighth and penthouse levels. Although Gillotti was inspecting for purposes of requisition, he noted his general observations, including in some cases deviations from what he understood to be the building plans (the revised, not the approved, plans), on a report of each of the inspections. He provided a copy of his inspection report both to Bland and to the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department. Both Bland and the Polk County Building Inspection Department knew that Gillotti made only three inspections during construction of the structural members of the Marlborough House, during construction of the fourth, eighth and penthouse levels. Neither Bland himself nor any other structural engineer was on the site doing the special inspections called for in the structural engineering plans during the construction of levels which Gillotti did not see being constructed. Neither Gillotti nor Bland, nor the two of them together, were on the site enough to properly conduct the special inspections required by the structural plans. In June, 1981, the building was nearing completion, and Bland and Des Peres wanted the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department to issue a restricted temporary certificate of occupancy for the common areas so that the owners could begin selling condominium units in the project and obtain favorable financing terms for prospective buyers. For this purpose, Bland solicited and obtained from Gillotti a June 10, 1981, letter stating that the structural members of the Marlborough House were built according to the approved plans and local code. He did not qualify the letter either to note the limitations of his personal knowledge (and that he had to rely on Bland's representations to him as to most of the structure) or to again point out the deviatioins from the plans that he had noted in his inspection reports. Bland knew that Gillotti's June 10, 1981, letter certifying the structural members of the building was not accurate and could not be relied on. He knew that Gillotti was not at the site enough to have certified the building in this manner. He should have known that neither Gillotti's inspections, his inspections, or the inspections of both men, were sufficient to comply with the special inspections requirements of the structural engineering plans. 2/ He also knew, or should have known, that he never gave Gillotti a copy of the approved plans, but only a copy of the revised plans, for Gillotti's use in inspecting the building. Bland used Gillotti's June 10, 1981, letter to obtain from the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, issued on July 27, 1981, for the main lobby, the elevator and the elevator corridors, only, (and not the individual apartments) for floors 1-10 only. To obtain a temporary certificate of occupancy for the rest of the building, on or about August 7, 1981, Bland gave the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department a letter certifying, among other things, that he had designed the Marlborough House in full conformance with the Standard Building Code, 1976 Edition, the National Fire Protection Code #3, and the National Electrical Code, 1975 Edition, with Polk County amendments, and that "[t]he building has now been constructed in full conformance with the above mentioned codes." Knowing that Gillotti also had been at the site performing inspections, the Director of the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department asked for a letter from Gillotti, too, although Bland's certification letter was considered to be legally sufficient under the affidavit system of inspection. Neil Luton relayed the request to Gillotti. On or about August 10, 1981, Gillotti sent the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department a letter certifying "that the structural members of the [Marlborough House] were built according to the approved plans, the Standard Bldg. Code 1976 Edition, and the local code." He qualified this certification only by writing: "Mr. Charles Bland made the Mechanical, Plumbing, & Electrical inspections for the above building." On or about August 14, 1981, the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department issued a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy" for all of the Marlborough House except the penthouse level. In fact, the Marlborough House was not built in accordance with either the approved plans or the applicable codes in that the wooden truss roof system for the penthouse level was not approved by the Imperial Polk County Building and Zoning Codes Department and violated provisions of the Southern Standard Building Code that prohibit the use of combustible materials in the penthouse roof system. Other than the use of wooden trusses in the penthouse roof system, the evidence did not prove that the structure of the building failed meet the applicable codes except that the building was not constructed according to the approved plans in several respects: Reinforced concrete columns called for on the drawings had not, in all cases, been provided, e.g., in the second level, west unit, in the wall between the bathrooms. Instead, reinforced concrete block columns, which are not as strong, were substituted. Steel tube columns specified at the exterior corners of bedrooms were not provided, e.g., at the tenth level, east unit, exterior corner, approximately 30 feet south of the north wall. Spandrel beams specified at balconies, beams to be placed at the exterior edge of the balcony slabs, were not provided. Uncontrolled cutouts for ducts and electrical conduits were made in bearing walls. In one case, a wall was designed to be nine feet wide and had four feet missing due to uncontrolled cutouts. Some of the concrete blocks making up bearing walls were poorly aligned vertically. Misaligned blocks are hard to fill with grout, as the plans require in some places. In addition, vertically misaligned block introduces eccentric forces at the mortar joint between blocks, instead of transferring the load directly vertically through the block to the foundation in accordance with the structural design. In addition, some wall sections were misaligned so that one level's wall was not positioned directly above the wall section of the level below it. In one case, the displacement was greater than the width of the wall. As a result, lateral forces were introduced to the floor slab between the two wall sections, contrary to the structural design for the building. (f) Cement block cells that were designed to receive grout did not in some instances. In addition, the electrical engineering plans contained numerous deviations from the standards of the electrical engineering industry, as well as the National Electrical Code: Drawing E-1.-- There were no wire sizes shown for the various apartments for the branch circuits, contrary to the standards of the electrical engineering industry. There were no circuit numbers shown for the various apartment devices, another deviation from the standards of the industry. The outlet spacings in the apartment rooms and kitchens are not in accordance with the National Electrical Code (NEC), s. 210-25(b). There are no telephone or television outlets indicated on the plans, contrary to industry standards. There is no air conditioning disconnect switch indicated, as required by NEC s. 430 to allow for safe servicing of the unit. There was no life safety system audio device shown in the common corridors or stairs as required by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) s. 101. The apartment panelboards A and B do not show a branch circuit for the water heater, which is provided in the plumbing drawings. Drawing E-2.-- Drawing E-2 has the same deviations noted in (a) through (f) for Drawing E-1. The connection shown for the fire pump required by the NFPA in all buildings did not meet the requirements of the NEC. No short circuit rating for any of the electrical over-current devices, panelboard bussing, etc., are shown, contrary to the requirements of NEC s. 110-9. Drawing E-3.-- The telephone system conduit sizes shown appear inadequate to handle risers of 20 outlets. The ratio of 20 outlets to one riser also appears excessive. The normal ratio is six apartments per riser. The plans do not indicate the size of the elevator disconnect switch as required by NEC s. 430. Drawings E-1A, E-2A and E-3A.-- Drawing E-1A, E-2A and E-3A have the same deviations noted in (a) through (c), (e) and (f) for Drawing E-1. Drawing E-4. Drawing E-4 has the same deviations noted in (i) and (j) for Drawing E-2. In addition, the electrical riser does not show all feeder sizes or equipment sizes, a requirement of the NEC. Drawing E-4A. Some fire alarm schematics were shown but they were incomprehensible. This fails to meet the requirements of the NFPA s. 101, which requires the schematic to show the components of the system and how it is going to perform. Bland has had a great deal of experience in the design and construction of multistory buildings such as the Marlborough House, and has sealed the electrical engineering plans on many of those projects. The evidence did not prove that his experience and training was not adequate to enable him to do the electrical drawings for the Marlborough House. However, the extensive deviations between Bland's electrical plans and the various code requirements do prove that Bland was either incompetent or grossly negligent in drawing the electrical plans for the Marlborough House.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Board of Professional Engineers enter a final order: (1) finding Sam G. Gillotti guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1981), under the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 86-4800, fining him $1,000 and placing him on probation for six months; and (2) finding Charles B. Bland guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(e) under Count I and II, and Section 471.033(g), Florida Statutes (1981), under Count III, of the Administrative Complaint in Case No. 87-1213, fining him $3,000 and suspending his license for one year, followed by one year of probation. RECOMMENDED this 22nd day of August, 1990, 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 22nd day of August, 1990.
Findings Of Fact Based upon all of the evidence, the following findings of fact are determined: At all times relevant hereto, respondent, John W. Hull, held certified building contractor license number CB CO28961 issued by petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board (Board). When the events herein occurred, respondent was qualifying agent for, and doing business as, John W. Hull Construction in Inverness, Florida. On September 15, 1990, respondent entered into a contract with Robert and Mary E. Griggs to construct a single-family residence at 7118 East Gospel Island Road, Inverness, Florida, for an estimated cost of $130,000. The contract called for respondent to be responsbile for all materials and work on the project and to build the residence in compliance with the county building code. In this regard, respondent pulled the permit for the job and was the supervising contractor. The project was completed around mid-May 1991 and a certificate of occupancy was issued by Citrus County (County). After the Griggs paid for the work in full, they took occupancy of the premises on May 17, 1991. On September 21, 1993, the Griggs noticed a water leak in the guest bathroom. Mary Griggs immediately contacted respondent and was told to call the subcontractor who installed the roof, Lloyd Vann. She did so and Vann came to the house the next morning and acknowledged the shingles were installed "incorrectly." He returned on October 4, 1993, and placed some tar under the shingles. While doing so, Griggs says that Vann "ripped a lot of the shingles." When the leaks persisted, including at least seven separate leaks during a single rain storm, Mary Griggs requested two other roofers to inspect her roof. They corroborated Vann's acknowledgment that the roof was "incorrectly" installed. On January 18, 1994, Griggs again contacted respondent and told him she needed a new roof since it violated building code requirements. He responded that there were no building code standards applicable to the roof. Mary Griggs persisted with her complaint and eventually arranged a meeting with a County building inspector, Henry Pann, respondent and Vann on September 30, 1994. However, Griggs was told not to speak at the meeting but rather to listen to the other participants. As a result of that meeting, Mary Griggs was contacted by respondent just after a heavy rain on October 3, 1994, to see if she still had any roof leaks. Not surprisingly, she responded in the affirmative and respondent visited the premises the next day. After concluding that the leaks were caused by water seeping through the sides of the chimney, respondent sealed and repainted the chimney area the following day. On November 15, 1994, the Griggs again experienced "heavy leaks" in their home during a heavy rain storm. After unsucessfully attempting to contact respondent, Mary Griggs finally reached Vann, who eventually replaced some shingles on November 23, 1994. However, as of the time of hearing in late July 1995, the Griggs still had water leaks in their home every time it rained, some of which were "worse" than before any repairs were made. Photographs received in evidence, and deposition testimony by inspector Pann, confirm numerous water stains throughout the house. Inspector Pann established that the roof violated the County's building code in at least four respects. First, the roof was in violation of section 103.2.4 by having inadequate fastener lengths, that is, respondent's agent had used staples instead of large head galvanized nails as required by the code. Thus, the fasteners could not penetrate through the shingle and into the lumber deck. Second, section 103.2.3 was contravened because the rakes and eaves were not cemented. Third, section 100 was violated because the drip edge was applied over the felt topping, a procedure which also contravened the manufacturer's specifications. Finally, the roof workmanship violated sections 100 and 100.1 by having an improper staple installation. The manufacturer of the asphalt shingles used on the Griggs' roof, Georgia-Pacific, has published a brochure containing easily understood instructions on how to install asphalt shingles. Even so, Vann ignored these plain instructions in a number of respects when he installed the Griggs' roof. For this reason, it can be reasonably inferred that respondent, through his agent Vann, deliberately violated local building codes. To correct the code violations and eliminate the leaks, and to make the roof comparable to that which the Griggs contracted for, it will be necessary for the Griggs to replace the roof, which will cost $7,020.00. In addition, it will cost the Griggs $500.00 to seal and paint the ceiling areas discolored by the leaking water. Respondent says that when the roof was installed in 1991, he followed applicable building codes "as much as they were being followed" at the time. While he defended his roofing subcontractor as being "a very reputable roofer," respondent nonetheless took the position that the roof was Vann's responsibility "to make good," and not his. He does not deny that the Griggs' roof is leaking, but says the leaks are "very small" and suggests that the Griggs' claims are exaggerated. At hearing, respondent suggested that the problem could be resolved by Mary Griggs calling Vann, who would "be there within a day or two" to make the repairs, a claim belied by the record. In any event, respondent is unwilling to replace the entire roof, a measure deemed to be necessary by the County inspector and other contractors. In light of respondent's continued failure to take appropriate measures to fix the roof, it is found that respondent is guilty of misconduct in the practice of contracting. Through a late-filed affidavit, petitioner established that it incurred $3,012.18 in costs in prosecuting this action. This amount was not challenged. By law, the Board is entitled to recover this amount from respondent should it prevail in this proceeding.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order finding respondent guilty of violating Sections 489.129(1)(d) and (m), Florida Statutes (Supp. 1990), imposing an administrative fine of $2,250.00, requiring that he pay restitution in the amount of $7,520.00, and requiring that he pay $3,012.18 for costs incurred by the Board in investigating and prosecuting this action. The fine, restitution and costs shall be repaid by a date certain to be established by the Board. DONE AND ENTERED this 8th day of September, 1995, in Tallahassee, Florida. DONALD R. ALEXANDER Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 8th day of September, 1995. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 95-0541 Petitioner: The proposed findings submitted by petitioner have generally been adopted in substance in this Recommended Order. COPIES FURNISHED: Gary L. Asbell, Esquire Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Mr. John W. Hull 95495 Berkshire Avenue Inverness, Florida 34452-9005 Richard Hickok, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board 7960 Arlington Expressway, Suite 300 Jacksonville, Florida 32211-7467 Lynda L. Goodgame, Esquire Dept. of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue is whether Leon County Project ID No. LSP160001, conditionally approved on February 5, 2016, is consistent with the Leon County Land Development Code (Code) and the Tallahassee-Leon County 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Plan).
Findings Of Fact The Parties Floresta is a limited liability corporation that proposes to develop property located at 5044 Blountstown Highway (State Road 20), approximately one-half mile west of the intersection of Capital Circle Northwest and State Road 20. The Association is comprised of residents of the Wolf Creek Subdivision (Subdivision), and numbers around 200 residential town homes on State Road 20 just west of the proposed development. The parties agree that a substantial number of members of the Association would otherwise have standing to bring this action in their own right. J.P. Lepez lives in the Subdivision directly adjacent to, and west of, the development proposed by Floresta. Michael and Elizabeth Urban reside in Deer Tree Hills Condominium Community adjacent to, and west of, the Subdivision, and in close proximity to the proposed development. Carol Smith resides just south of Deer Tree Hills Condominium Community on the opposite side of Blountstown Highway, and in close proximity to the proposed development. The Approval Process On January 12, 2016, the County received a site and development plan application filed by Floresta regarding a proposed project called the Residential Condominiums on Blountstown Highway, a principal arterial roadway. The application consisted of an application; a permitted use verification; an applicant's affidavit of ownership and designation of agent; a school impact analysis form; an application for concurrency determination; a natural features inventory approval; a site plan narrative; a site and development plan; a concept utility plan; a concept water and sewer plan; and fire flow calculations. The applicant also submitted an environmental impact analysis application, consisting of the application, an environmental impact analysis narrative, a proposed conservation easement, a conservation easement management and maintenance plan, a stormwater analysis, and an environmental impact analysis plan. See Ex. 3a.-g., 4, 8a.-e., 9, 13, 14, and 16. The project is Phase I of a multi-phase development. Floresta proposes to develop around 4.09 acres of the total 33.52-acre parcel. As explained in more detail in the site plan narrative prepared by Floresta's consultant on January 13, 2016: The residential condominium project is limited to the front +/- 4 acres along Blountstown Highway and will include the entry drive with guest parking, a stormwater pond and 24 residential units. Each unit is a small footprint unit for low- income residents. It is anticipated that not all residents will rely upon a vehicle for transportation and therefore not all units will have driveways. Units will range in size, but will be less than 500 gsf [gross square feet], single story dwellings. The units will be placed within the identified area and located among the existing trees of the property to retain a wooded development. Future phases of construction may include community buildings and additional units based on market conditions. Ex. 3g. Because of the small size of the units -- gross square footage represents the overall footprint of the building -- they were referred to at times by members of the public as "tiny homes." Petitioners' PRO alleges that information obtained at a public meeting conducted by the County on January 27, 2016, revealed that the project will in all likelihood function as a homeless shelter. While no County or Floresta representative testified to confirm or deny this fact, testimony by public commenters suggest this may be true, and their testimony was not challenged by Respondents at hearing. The project is located on a parcel zoned R-3, Single- and Two-Family Residential. It is designated Urban Residential 2 on the Future Land Use Map of the Plan. The R-3 zoning and Urban Residential 2 Future Land Use category allow for a wide range of single-family dwelling units, including single-family detached dwellings, single-family attached dwellings, two-family dwellings, and zero-lot line single-family detached dwellings. See § 10-6.637, L.D.C.; Land Use Element Policy 2.2.24(L). The project consists of small condominium units as single-family detached dwellings. These are a permitted use in the R-3 zoning district and in the Urban Residential 2 Future Land Use category. Because the project is located on a parcel zoned R-3 and consists of 24 units, it qualifies for a Type "A" review under section 10-7.402 of the Code. Under Type A review, an applicant can select from two development review tracks. See § 10-7.402(5), L.D.C. The project was reviewed under the concept plan approval track. This review track option is intended to expedite the review process by reducing the requirement for permitting-level information while providing assurance that the development entitlements reflected on the concept plan can be realized on the subject site. See § 10-7.402(5)(a), L.D.C. An applicant is still required to complete the environmental permitting process for the project prior to construction. A point of entry is available to third parties to challenge any state, but not County, environmental permit required for the project. Under Type A review, an Application Review Committee (Committee), composed of City and County technical staff, reviews the site and development plan application for compliance with the applicable regulations. See § 10-7.403(e), L.D.C. The Committee then renders a recommendation to the County Administrator or designee recommending approval, approval with conditions, or denial of the application. Id. The County Administrator or designee renders a Written Preliminary Decision. Id. That decision becomes final unless an appeal is timely filed. See § 10-7.403(h), L.D.C. For this project, the County's Administrator's designee is the Director of the Department. On January 27, 2016, the County held a noticed Application Review Meeting, whereby the Committee convened to review the application for the project and receive public comment. Pursuant to section 10-7.403(g), notice of the public hearing was mailed at least seven calendar days prior to the meeting to all property owners within 600 feet of the proposed project. The notice euphemistically described the project as a 24-unit "Residential Condominium Project." Although Petitioners assert the notice was misleading, they attended the January 27 meeting, and they were given an opportunity to present witnesses, introduce evidence, and to otherwise participate in the instant case. No evidence of prejudice was shown. At the meeting, the Committee presented a staff report, which included memoranda from the Tallahassee-Leon County Planning Department, Leon County Environmental Services Department, City of Tallahassee Utilities Department, City of Tallahassee Fire Department, and Leon County Public Works Department. See Ex. 7. The staff report and each memorandum included comments regarding deficiencies in the application that the applicant must address in order for the project to be consistent with the Code and Plan. County and City staff determined, however, that the deficiencies were "minor" in nature and agreed to recommend approval of the site and development plan with the condition that the applicant must correct the deficiencies identified in the staff report. See § 10-7.403(f), L.D.C., which allows approval of a Type A application, with conditions. Because they considered the deficiencies to be minor, the staff took the position they did not require a substantial, or even moderate, alteration in the layout or geometry of the site plan. Some of the deficiencies are related to notes that are required to be added to the site plan simply for clarification purposes. On February 2, 2016, the County, through a Department Planner II, issued a Notice of Application Deficiency Letter (Notice). See Ex. 2. The Notice outlined many of the conditions raised in the staff report. The Notice did not impose any additional conditions. On February 5, 2016, the Director of the Department issued a Written Preliminary Decision, approving the project subject to the conditions outlined in the staff report presented at the meeting on January 27, 2016. See Ex. 1. The approval required the applicant to submit a revised site and development plan demonstrating compliance with all conditions within 90 days, or by May 6, 2016. It further cautioned that unless a timely extension was requested by the applicant, a failure to comply with that requirement by the May 6 deadline would render the approval expired. The revised site and development plan was not made a part of the record, and the staff's final compliance determination was not disclosed at hearing. Under the County's approval process, an administrative challenge to the staff's final determination is not available to third parties. On February 17, 2016, Petitioners timely filed a Notice of Intent to File a Petition for Formal Proceedings Before a Hearing Officer. See Ex. 17. On March 7, 2016, Petitioners timely filed their Petition for Formal Proceeding (Petition). Except for one ground voluntarily dismissed at hearing, the Petition alleged that the application was inconsistent with the Code and Plan for the same reasons cited in the staff report dated January 27, 2016, and reiterated in the Notice issued on February 2, 2016. Petitioners' Objections Petitioners' PRO asserts generally that any one of the conditions noted by the staff constitutes grounds for denial of the application. However, based upon the exhibits and testimony of members of the public, in their PRO, they focus on only four items regarding the project. Setbacks Petitioners first allege that the project is inconsistent with development standards for the R-3 zoning district. See § 10-6.637, L.D.C. Development standards for single-family detached dwellings in zoning district R-3 are found in the site data table of section 10-6.637 and require a minimum lot or site size of 5,000 square feet (or 0.11 acres); minimum lot widths of 50 feet; minimum lot depths of 100 feet; minimum front setbacks of 20 feet; minimum side-interior lot setbacks of 7.5 feet on each side; or any combination of setbacks that equals at least 15 feet, provided that no setback shall be less than five feet; minimum side-corner lot setbacks of 15 feet; minimum rear lot setbacks of 25 feet; and no building exceeding three stories in height. In assessing whether the applicant complied with these standards, the staff made the following comments on the project's compliance with setbacks and building height and size requirements: Finding #4: The project appears to meet the applicable building setbacks, height and size requirements; however, please annotate the height of the building (in feet) in the site data table alongside the minimal requirements. Please clarify that the setbacks provided in the site data table are the perimeter setbacks for the development. The applicant will need to also provide the proposed setback between structures to ensure compliance with the Florida Building Code requirements. Ex. 7, p. 000004. This comment became a condition of approval in the Department's Notice to ensure that Floresta was meeting those requirements. As a condition, Floresta was required, no later than May 6, 2016, to "clarify" that the setbacks in the site data table are the perimeter setbacks for the development and provide the proposed setback for each structure. Also, the County relies on note 14 of Sheet 6.0 of the plan, which indicates a front setback of 20 feet, a side interior setback of 15 feet, and a rear setback of 25 feet. See Ex. 4. These distances satisfy the Code requirements. Because the units are one-story in height, they do not exceed the three-story limitation. As an added condition, the County required Floresta to provide the setbacks between each structure. Petitioners contend that the County failed to fully apply the R-3 zoning district's building standards for single- family detached dwellings found in section 10-6.637. Specifically, they assert that the 24 units are listed on the site plan as having a total area of approximately 39,000 square feet, or 1,625 square feet per dwelling. They also contend that the lot geometry is not shown and therefore the site and development plan is not consistent with the minimum lot widths, depths, and setbacks required by the Code. Even if lot geometry were shown, they contend that the 39,000 square feet allotted is insufficient to provide for lots for 24 single-family detached dwellings that meet the minimum required lot width of 50 feet and lot depth of 100 feet. The project involves a condominium development with the creation of individual units on a single lot. See Ex. 3g., p. 4. Therefore, the County asserts that the minimum lot sizes found in section 10-6.637 are inapplicable. This is a reasonable interpretation of the Code. Also, due to a typographical error in the staff report, it initially appeared that rear setbacks were not provided. However, the rear setbacks are actually shown on Note 14 of Sheet 6.0 of the site plan. See Ex. 4. Subject to the above conditions, the project is consistent with the requirements of the Code. Parking Requirements Petitioners also contend that the project fails to comply with parking requirements, as the project will have 24 units, but only 18 regular parking spaces and two handicapped parking spaces are proposed. Section 10-7.545 requires that developments in the R-3 zoning district have between 85 percent and 100 percent of the parking standard in schedule 6-2 of the section. Because the schedule requires that conventional detached homes have 1.5 parking spaces per unit, Petitioners assert that 30.6 parking spaces are required. The applicant does not anticipate that all residents will have automobiles. Because the project will serve low- income residents, this is a logical assumption. The applicant also proposes grass parking to be located closer to each unit. Section 10-7.545(a) allows a deviation from the range of required parking established in Schedule 6-2 upon approval or an approval with conditions from the Parking Standards Committee (Committee). See Ex. 1, p. 000007. That Committee is comprised of the Planning Director, the Department Director, and the Public Works Director, or their designees. As a condition, the applicant will be required to secure approval from the Committee before final approval for the project is given. Id. Subject to Floresta's compliance with this condition, which cannot be administratively challenged by Petitioners, the site plan is consistent with the Code. Transportation Infrastructure Petitioners contend that there is a lack of adequate transportation infrastructure in the area. They also point out that there are no sidewalks on State Road 20, and there is no bus stop adjacent to the project. Therefore, residents or guests in the project will have to walk east along State Road 20 in order to find a bus stop. As a condition of approval, the County required the applicant to extend a stub out from the parking lot to the property line for future interconnection. See Ex. 1, p. 0000010. Mobility Element 1.4.1 requires vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle interconnection between adjacent, compatible development. The applicant's site plan includes sidewalks within and connecting to the facilities along State Road 20. See Ex. 4; Ex. 1, p. 0000010. Also, a Preliminary Certificate of Concurrency was issued for the project, and a final certificate will be issued upon final site plan approval. See Ex. 1, p. 000005. Subject to compliance with these conditions, the site plan is consistent with the Code. Compatibility For obvious reasons, Petitioners' greatest concern is the intrusion of former homeless persons into the units immediately adjacent to their properties. (By definition, once a person resides in a home, he/she is no longer homeless.) On this issue, they assert that the project is inconsistent with section 10-7.505, which requires that each development shall be designed to be as compatible as practical with nearby development. Petitioners argue that the tiny house community being proposed is not compatible with the "typical" single- family homes found around the project site. The parcel on the west side of the project is also zoned R-3. The parcels on the east side of the project are zoned OA-1 (Airport Vicinity District) and CP (Commercial Parkway District). The OA-1 district does not permit residential uses due to the noise levels from aircraft exceeding the thresholds identified by the Federal Aviation Administration and the State as being compatible with certain land use types. See § 10-6.645, L.D.C. The CP district permits general commercial and community facilities. See § 10-6.649, L.D.C. The project proposes a Type "D" 50-foot buffer on both the eastern and western borders of the property. A Type "D" buffer is the most restrictive buffer provided in the Code. See § 10-7.522, L.D.C. Respondents agree that the project is "small footprint housing for low-income residents." However, there is no prohibition in the Code that restricts low-income housing from occurring in any residential zoning district. Also, the Plan and Code do not regulate the size of dwelling units, outside of minimum housing standards found in the Florida Building Code. While Petitioners' objections are genuine and well-intentioned, there is nothing in the existing Code or Plan that prevents the introduction of extremely small low-income housing units into a residential district, assuming all other requirements are met. The project is compatible with the surrounding area. Public Comments Six members of the public presented comments at the hearing. The public commenters either live in or own typical single-family homes adjacent to or near the project, or operate a commercial business near the project. The undersigned has rejected the County's assertion in its PRO that the comments should be disregarded because a transcript was not prepared. One commenter, who owns a business on State Road 20 less than a quarter mile from the project, is concerned that State Road 20 is inadequate to handle more traffic. He also is concerned with the tiny house development feature of the project and noted that one-half of the project is located within the flood zone. Another commenter who resides in the Subdivision with her disabled daughter expressed concern that low-income housing units occupied by homeless persons sent from the Kearney Center, a nearby homeless shelter, will result in a substantial loss in value to her property and increase safety issues for her daughter who remains home alone during the day while she is at work. Like other commenters, she complained that State Road 20 is already overburdened with traffic without adding another development to the area. A third commenter is also concerned with the level of traffic on State Road 20. During morning rush hours, he cannot turn left onto State Road 20 to go into town and fears the project will cause a further deterioration of traffic conditions. A fourth commenter, who lives in another county, has owned a condominium in the Subdivision since 2007, first used by her daughter while going to college, and now rented. She complained that the notice of the public meeting was misleading as it indicated a condominium project would be built on the parcel, and not tiny homes for former homeless persons. She is concerned that the current level of traffic on State Road 20 will be exacerbated, and that the value of her condominium will be negatively impacted. A fifth commenter who resides in the Subdivision complained that the notice of the public meeting was misleading and vague, and led her to believe that a traditional or multi- story condominium project would be constructed on the parcel, rather than a cluster of tiny homes. She also expressed concerns that a large, low-income population in the neighborhood will raise safety issues for existing residents. The final commenter resides near the project and owns a bail bond business on West Pensacola Street, a mile or so east of the project site and near the Kearney Center. Based upon her experience operating a bail bond business near the Kearney Center, she testified that the number of arrests in that area of town has "skyrocketed" since the shelter opened. She added that there has been an adverse impact on businesses located near the Kearney Center because its residents simply hang out in the area during the day. She fears that an influx of former homeless persons into the tiny homes will lead to a similar increase in the crime rate around the project site. The commenter also serves as a part-time volunteer at the Kearney Center several days a week and noted that no background checks, identification checks, or drug checks are performed on persons entering the shelter. She is concerned that no checks will be performed on the persons who will occupy the tiny homes. She added that many of the shelter residents are drug addicts and do not want to work. If they move into the tiny homes, she believes they will simply hang around the project site and create safety issues for residents in the neighboring properties. She intends to sell her home if the project is approved.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Leon County Board of County Commissioners enter a final order approving the project, subject to confirming that the applicant's revised site plan satisfies all conditions imposed by the County on February 5, 2016. DONE AND ENTERED this 25th day of May, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of May, 2016. COPIES FURNISHED: Herbert W.A. Thiele, County Attorney Leon County Attorney's Office 301 South Monroe Street, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1861 Vincent S. Long, County Administrator Board of County Commissioners 301 South Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1861 Timothy J. Perry, Esquire Oertel, Fernandez, Bryant & Atkinson, P.A. Post Office Box 1110 Tallahassee, Florida 32302-1110 (eServed) Patrick T. Kinni, Esquire Leon County Attorney's Office 301 South Monroe Street, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1861 (eServed) Jessica M. Icerman, Esquire Leon County Attorney's Office 301 South Monroe Street, Room 202 Tallahassee, Florida 32301-1861 (eServed) Claude Ridley Walker, Esquire 2073 Summit Lake Drive, Suite 155 Tallahassee, Florida 32317-7949 (eServed) Shanon Ofuiani 2022 Nena Hills Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304-3788 Joe Smith 1700 Smitty's Way Tallahassee, Florida 32304-9023 Yolanda Robies 1897 Nena Hills Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32304-3785 Jack Neece 4792 Blountstown Highway Tallahassee, Florida 32304-9005 Dori Cordle 34 Cordle Road DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433-5845 Teresa Ramsook Post Office Box 5352 Tallahassee, Florida 32314-5352
The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violations alleged in the Administrative Complaint and if so what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is the state agency charged with the responsibility of regulating building code administrators and inspectors. At all times material to the allegations of this case, the Respondent was a licensed standard building inspector, license number BN 0001750. At all times material to this case, the Respondent was employed by the Martin County Building Department as a Building Inspector. Harriet R. Edwards owns a residence located at 2595 Hickory Avenue, Jensen Beach, Florida. This home is located in Martin County, Florida. At some point in early 1996, it became Ms. Edwards' desire to construct an addition to the residence. She retained a contractor to perform the work and returned to her second home in Ohio during the time of the construction. When Ms. Edwards returned to Florida in December of 1996, she was dissatisfied with the quality of the construction work performed on her home. Mr. Joyce, Ms. Edwards' friend, stated that they had expressed a desire for, and had requested, a high quality of work for the addition to Ms. Edwards' home. Upon investigation it was discovered that the permit card located at the construction site had been initialed by an unlicensed building inspector, James L. Brown. This led the homeowner to suspect that the work performed did not meet inspection code standards. Building code inspections are to verify that the work performed by contractors meets certain minimum standards set forth in adopted building code regulations. By implication the highest quality of construction performance would generally exceed code requirements. One inspection item in particular concerned Ms. Edwards' friend, Mr. Joyce. This homeowner believed the new addition did not have a proper footer. All of the inspections listed on the permit card for this project occurred prior to December 17, 1996. The footer/slab inspection was performed on October 4, 1996. The Respondent asserts that at the time he performed the footer/slab inspection, the structures were in place to assure that the poured foundation would meet minimum code requirements. The Respondent does not dispute that Mr. Brown, an unlicensed inspector in training, initialed the permit card and transmitted by radio the inspection results. Mr. Brown was assigned to work with the Respondent during his training period prior to receiving licensure from the state. Mr. Brown ultimately received his provisional license on or about December 17, 1996. The Respondent asserts that a final inspection was not performed on Ms. Edwards' home. Consequently, no final verification was completed to assure the home addition was constructed in accordance with the plans and the forms on the ground for the footer/slab foundation. In this case there is no allegation that the construction plans for the addition for the Edwards' home failed to meet minimum code requirements. Presumably the footer/slab foundation as reflected on the plans would have specified at least a minimum compliance with code mandates. The footer/slab inspection was performed with the forms and reinforcements in place according to the approved plans. The Respondent maintains that the forms and reinforcements met minimum code requirements and that if such forms were altered after inspection he would not have known. Typically, once the footer/slab foundation forms and reinforcements are approved by an inspector the contractor calls for the delivery of concrete to be poured into the foundation forms. The date the concrete was poured for the subject footer/slab is unknown. Whether there was a delay between the footer/slab inspection date and the construction date is unknown. In any event when Ms. Edwards and Mr. Joyce returned from Ohio to view the addition the foundation did not appear adequate. Efforts were then pursued to attempt to ascertain whether the footer/slab did meet code. In this case the record is inconclusive as to whether the footer/slab foundation as constructed at Ms. Edwards' addition meets minimum code requirements. The pictures in evidence do not clearly establish the depth of the slab. Some of the photographs suggest that the minimum depth was achieved. A visual inspection performed at the site did not verify the depth nor compare the interior finished grade with the exterior measurements. The final grading of the exterior of the home around the addition was never completed. As a result the photographs may have a distorted view of the foundation and portions should have been back-filled along the edge of the slab. In any event, no definitive measurements have been offered into evidence.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation, Building Code Administrators and Inspectors enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of October, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. J. D. Parrish Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of October, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Dorota Trzeciecka, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Bobby T. Chambers 3520 Northeast Linda Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Barbara D. Auger, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent, who is licensed as a Plans Examiner, a Building Inspector, and a Building Code Administrator, committed the offenses alleged in the three-count Administrative Complaint and, if so, the penalties if any that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is the agency of the State of Florida with the responsibility to regulate Building Code Administrators and Inspectors pursuant to Section 20.165, Chapter 455, and Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. At all times relevant to this proceeding, Respondent held licenses as a Standard Plans Examiner in Building and Mechanical; a Standard Inspector in Building and Mechanical; and a Building Code Administrator. Section 468.603(1), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: Building code administrator" or "building official" means any of those employees of municipal or county governments with building construction regulation responsibilities who are charged with the responsibility for direct regulatory administration or supervision of plan review, enforcement, or inspection of building construction, erection, repair, addition, remodeling, demolition, or alteration projects that require permitting indicating compliance with building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other construction codes as required by state law or municipal or county ordinance. This term is synonymous with "building official" as used in the administrative chapter of the Standard Building Code and the South Florida Building Code. . . . Section 468.603(2), Florida Statutes, provides the following definition relevant to this proceeding: (2) "Building code inspector" means any of those employees of local governments or state agencies with building construction regulation responsibilities who themselves conduct inspections of building construction, erection, repair, addition, or alteration projects that require permitting indicating compliance with building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other construction codes as required by state law or municipal or county ordinance. Section 468.603(6), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Categories of building code inspectors" include the following: "Building inspector" means a person who is qualified to inspect and determine that buildings and structures are constructed in accordance with the provisions of the governing building codes and state accessibility laws. * * * (e) "Mechanical inspector" means a person who is qualified to inspect and determine that the mechanical installations and systems for buildings and structures are in compliance with the provisions of the governing mechanical code. Section 468.603(7), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Plans examiner" means a person who is qualified to determine that plans submitted for purposes of obtaining building and other permits comply with the applicable building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, gas, fire prevention, energy, accessibility, and other applicable construction codes. Categories of plans examiners include: (a) Building plans examiner. * * * (c) Mechanical plans examiner. Section 468.603(7), Florida Statutes, provides the following definitions relevant to this proceeding: "Building code enforcement official" or "enforcement official" means a licensed building code administrator, building code inspector, or plans examiner. Ramon Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., was not licensed as a construction contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. Mr. Melendez was not individually licensed as a construction contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., was not qualified as a construction business by any certified or registered contractor in Florida at any time relevant to this proceeding. On or about March 20, 1998, Mr. Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., contracted with Pedro Camacho to re-roof the residence located at 3961 N.W. 170th Street, Miami, Florida, for the sum of $3,000. Mr. Camacho paid Mr. Melendez the agreed sum in cash based on the contract dated March 20, 1998. On or about June 3, 1998, Mr. Melendez, doing business as R.E.M. Roofing, Inc., contracted with Santos Valentin to re- roof the residence located at 4412 N.W. 185th Street, Opa Locka, Florida, for the sum of $2,800. Mr. Valentin paid R.E.M. Roofing, Inc. the sum of $1,400 on June 8, 1998. Mr. Valentin paid Mr. Melendez the additional sum of $800 on June 10, 1998. Both payments, which were by check, were for the roofing work described in the contract dated June 3, 1998. On April 6, 1998, Respondent applied for and obtained a permit for the Camacho roofing work. This permit application was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning Development and Regulation. Respondent signed the permit application as “the contractor” and inserted his contractor license number and social security number on the application. The application submitted by Respondent on April 6, 1998, was a fraudulent sham. At no time was Respondent the contractor for the Camacho roofing work. Respondent’s action in obtaining the building permit aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting. On June 8, 1998, Respondent applied for and obtained a permit for the Valentin roofing work. This permit application was submitted to the Metropolitan Dade County Department of Planning Development and Regulation. Respondent signed the permit application as “the contractor” and inserted his contractor license number and social security number on the application. The application submitted by Respondent on June 8, 1998, was a fraudulent sham. At no time was Respondent the contractor for the Valentin roofing work. Respondent’s action in obtaining the building permit aided and abetted an unlicensed contractor to engage in contracting. Miami-Dade County Compliance Investigator Daniel Vuelta filed criminal charges against Respondent in two separate criminal cases. One case was for his involvement in the Camacho roofing project and the other was for his involvement in the Valentin roofing projects. These cases were brought in Miami- Dade County Court and assigned case numbers M99-57926 and M99- 57931. In each case, Respondent was charged with one count of Unlawful Application for Building Permit and one count of Aiding and Abetting an Unlicensed Contractor. All charges were first- degree misdemeanors. On February 22, 2001, Respondent entered into a plea agreement to resolve those criminal charges. Respondent entered a plea of guilty to each of the two counts in Case M99-57931, and he was subsequently adjudicated guilty of each count. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to nolle pross Case M99-57926. The crimes to which Respondent entered a guilty plea involved fraudulent building permits and, consequently, were directly related to building code enforcement. Petitioner’s investigative costs for this case, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, were $427.29.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent guilty of the offenses alleged in Counts I, II, and III. It is further RECOMMENDED that the final order revoke Respondent’s licensure and impose an administrative fine against him in the amount of $3,000. It is further RECOMMENDED that Petitioner order Respondent to pay its investigative costs, excluding costs associated with any attorney’s time, in the amount of $427.29. DONE AND ENTERED this 7th day of April, 2005, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CLAUDE B. ARRINGTON 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 7th day of April, 2005.
