Findings Of Fact Daniel Fowler, a general contractor licensed in Florida (T. 289), qualified Raben-Pastal, A Joint Venture, under license No. CG CA15439 on August 15, 1980, and renewed the license for the period 1981 to 1983. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 1. At all pertinent times, he was employed as a construction superintendent for Raben-Pastal, at a residential development in the City of Coconut Creek known as The Hammocks at Coconut Creek, Phase II (The Hammocks), and answered to Paul Pariser, president both of Raben Builders and of Pastal Construction, Inc., and himself a general contractor licensed in Florida. Before construction began, Raben-Pastal secured a building permit for a two- story building (No. 280-81), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 2, on February 19, 1981, and for a four-story building (No. 344-81), Petitioner's Exhibit No. 3, on March 4, 1981. Respondent personally signed the applications, listing certificate of competency No. CG CA15439 on each. PLANS CHANGE After work had begun, Raben-Pastal decided on a change of floor plan for the two-story building. Their architect, Donald Bryan, approached James Cowley, Director of Planning and Zoning, and building official for the City of Coconut Creek. Mr. Bryan offered the building official an amended floor plan, but, after discussing it, the two men agreed that new elevations were involved as well as plumbing location changes, which should be reflected on additional drawings. Thereafter, Mr. Bryan "went back and submitted an entirely new set of working drawings and all of the architectural sheets to reflect" (T. 246) the changes. Eight or nine of the twelve pages in the amended application differed from the original application. The only structural change was in the balcony areas. (T. 238.) At the time the change of plans application was submitted on February 27, 1981, Petitioner's Exhibit No. 4, work on the two-story building had progressed through completion of the foundation. STOP WORK ORDER ENTERED On March 2, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote and had delivered by hand a letter to "Daniel Fowler, Raben/Pastal" in which he stated: Please be advised that until such time that the Revised Plans have been reviewed and approved, permit #280-81 is suspended and that the previously approved plans are to be considered disapproved. All work on the building shall cease immediately. A notice to this effect will be attached to the permit board as of this date. While in all probability a new permit fee will not be necessary the standard plan examination fee shall be required prior to the resumption of work. For your reference, the following are the applicable South Florida Building Code 1/ Sections, 302.1(E), 302.4(H), 303.4 and 304.4 (A)(B). Petitioner's Exhibit No. 5. The following day, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley, as follows: In response to your letter of March 2nd, it is our opinion that stopping work on the building under code numbers 301.3, 302.3, 303.4 and 304.4 is invalid. We have contacted both our architect and structural engineer and confirmed that the 2 story revised plans have no revisions to the super structure. Since for the next 3 weeks we are doing nothing but super structure work, and certainly within that time frame, you will have had enough time to process the revised plans, we will continue to build the building as per permit #280-81 with our independent inspector making inspections per the South Florida Building Code requirements. . . Respondent's Exhibit No. 16. Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley a second letter on March 3, 1981, to the same general effect enclosing a letter signed by the building's architect and an engineer, which "represent[ed] that there are no structural changes outside of a minor slab configuration." Respondent's Exhibit No. 17. On March 4, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser, with a copy to Mr. Fowler, as follows: I am in receipt of your letter of March 3, 1981, wherein you stated the stop work order issued pursuant to my letter of March 2, 1981 was invalid. My position, of course, is that my action was not only valid, but in fact mandated by code. After meeting with your architect, Mr. Bryan, I propose the following solution. The stop work order will remain in effect for Construction only, i.e. steel re-inforcement, concrete, etc. could not be placed. Site work could continue i.e. soil preparation, filling, compacting, placing of batter boards, excavation for footings and forming. If the above meets with your approval, please acknowledge. Respondent's Exhibit No. 15. To this, Mr. Pariser responded the following day with this letter: In response to your letter of March 4th, the construction that we are proceeding with is just the very 1st floor lift of columns. That lift of columns is the same as shown on the plans for permit #280-81. There is no reason why you could not look at the set of plans you now have in your office for permit #280-81 and make a determination on the number of bars, sizing and location of same. I believe there is a total of 23 columns. Independent of this, you have already received a letter from our architect and an independent engineer stating that these columns will remain the same and you will have an independent engineer's inspection signed off on the permit card. My sincere appreciation for your understanding and return of this letter with your signature below acknowledging acceptance. If however, there is any further harassment in this matter, we will have no alternative but to invoke Chapter 71-575 Section 4 a of the South Florida Building Code, which states in part. . ."if any elected or appointed officials prohibit by any means, directly or indirectly, the use of any materials, types of construction and methods of design authorized by the code or alternate materials, types of construction and methods of design approved by the provisions of the Code, then the elected or appointed official may be removed from office for nonfeasance, misfeasance or malfeasance in office". . .Respondent's Exhibit No. 19. On March 10, 1981, the amended plans were approved. After still further correspondence, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser, with a copy to Mr. Fowler, advising that "receipt of the required $200.00 Plan Exam Fee. . .re[s]cinded the suspension of Permit #280-81," Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8, effective April 7, 1981. STOP WORK ORDER VIOLATED By the time the stop work order was rescinded, the two-story building's superstructure was finished. No work accomplished before April 7, 1981, differed from that called for in the original plans. Through respondent and others, Raben-Pastal placed steel-reinforced concrete and performed other work in violation of the stop work order, without testing the validity of the order before the Board of Rules and Appeals or by initiating mandamus or other judicial proceedings. Respondent directed and participated in this work deliberately and with awareness that a stop work order was outstanding. At no time between March 2, 1981, and April 7, 1981, was anybody aware of the design defects that later came to light. STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS In late April of 1981, Coconut Creek's Mr. Cowley learned of cracking in concrete slabs around columns in both the two-story and the four-story buildings. By this time, roof slabs on both buildings had been poured, but neither ground slab had been finished. On the city's behalf, Mr. Cowley engaged D. E. Britt & Associates, consulting engineers, to examine the buildings. After Duncan Britt telephoned to say the buildings should be shored, Mr. Cowley orally advised respondent Fowler that shoring was necessary, on May 6 or 7, 1981. SHORING ORDERED On May 7, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote and caused to be delivered by hand to Paul Pariser a letter in which he stated: I have just received instructions from Mr. Britt of D. E. Britt and Associates to the effect that a minimum of four shores must be placed around ALL columns in the above referenced buildings. Said shores shall be placed immediately and remain in place until such time that the structural adequacy evaluation has been completed. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 10. A copy of this letter reached Mr. Fowler on May 8, 1981. On May 11, 1981, Mr. Pariser replied: I am in receipt of your letter of May 7, 1981, please be advised that even though Raben-Pastal is respecting your wishes as to the reshoring, we would like to know specifically by what basis in South Florida building code you are requesting same. Also, what is the time frame which we can expect to have this lifted? Respondent's Exhibit No. 6. In a separate letter dated May 11, 1981, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley: I take exception to the fact that you have predetermined that there are structural deficiencies. According to Mr. Bromley, our structural engineer, both buildings, as they stand now, are structurally sound. We, at Raben-Pastal, will stop work on anything that is related to column and plate slabs until the Britt analysis has been submitted. Respondent's Exhibit No. 8. Also on May 11, 1982, in response to a mailgram from respondent Fowler, Mr. Cowley wrote respondent to the effect that his order requiring shores around columns should not be construed as a stop work order. Respondent's Exhibit No. 7. A mailgram confirmation stamped received May 12, 1981, states, over respondent's name: Per your instructions requiring 4 post shores to be placed around our columns on building C-46 and C-47, Raben-Pastal will immediately commence this remedial work. Respondent's Exhibit No. 5. During this period, the engineers advising Raben-Pastal continued to believe that both buildings were sound and this was communicated to Messrs. Fowler and Pariser. FIRST-STORY CEILING SLAB ESSENTIALLY UNSHORED Mr. Cowley, Duncan Britt, Ron Thomas, and Henry A. Luten, Britt's chief engineer, among others, visited the site of the four-story building on May 14, 1981. The building was 240-feet long and had more than 30 columns; the slab on grade had still not been poured. The upper floors had been shored, possibly in the process of flying the forms, but there were no more than two or three shores in place underneath the lowest slab then poured, i.e., the first-story ceiling. If done properly, shoring would have begun at ground level with shores placed on the concrete pads around the columns; work would have progressed upward floor by floor; and no more than two or three shores a day, on average, would have been dislodged by the contraction and expansion of concrete in response to temperature changes. Shoring upper floors without shoring the bottom floor may have enhanced rather than diminished the risk that the building would fall. On May 15, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote respondent Fowler, as follows: Yesterday, May 14, Mr. Britt, Mr. Ludin [sic], Mr. Thomas and I made an inspection of the above referenced buildings. We were appal[l]ed to find that our reshoring instructions had not been carried out on the ground floor of the four story building, permit number 344-81. Considering that a potentially hazardous situation exists, you leave me no choice but to issue the following order. YOU SHALL IMMEDIATELY SHORE THE GROUND AND SECOND FLOOR COLUMNS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: TWO (2) SHORES ON EACH SIDE AND ONE (1) ON EACH END. ALL SHORES ARE TO BE WEDGED TIGHTLY IN PLACE. GROUND FLOOR SHORES ARE TO BARE [sic] ON FOUNDATION. Failure to comply will result in a Stop Work Order which will remain in effect until such time the engineer of record, Mr. Arthur Bromley, determines what measures are required to correct the existing structural deficiencies. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 11. To this letter Mr. Fowler replied, also on May 15, 1981: Please be advised pursuant to your letter of today, that to the best of my knowledge we proceeded to a completed state, the shoring on both C-46 [the four-story building] and C-47 [the two-story building] per your request on May 7th. It may appear, without further investigation, that for whatever reason some of the shor[e]s may have come loose, however in your letter of May 7th, not received until May 8th, you asked for all columns in both the 2 story and 4 story buildings, with no mention of the bearing on the foundation. As you well know, your letter was untimely since we had poured our slab on C-47 on the 7th of May and have shored from the slab on grade, on certified compacted sub soil to the 1st raised slab. However in this new letter you are only asking for 2 floors of the 4 story building. Am I to understand that that is the total requirement? On May 7th your letter, specific in nature, required only 4 shor[e]s and this new letter requires 6 shor[e]s. Which is it? Respondent's Exhibit No. 10. The last hour of the working day on May 15, 1981, Mr. Fowler ordered all his men to spend shoring the four-story building. Just how much additional time was devoted to shoring was not clear from the evidence. On May 16, 1981, respondent Fowler wrote Mr. Cowley that "we have already expended. . .64 man hours in reshoring these buildings per your specifications." Respondent's Exhibit No. 11. At the final hearing, however, Mr. Fowler testified that, on May 7, 1981, "five men working on the two buildings [did] nothing but shoring. . .four of those men eight hours and one of those men for four hours," (T. 304-305) (May 7: 36 hours); on May 8, 1981, "seven men working on the shoring on the two buildings for a period of time varying between six and eight hours per man," (T. 305) (May 8: 42 to 56 hours); on May 9, 1981, "five men for half a day. . .[did] nothing but shoring on the two buildings," (T. 305) (May 9: 20 hours); on May 11, 1981, "five men working on shoring for a period varying between five hours and eight hours on the two buildings," (T. 306) (May 11: 25 to 40 hours); on May 12, 1981, "six men working on the shoring. . .one man at four hours and one man at five hours and four men at eight hours," (T. 306) (May 12: 41 hours); on May 13, 1981, "five men working on shoring. . .two for four hours and three for eight hours," (T. 306) (May 13: 32 hours); and, on May 15, 1981, seven men each working one hour (May 15: 7 hours). In short, respondent testified at hearing that 203 hours, at a minimum, were spent shoring both buildings from May 7, 1981, through May 15, 1981. This testimony has not been credited because of the witness's interest, because it exceeds by a factor of three the contemporaneous estimate or claim in Respondent's Exhibit No. 11, and because it does not square with the time sheets, Respondent's Exhibit No. 26, or with the progress reports, Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 27 and 28, on which Mr. Fowler purported to base his testimony. Mr. Goode was one of the workmen who eventually placed shores in the four-story building, working from the ground up. Read most favorably to respondent, Mr. Goode's testimony was that two men could shore one floor of the four-story building in seven hours. This, too, supports the view that Mr. Fowler's testimony about shoring was grossly exaggerated. The record is clear, however, that work of some kind, including work that was not shoring nor incident to the load test nor remedial took place on and under the four-story building between May 7, 1981, and May 15, 1981, thereafter. See Respondent's Exhibit Nos. 26-28; Testimony of Goode, Williams, Fowler. LOAD TEST As late as May 16, 1981, Mr. Pariser wrote Mr. Cowley that "Bromley's letter. . .coupled with the inspection reports list. . .should, beyond a doubt, put your mind, and anyone else's mind, at ease that the buildings. . .are structurally sound." Respondent's Exhibit No. 13. About a week later, a load test was begun by a testing laboratory using criteria agreed on by Henry A. Luten for the City and by Arthur H. Bromley for Raben-Pastal. In order to perform the load test, the shoring under two bays was removed and scaffolding was erected in its place. Afterward, the scaffolding was removed and shores were reinstalled. LAWYERS' MISUNDERSTANDING Construction at The Hammocks had received increasingly strident publicity, depressing sales of prospective condominium apartments. Raben-Pastal was concerned that premature disclosure of the results of the load test might aggravate the situation. John R. Young, Esquire, raised the matter with Paul Stuart, Coconut Creek's city attorney. Mr. Young proposed that the city be represented at the test by its consulting engineers but that no city employee observe the test, against the possibility that a Sunshine Law disclosure requirement would result in dissemination of a public employee's notes or report on the load test, before those conducting the test had been afforded time to evaluate the significance of things like cracks. Mr. Stuart agreed to communicate this proposal to Mr. Cowley and did in fact do so. Mr. Stuart left town, and Mr. Young eventually assumed that his proposal had been accepted. That it had been accepted, he told Mr. Pariser in Mr. Fowler's hearing as fact. Messrs. Pariser and Fowler were surprised to learn then, on the day of the load test, that Ron Thomas, chief building inspector of Coconut Creek, had accompanied Benjamin Eigner, an employee of D. E. Britt & Associates, to the site. Raben-Pastal employees confronted Mr. Thomas, at the edge of the property, and Lee Smith radioed Mr. Pariser's office. Mr. Fowler went to the scene of the controversy and Mr. Pariser telephoned the police. After the police arrived and while Mr. Fowler was talking to a policeman, Mr. Thomas started in the direction of the load test being performed on the second floor of the four-story building; Mr. Fowler ran toward the building and physically interposed himself, blocking Thomas's way. At this juncture, Mr. Fowler was arrested. He was eventually acquitted of criminal charges arising out of this episode. BUILDER'S ENGINEER STOPS TEST Mr. Bromley, who was also on site for the load test, recommended to Raben-Pastal that it be stopped before completion, because "the deflection was at a point that if there was anything further, it would cause permanent structural damage." (T. 234.) Most of the engineers involved later came to agree that there was insufficient post-tension cable in the slabs and that there was a "punching shear problem," a 122-percent "over-stress in the punching shear area." (T. 238.) Punching shear occurs when the "concrete that adheres around the column leaves the rest of the floor area or the floor area separates from the concrete that adheres to the column," (T. 235) with the collapse of the building a possible result. Raben-Pastal's own engineer testified at the hearing that, "It was a dangerous situation, yes." (T. 235.) (Widening the columns eventually remedied the problem.) SECOND STOP WORK ORDER ENTERED On May 28, 1981, Mr. Cowley wrote Mr. Pariser that he had visited the site on Sunday, May 25, 1981, found it deserted and "observed that the load test had very prudently been stopped slightly past the half way point." Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. The letter continued: With this knowledge, I have no choice but to place you on notice that the above referenced buildings are unsafe and constructed in a dangerous manner. Pursuant to section 201.9 of the South Florida Building Code and more specifically the fact that over-stressing and a danger of collapse was emminent [sic] if loading were continued. During a meeting held on May 27, 1981, with Mr. Britt, Mr. Luten, Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Bromley, Mr. Adams and myself in attendance, Mr. Bromley concluded that all work on the above referenced be stopped, with the exception of remedial repairs and additional testing if necessary until further notice. I am in complete accord and do so order. Petitioner's Exhibit No. 12. By the time Mr. Pariser received this letter, he had already ordered all work stopped on or under both buildings, except for shoring, testing, or remedial work. Neither he nor respondent ever authorized any work in violation of the stop work order of May 28, 1981. On June 1, 1981, the day after respondent returned from vacation, Mr. Thomas visited the site and observed and photographed a workman standing on the ground underneath the four-story building, even though respondent had personally ordered everybody to stay out except for replacing shores as necessary. On or before May 29, 1981, the scaffolding installed for the load test had been removed and most, but not all, of the shores had been replaced. Some rested, however, not on the concrete pads around the columns but on scrap lumber and pieces of plywood. Also on June 1, 1981, at least one workman went underneath the four-story building to fetch a piece of PVC pipe.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner suspend respondent's license for six months. DONE AND ENTERED this 3rd day of September, 1982, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 3rd day of September, 1982.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondent is guilty of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him, and, if so, what disciplinary action should be taken against him, if any.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been certified by Petitioner as a building code administrator in the State of Florida. On April 5, 1993, Respondent began his employment with Metropolitan Dade County, Florida, as the permit control division chief in the County's Department of Building & Zoning, now known as the Department of Planning, Development and Regulation. Carlos Bonzon was the head of the County's Department of Building & Zoning and also served as the County's Building Official. The Port of Miami is another department within Metropolitan Dade County. At all times material hereto, Carmen Lunetta was the head of that department. The County desired to expand Terminals 8 and 9 at the Port of Miami to accommodate a Carnival Cruise Lines mega-cruise ship, anticipated to arrive in March 1996. The County was concerned that if it could not offer the taller terminal required for such a large ship, the ship would utilize Port Everglades instead of the Port of Miami. For purposes of construction, Terminals 8 and 9 were "threshold" buildings. A threshold building is one which is of such magnitude or complexity that the construction requires continuous inspections. Those continuous inspections are performed by the on-site "threshold inspector," the engineer of record, who keeps a log of the on-going inspections. The expertise required of a threshold inspector is beyond that of most County field inspectors. When a threshold inspector is involved, the County's inspectors check to make sure the log is being kept up-to-date and on-site. On January 27, 1995, a pre-submittal meeting was attended by representatives of Dade County, of the architect, and of the engineer. Respondent was one of the attendees. The meeting was chaired by Jose Cueto, the "special assistant" to Bonzon. Saul Suarez, the project architect, explained the project, and Cueto advised the attendees that the construction needed to begin even without the County's approval of building plans and the issuance of a permit and that County inspectors would perform "courtesy inspections" to make sure the work was being performed according to the architectural plans. Further, the inspectors were not to stop the construction work although there were no approved plans and no permit. While the South Florida Building Code does not provide for courtesy inspections, it was understood that the courtesy inspections referred to by Cueto were the same as "field visits." In a field visit a County inspector will travel to the job site, observe the construction, and meet with the contractor, engineer, or architect to discuss any concerns they may have. A field visit is not an official inspection required by the South Florida Building Code. Construction work began on Phase I, the foundation for Terminals 8 and 9. By letter dated February 10, 1995, Port Director Lunetta wrote to Building & Zoning Department Director Bonzon, confirming Lunetta's understanding that Bonzon's Department had issued a "conditional permit" for the project, allowing the construction to proceed during the review of construction documents "for the work being performed at this time." By letter dated June 29, 1995, Port Director Lunetta again wrote to Director Bonzon, confirming Lunetta's understanding that Bonzon's Department had issued a "conditional permit" for Phase II of the project, allowing construction to proceed during the review of construction documents "for the work being performed at this time." There is no such permit as a conditional permit under the South Florida Building Code. In July 1995 Cueto conducted a meeting regarding Phase II, the superstructure, which was attended by Respondent and other Building & Zoning Department representatives, the architect, and Port of Miami representatives. Cueto acquainted the attendees with Phase II of the construction and advised that the work would exceed the drawings and approved plans. Cueto outlined the procedures which were set up by Director Bonzon and specified that, in addition to the threshold engineer's inspection, County inspections were to be performed only by the Chief Inspector in each of the trades since the chief inspectors would have the most experience. Cueto also advised that he personally would be in charge of coordinating inspections and plans review as a result of the procedures established by Director Bonzon for the project. As the head of the Department of Building & Zoning and as the County's Building Official, Bonzon had the authority to re-assign duties for the Department's employees. Although Cueto was not certified to review plans and had had no authority over the County's plans review and inspection processes, Respondent and the others attending the January 1995 meeting and the July 1995 meeting understood that Bonzon had delegated to Cueto the responsibilities for ordering inspections and overseeing the processing of the building plans for the project. On July 7, 1995, a building permit was issued for the project. The permit was restricted to "foundation only." Throughout 1995 County inspectors visited the job site. They viewed the construction and verified that the threshold inspection log was on-site and up-to-date. The inspections were not recorded as official inspections because the County's computer would not accept inspection entries before a permit had been issued. The inspectors kept notes regarding their courtesy inspections or field visits. All mandatory inspections under the South Florida Building Code were conducted, both before and after the issuance in July 1995 of the building permit with the restriction limiting construction to foundation only. At the end of 1995 the County re-organized some of its departments, including the Building & Zoning Department. Director Bonzon and his special assistant Jose Cueto were transferred to the transportation department, and Bonzon was no longer the County's Building Official. On January 10, 1996, Respondent was certified by the Secretary of the Dade County Board of Rules and Appeals, subject to approval by the Certification Subcommittee at the January 30, 1996, meeting, to become the County's Building Official. As of that date, Respondent considered himself to have assumed the duties of that office. He did not also become the head of the Department; he remained in his position as Permit Control Division Chief. In either the first or second week of January, Respondent went to the offices of Bonzon and Cueto, who were in the process of moving to their new offices, to say good-by. In Cueto's office, Respondent saw a set of building plans lying on Cueto's window ledge. He asked if those were the plans for Terminals 8 and 9, and Cueto answered in the affirmative. Respondent took the plans and personally delivered them to the Chief Construction Plans Examiner, Frank Quintana. He directed Quintana to do whatever was necessary to expedite the County's review of those plans. Quintana divided the required two sets of plans so two reviewers could be processing them at the same time and personally took them from reviewer to reviewer in order to expedite them as quickly as possible. The expedited review process Respondent directed to occur resulted in the foundation- only restriction being removed from the permit on February 6, 1996. On that date, the construction at Terminals 8 and 9 was 85 to 95 percent complete. Prior to the removal of the foundation-only restriction from the permit on February 6, subcontracting permits for mechanical, electrical, and plumbing work had not been, and could not have been, issued. Respondent immediately reported his discovery of the plans in Cueto's office and his decision to expedite their review to his superiors, Guillermo Olmedillo and Ray Villar. Respondent did not order the construction stopped. He knew that the threshold inspector had been performing on-going inspections, the architect had been regularly on-site, and that County inspectors had been visiting the job site on a regular basis. He also knew that all mandatory inspections had been conducted on schedule. He had no reason to believe that any of the construction was unsafe or that there was any danger to the public as a result of the construction having proceeded without proper permitting. He believed that the work itself was in compliance with the South Florida Building Code. On January 18, 1996, the project architect forwarded to Respondent a request that certain mandatory inspections be made. On January 20, Respondent ordered those inspections to be made. Those were the only inspections which Respondent ordered to be performed. In early March shop drawings were reviewed for a pre- fabricated stairwell. Although the stairs were safe for use by the construction workers, the County reviewer questioned the adequacy of the stairs for use by the public using the terminals. Based upon his concerns, repairs were made to the stairs to strengthen them, and they were subsequently approved as complying with all requirements to insure the public's safety. On March 8, 1996, a temporary certificate of occupancy was issued for Terminals 8 and 9. There was never any danger to the public as a result of the construction of Terminals 8 and 9.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered finding Respondent not guilty and dismissing the Administrative Complaint filed against him in this cause. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of December, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. LINDA M. RIGOT 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 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of December, 1998. COPIES FURNISHED: Diane Snell Perera, Esquire Seymour Stern, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 401 Northwest Second Avenue, Suite N607 Miami, Florida 33128 Gary B. Goldman, Esquire Law Offices of Gary B. Goldman 20700 West Dixie Highway, Suite 100 North Miami Beach, Florida 33180 Lynda L. Goodgame, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ila Jones, Executive Director Building Code Administrators and Inspectors Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact Lewis C. Medlin, Respondent, is the holder of Certificate of Registration no. 2603, as an architect, held with the State of Florida, Division of Professions, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulations, Florida State Board of Architecture. The Petitioner has accused the Respondent of affixing his name and seal as an architect to plans, drawings and/or specifications for a two bedroom apartment building, at 8th Avenue, South, Jacksonville Beach, Florida, when the plans, drawings and/or specifications were not prepared by the Respondent or under his responsible supervising control, in violation of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21B-5.02(5), Florida Administrative Code. The facts reveal that William Stanley Smith, Jr., the President of Universal Environmental Control, Inc., had hired Donald C. Peck, a licensed Florida architect, to draw certain plans for a group of apartment buildings that were being constructed by Smith. The Petitioner's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, is a blueprint of the original plans. The original plans were used five or six times in constructing apartments in the Jacksonville Beach, Florida area. These plans had been submitted to the State of Florida, Department of Business Regulations, Division of Hotels and Restaurants and the Jacksonville Beach, Florida Municipal Officials, for their approval. These plans had been accepted by the mentioned agencies. Donald C. Peck moved his base of operation from Jacksonville Beach, Florida, and notified Mr. Smith of his move. The significance of this move related to the fact that Smith needed to get an architect to replace Peck on the future building projects which he intended to construct. In terminating their relationship, Peck released the original tracings to Smith, these original tracings being the basis of the blueprints which are Petitioner's Exhibit 1. The letter of release may be found as Respondent's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, and this letter allowed Smith to use these plans in whatever fashion he deemed appropriate. In accordance with the release, Smith hired Lewis Medlin to draw site plans for the apartment complex to be constructed at 8th Avenue, South, Jacksonville Beach, Florida. Smith also intended for Medlin to review the originals of the plans which are Petitioner's Exhibit 1, as a prelude to getting the necessary approval of the various state and local agencies. Medlin did in fact draw a site plan which is page one of Respondent's Exhibit 2, admitted into evidence. He also reviewed pages two through six of Respondent's Exhibit 2. The pages two through six are for the most part the same as Petitioner's Exhibit 1, admitted into evidence, to include mistakenly leaving the description of the property as being located at 10th Avenue and not 8th Avenue. The change noted in the Respondent's Exhibit 2 compared to Petitioner's Exhibit 1 was that involving the title block of the architect in certain pages of the drawing. The work that Medlin did on the project was in accordance with the desires of his client, Mr. Smith, and with the permission of the former architect, Peck. The question then becomes one of whether or not the Respondent has affixed his name and seal as an architect to the plans, drawings and/or specifications of the 8th Avenue, South, Jacksonville Beach, Florida project, when said plans, drawings and/or specifications were not prepared by him or under his responsible supervising control and thereby constituted violations of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes, and Rule 21B-5.02(5), Florida Administrative Code. The pertinent part of the statute in question reads as follows: Revocation of registration certificate; reinstatement procedure, process, attorneys and counsel. - Any architect's certificate of registration issued in accordance with the provisions of this chapter shall remain in full force until revoked for cause as provided in this chapter. Any architect's registration certificate and current renewal may be suspended for a period not exceeding 12 months, or may be revoked by the unanimous vote of the members of the board setting, with a minimum of four members, in any hearing for: (c) Affixing or permitting to be affixed his seal or his name to any plan, specification, drawing, or other related document which was not prepared by him or under his responsible supervising control; (The citation of Rule 21B-5.02(5) , Florida Administrative Code is not germane to the substance of the violation and merely deals with the procedural requirements on the part of the Petitioner. Therefore, further reference to that provision is not necessary.) The key to the resolution of the issue in this cause lies in the analysis of the terms "prepared" and "responsible supervising control". This terminology has been addressed in the case of Markel v. Florida State Board of Architecture, 268 So.2d 377, (Fla. 1972). This case involved the disciplining of an architect in the State of Florida for allowing his name and seal to be affixed to certain documents which had been prepared by non-architects operating outside his control and supervision. In that particular case the initial contact with the client and the bulk of the drafting was done by the non- architect. Markel's involvement was to the extent of reviewing those plans drawn by the nonprofessionals and affixing his name and seal. The court in Markel, in addressing the question of whether this review constituted supervision, stated that it would be a "close" question. However, after considering the matter the court held that the after-the-fact ratification of a nonprofessional's drafting, would constitute approval of the prior unsupervised work product of a nonprofessional and was felt to be alien to the standards of the architectural profession. Therefore the action taken by Markel was felt to be in violation of Section 467.14(1)(c) Florida Statutes. It is evident that the drawing in question in the case at bar was not prepared by Medlin, in the sense of a line by line production or reproduction by his hand. Nor was the drawing prepared in his office where he could make periodic checks of the work product of Mr. Peck. Nonetheless, his review of the questioned document and the changes which he made constitute sufficient compliance with the law in terms of calling for his preparation and responsible supervising control. Medlin did in fact "prepare" the documents to which his name and seal were affixed as an architect and responsibly supervised and controlled that document, when perceived in the sense of making the document ready for use by his client and by the various governmental officials who would need to approve the clans. The case at bar is distinguished from that in Markel, supra, because of Medlin's direct contact with his client; the involvement of a professional in the preparation of the base document; and the fact that this close question inures to the benefit of the Respondent and not the agency. Moreover, any other result would seem to defeat the purpose of this form of regulation of the acts of the members of a profession; in that it would create unreasonable expense and hardship for the clients of this profession, without promoting any form of reasonable protection of the public against the bad acts and motives of the members of the profession or those persons with whom they may be in league. Consequently, there has been no violation of Section 467.14(1)(c), Florida Statutes. The undersigned has received and reviewed the Proposed Recommended Orders of the parties and has specifically incorporated the substance of those Recommended Orders herein, with the exception of the Conclusions of Law and Recommendation of the Petitioner which are rejected for the reasons set forth in this Recommended Order.
Recommendation It is recommended that the action by administrative complaint against Lewis C. Medlin, the Respondent, be dismissed. DONE and ENTERED this 4th day of May, 1978, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 530, Carlton Building Tallahassee, Florida 32304 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Selig I. Goldin, Esquire Post Office Box 1251 Gainesville, Florida 32602 Frederick B. Tygart, Esquire 609 Barnett Regency Tower Regency Square Jacksonville, Florida 32211
The Issue Whether Respondent, the County of Volusia, Florida, (the County or Respondent) 1 illegally discriminated against Pamela Allen (Petitioner) by refusing to issue a building permit for re-shingling Petitioner’s roof because of her race.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner is a Black female who resides at 4204 Quail Nest Lane, New Smyrna Beach, Florida (the Property), in Volusia County. The home was built in 1994 before the Florida Building Code (the Code) was first implemented. Petitioner purchased the home through a confidential auction in the Fall of 2019. At the time of purchase, Petitioner was living in Georgia and was aware that the Property was uninhabitable and in foreclosure. In order to purchase the Property at auction, Petitioner took out a loan from a private investment group. The loan’s conditions forbade Petitioner from moving into the Property until repairs to the house were complete and Petitioner obtained a conventional mortgage. In an effort to obtain a higher appraisal rate, Petitioner planned to do a shingle-over-shingle overlay of the Property’s roof. Hughlester Philip, a friend of Petitioner’s who lived in Georgia, agreed to help Petitioner with the shingle-over-shingle overlay. In early December 2019, Mr. Philip, with the help of his brother and a friend, began to place an overlay of shingles by placing shingle over shingle on the Property’s roof without a permit or inspection. Neither Hughlester Philip, his brother, nor his friend were Florida- licensed contractors, and neither of them had any ownership interest in the Property. A permit from the County was required prior to starting work on the roof. A stop work order (Stop Work Order) was issued by the County and posted in the yard of the Property for the re-roofing project on December 13, 2019, due to Petitioner’s failure to pull a permit prior to starting the shingle- over-shingle overlay. Neither Mr. Philip nor Petitioner were on the Property when Respondent posted the Stop Work Order. Petitioner does not know who placed the Stop Work Order in her yard. At the final hearing, Petitioner admitted that she should have obtained a permit prior to the start of the re-roofing project and that she was at fault for failing to obtain a permit before the work began. On December 13, 2019, after the Stop Work Order was issued, Petitioner went to the County to apply for a permit. Mr. Philip helped Petitioner complete the permit application. Prior to this permit application, Mr. Philip had never personally pulled a permit for a roof overlay in Florida or anywhere else. In fact, Mr. Philip had never applied for any type of permit in Florida. When Petitioner arrived to submit her application for a permit to the County, there were several women working in the office. This was the first time that Petitioner had any contact with anybody from the County. Petitioner was not asked about her race or gender as part of the permit application process. In her permit application, Petitioner specified that she sought a permit to re-roof her sloped shingle roof and that she did not intend to remove the existing roof. In other words, she intended to place shingle over shingle without removing the existing roof. As part of the County’s permitting process, once a permit application is filed, a plan review is performed. If any deficiencies are noted, the County automatically issues a request for additional information (Additional Information Request). County Plans Examiner, Harold Allen, was charged with reviewing Petitioner’s permit application. On December 19, 2019, the County issued Petitioner an Additional Information Request. The request, prepared by Mr. Allen, stated that Tom Legler would be performing an inspection of the project, and, quoting language found in section 706.3(5) of the Code, further stated: New roof coverings shall not be installed without first removing all existing layers of the roof coverings down to the roof deck where any of the following conditions occur: Where the existing roof is to be used for attachment for a new roof system and compliance with the securement provisions of Section 1504.1 of the Florida Building Code, Building cannot be met. Mr. Harold Allen had never met Petitioner, nor had he spoken to her on the phone prior to sending the Additional Information Request on December 19, 2019. The Property was built prior to implementation of the Code in 1994, and the County did not have any record of an inspection being done since then. The County’s main concern was Petitioner’s intent to install a shingle roof over an existing shingle roof without a County inspector being able to first verify that the underlying sheathing complied with current code. The Code is implemented by the State of Florida, not the County. The County has no authority to delete or change the Code. After receiving the Additional Information Request, Petitioner made several calls to the County. During these calls, Petitioner spoke to Mr. Allen and Chief Building Inspector Tom Legler. On one of the calls, Petitioner alleges that she heard Mr. Legler state to someone else that “those people are calling again about their roof.” Paragraph 29 of Petitioner’s Proposed Recommended Order suggests that Mr. Legler’s reference to “those people” was a racial epithet. That suggestion, however, is not supported by the evidence. At the final hearing, Petitioner testified that she did not know who Mr. Legler was speaking to and does not know why Mr. Legler referred to her as “those people.” The evidence was otherwise insufficient to show whether Mr. Legler was even aware of Petitioner’s race at the time the comment was made. During the same time period that Petitioner was calling the County in December 2019, Petitioner hired George Miles, a professional engineer, because she needed an engineer to certify that the work performed on the Property’s roof complied with the Code. Depending on the circumstances, the County has the authority to accept engineer certification letters on code compliance in lieu of conducting its own inspection. After inspecting the roof and noting that some areas needed repair, Mr. Miles prepared a letter certifying that the work that had been completed on the roof complied with the Code and that he planned to submit his letter to the County to consider in lieu of a County inspection. However, as there was a disagreement with the County as to whether the roof needed to be removed to comply with the Code, the County indicated that it would not accept the letter in lieu of inspection and Mr. Miles never submitted the letter. In attempting to resolve the disagreement over Petitioner’s permit application, Mr. Miles mainly spoke to Kerry Leuzinger, who is the Chief Building Official and Division Director of the County’s Building and Code Administration. Early on, in December of 2019, before the County sent Petitioner any letter regarding potential fines, Mr. Philip contacted roofing contractor David Schaare to ask how much it would cost Petitioner to reroof her Property. Mr. Philip advised Mr. Schaare of the Stop Work Order and need for a permit. Thereafter, Mr. Schaare evaluated Petitioner’s Property and estimated how much it would cost to reroof it. Mr. Schaare determined that the overlay was done incorrectly. According to Mr. Schaare, the roof work did not comply with the Code and Mr. Schaare advised Mr. Philip that “[e]verything would have to come off to be done correctly… .” At the final hearing, Mr. Schaare testified that he had never seen the County approve a shingle overlay for a roof in the same condition as Petitioner’s. Petitioner was on the phone during several calls between Mr. Miles and Mr. Leuzinger, but Petitioner did not speak. Mr. Leuzinger does not recall ever speaking with Petitioner on the phone and was not aware of Petitioner’s race at the time. Petitioner has never met Mr. Leuzinger face-to- face. In fact, Mr. Leuzinger was not aware of Petitioner’s race until he received notice of Petitioner’s Discrimination Complaint in January of 2021-- more than a year after Respondent issued the Stop Work Order and more than a year after Petitioner applied for a permit in December of 2019. Mr. Miles, Petitioner, and Mr. Leuzinger also discussed Petitioner’s permit application over email. On January 10, 2020, Mr. Miles emailed Mr. Leuzinger to advise of his interpretation of the Code and to ask if Respondent agreed with it. After several emails back and forth, and lack of consensus between them as to interpretation of the Code, Mr. Leuzinger advised Mr. Miles that Petitioner could appeal Respondent’s decision to the Volusia County Contractor Licensing & Construction Appeals Board (the Board) or request a binding interpretation from the Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR). On January 13, 2020, Respondent issued Petitioner a Notice of Violation regarding Petitioner’s failure to obtain required permits prior to starting the work on the Property’s roof. The Notice of Violation is a standard letter that Respondent sends to homeowners to notify them of a code violation and to notify them that Respondent could take further action if the homeowner fails to correct the violation. This was the only Notice of Violation that Petitioner received. Respondent did not issue Petitioner another Notice of Violation because Respondent was aware of Petitioner’s intent to appeal Respondent’s denial of a permit. On January 15, 2020, after speaking with Mo Modani, who works for DBPR, Mr. Miles emailed Mr. Leuzinger and advised that Mr. Modani’s opinion regarding the Code was consistent with the position advocated by Mr. Miles on behalf of Petitioner. Mr. Miles provided Mr. Modani’s name and phone number and asked Mr. Leuzinger to give him a call. Mr. Modani is a staff member who does not have authority over local jurisdictions with respect to enforcement of the Code. That same day, January 15, 2020, instead of calling Mr. Modani, Mr. Leuzinger responded with an email to Mr. Miles stating, “We have made our determination and it stands.” At some point, Petitioner decided to abandon efforts to obtain an overlay and instead hired Mr. Schaare to replace the roof. Although it is unclear from the record when the job was completed, once Mr. Schaare undertook the project, it took him approximately two days to replace the roof at a price of approximately $25,000. According to Mr. Schaare, the County inspector for the Property mentioned that he had made a bid on the Property when it was up for auction. Mr. Schaare could not remember the name of the inspector and he did not know if it was Kerry Leuzinger. Mr. Schaare related this information to Mr. Philip. Mr. Leuzinger was not the inspector for the Property and there is otherwise lack of sufficient evidence that would support a finding that “Kerry Leuzinger attempted to purchase the subject property while it was in Auction,” as alleged in the Discrimination Complaint. On January 30, 2020, Mr. Miles appealed the County’s decision to deny Petitioner’s permit for an overlay to the Board. The Board is composed of various professionals in the construction industry, none of whom are employed by Respondent. The role of the Board is to review cases to assess the reasonableness of the County’s decision. Petitioner’s appeal was held before the Board on March 4, 2020. Chief Plans Examiner Eric Gebo presented on Respondent’s behalf. Mr. Gebo never personally met Petitioner, never spoke with Petitioner, and did not know Petitioner’s race. Petitioner did not present to the Board, rather, Mr. Miles presented on Petitioner’s behalf. Mr. Leuzinger was not present. The discussion regarding Petitioner’s proposed roof-over lasted more than 30 minutes. The crux of the issue was whether the sheathing nailing on the roof could be verified as required under the applicable provisions of the Code. According to the County, because Petitioner’s home was built before the Code’s implementation and Respondent did not have evidence of a prior roof permit being pulled, the County could not verify that the underlying sheathing was ever inspected and could not verify that the sheathing complied with the Code without Petitioner first removing the existing layers of shingles. The position of the County on the issue was consistent with its decisions in other cases with similar facts. During the hearing, Mr. Miles stated that, “[w]hen it comes down to the simple truth of this is that it’s a difference of interpretation.” He also advised the Board that he “wanted to actually have [the State] make a recommendation on this … and they will not do it until [they] go through this process.” The Board members also discussed the need for clarification as to the Code. For example, while one Board member indicated that “the Code seems pretty clear,” another member asked Mr. Gebo for clarification because he believed that “[they] cover roofs all the time without tearing them off.” After further discussion, the Board, by unanimous vote, concluded that Respondent correctly denied Petitioner’s permit application. Even so, the Board encouraged Mr. Miles to seek a binding interpretation from the State because the wording in the Code “needs to be resolved.” On June 8, 2020, Mr. Miles filed a petition with DBPR on behalf of Petitioner requesting a binding interpretation of section 706.3 of the Code.2 Following a telephonic hearing held before the Building Officials Association of Florida, on July 7, 2020, a binding interpretation of the Code was entered agreeing with Mr. Miles’ interpretation that an overlay was permitted. The comment to the binding interpretation acknowledged that the wording of the section it interpreted “has created confusion.”
Conclusions For Petitioner: Ka'Juel Washington, Esquire The Washington Trial Group, PLLC Suite 500 37 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 For Respondent: Erin G. Jackson, Esquire Johnson Jackson PLLC Suite 2310 100 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33602
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter a final order dismissing Petitioner's Discrimination Complaint and Petition for Relief consistent with the terms of this Recommended Order. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of September 2021, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 17th day of September 2021. COPIES FURNISHED: Ka'Juel Washington, Esquire The Washington Trial Group, PLLC Suite 500 37 North Orange Avenue Orlando, Florida 32801 Tammy S. Barton, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Erin G. Jackson, Esquire Johnson Jackson PLLC Suite 2310 100 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33602 Kerry Leuzinger, Director Volusia County Building and Code Administration 123 West Indiana Avenue Deland, Florida 32720 Stanley Gorsica, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 4075 Esplanade Way, Room 110 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-7020 Laura Mauldin Coleman, Esquire County of Volusia 123 West Indiana Avenue Deland, Florida 32720 Ashley Tinsley Gallagher, Esquire Johnson Jackson PLLC Suite 2310 100 North Tampa Street Tampa, Florida 33602
Findings Of Fact At all times relevant to this proceeding, the Respondent was licensed as a contractor by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. His license for the 1979-1981 license period had not been renewed at the time that the hearing was conducted, and he was therefore delinquent. [This finding is determined from Petitioner's Exhibit 1.] During June, 1977, the Respondent entered Into a contract with Emily D. Wohanka and Ruby Sue Dennard. Ms. Wohanka and Ms. Dennard, who are sisters, agreed to purchase a lot in Satellite Beach, Florida, and the Respondent agreed to construct a single-family dwelling on the lot. The parties agreed to an addendum to the contract during July or August, 1977. The addendum included some specifics with respect to construction and provided: Home will be complete and ready for occupancy within a reasonable period of time--normally three to five months. [This finding is determined from Petitioner's Exhibits 8 and 9, and the testimony of Wohanka and Jordan.) The lot which Ms. Wohanka and Ms. Dennard purchased was not cleared until December, 1977. No progress on construction was made during January or February, 1980. The Respondent obtained a building permit from the City of Satellite Beach, Florida, on February 20, 1978. Construction work commenced in either March or April, 1978. By June, 1978, Ms. Wohanka became concerned that work was commencing too slowly. She told the Respondent that she needed to move in by the end of July. Respondent told her that it was probable that construction would not be completed until mid-August. By September, the project was still not completed. Ms. Wohanka tried to reach Respondent by telephone, but he would not return her calls. She tried to locate him at home, but no one would answer the door. She complained to the building official in the City of Satellite Beach, but the building official had similar problems reaching the Respondent. Ms. Wohanka also complained to N. M. Jordan, the real estate agent who had negotiated the contract. Ms. Jordan was able to locate the Respondent, and the Respondent told Ms. Jordan that he could not complete the project because he was losing money. In late September or early October, Ms. Wohanka and her sister located the Respondent at his home. The Respondent was just walking out of the front door when they arrived. The Respondent told them that he could not discuss the matter, that he had turned it over to Ms. Jordan, and that he was not a part of it anymore. [This finding is determined from Petitioner's Exhibits 2 and 3; and from the testimony of Wobanka, Hijort, and Jordan.] When Ms. Wohanka contacted the Respondent in late September or early October, no work had been done on the project for at least a month, and the house was not completed. Light fixtures, appliances, and air conditioning had not been installed. Cabinets and other fixtures were stored in a bathroom. Inside doors had not been installed. Flooring was not completed. No sidewalks or concrete driveway had been constructed. There had been no landscaping or sodding, and the sprinkler system had not been installed. The plumbing was not operational. Ms. Wohanka contracted with a new builder to complete the project. She was able to move into the residence on December 28, 1978, but work was not finally completed until late January, 1979. Additional expenses beyond those agreed to by the Respondent were incurred by Ms. Wohanka. The Respondent had drawn on a construction loan; but, there is no evidence in the record that the Respondent used these funds for any purposes other than the construction of the dwelling. [This finding is determined from the testimony of Wohanka.] During July, 1977, the Respondent entered into a contract with James and Eleanor A. Lawrence. The Lawrences agreed to purchase a lot in Satellite Beach, Florida, and the Respondent agreed to construct a duplex dwelling on the lot. The Respondent obtained a building permit from the City of Satellite Beach on February 22, 1978. Unknown problems developed, and the project was not being completed. The Satellite Beach building official had difficulty locating the Respondent, but he was ultimately assured by the Respondent that the project would be completed. The Respondent told the realtor who negotiated the contract, Ms. Jordan, that he could not complete the 3 reject because he was losing money. The Lawrences did not testify at the hearing, and specifics regarding their relationship with the Respondent are not known. It is not known whether the Respondent abandoned the project uncompleted without notifying the Lawrences, or whether some agreement was made between them regarding completion of the project. There is no evidenced that the Respondent diverted any funds from the project. [This finding is determined from the testimony of Hjort and Jordan.] No building codes from the City of Satellite Beach were received into evidence. There is no evidence in the record from which it could be concluded that the Respondent violated any provisions of the building codes in either the Wohanka or Lawrence transactions.
The Issue The issue presented is whether Respondents are guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes, and if so, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact At all times material to the allegations in the Administrative Complaint, Julian Irby was a licensed Professional Engineer with license number PE 43316 and Irby Engineering & Construction, Inc., held Certificate of Authorization #9511 issued by the Board of Professional Engineers. Mr. Irby has been licensed in the State of Florida as a professional engineer since 1990 and spent 21 years in the United States Navy Civil Engineer Corps. He is also a licensed general contractor. Respondent Irby was the engineer of record, with the firm name on the title block of plans for a residential construction project described as, "House Relocation, Foundation Design, 1000 Blk La Paz St., Pensacola, FL" (the relocation project). On or about June 2, 2004, Irby signed and sealed page one of one with a site plan and foundation pier detail for House Relocation at 1000 La Paz Street, and filed it with the Building Inspections Department of Escambia County (Building Department). On or about June 7, 2004, Irby signed and sealed page one of one with a site plan and foundation pier detail for House Relocation at 1000 La Paz Street, and filed it with the Building Department. On or about June 25, 2004, Irby signed and sealed six of six pages of plans (the June 25 plans) for House Relocation at 1000 La Paz Street, and filed them with the Building Department. Permitting for the project was performed in a two- step process, with a preliminary foundation plan submitted before the house was moved from the old site in order to obtain a moving permit and foundation permit. After those permits were issued, Respondents received test results from a geotechnical firm that caused some alteration in the design of the footings to accommodate the water table at the new site. The plans upon which the building permits were ultimately issued and which were used by the construction crew in the building process were the June 25 plans. On or about February 1, 2005, Irby signed and sealed seven of seven pages of plans for House Relocation at 1000 La Paz Street, and filed them with the Building Department on February 24, 2005. The seven pages of plans for the House Relocation signed and sealed February 1, 2005, and filed with the Building Inspections Department of Escambia County on February 24, 2005, represent the relocation project as completed. Changes made during construction and approved in the field are reflected in this set of plans. The Florida Building Code 2001, as amended 2003, is applicable to this case. The relocation project involved moving an existing home from Perdido Bay to a location several hundred feet further inland. The house was an elevated structure at the original location and was elevated at the La Paz address. Respondent Irby was not only the engineer of record but was also the contractor for the project. Certain features of the construction and design of the original structure were not known at the time the original plans were submitted for the foundation. For example, there was a façade that hid from view the I-beam, stringers and pipe posts under the floor of the home. These features could not be seen until the façade was removed in preparation for the move. Relocation projects are subject to certain exceptions under the Florida Building Code. Some design specifications normally required when building a house are not required for a relocation project, because the existing structure need not be redesigned or brought up to code as long as it meets conditions specified in Florida Building Code Section 101.4.2.3. There is no allegation that those conditions were not met in this case. The primary requirement for a relocation design is foundation plans sealed by a professional engineer or architect, if required by the Florida Building Code for residential buildings or structures of the same occupancy class. Respondents' plans filed with the Escambia County Building Inspections Department included foundation plans. Both witnesses testifying for the Petitioner stated that they did not review or prepare any calculations related to the plans and there was no evidence presented that the Building Department had required the calculations to be submitted with the plans. James Lane, who testified on behalf of the Petitioner, acknowledged that there is nothing in the Florida Building Code to prevent an engineer from using the dead weight of the house on the piers and the friction it creates as a method of construction. If the dead load of the house and the friction transfer from the house to the top of the piers is sufficient to address the lateral wind requirements, then straps (also referred to as connectors) would not be necessary to meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code. The main wind force resisting system for the relocation project was the embedment of the foundation piers in the fiberglass reinforced slab and continuous footing in the garage area. Page 6 of the June 25 plans specifies a four-inch minimum monolithic concrete slab with fiberglass reinforcement, using 3,000 PSI concrete, as well as number 4 rebar throughout the footings. There is no requirement that the exact location of rebar splicing be noted on the plans, and the plans are not deficient for failing to provide that information. Moreover, the Florida Building Code requires that a minimum of 2,500 PSI concrete be used. Respondents' design exceeded this requirement. Respondent Irby performed calculations, using the dead load weights in Florida Building Code Appendix A, that showed that the dead load of the existing house sitting on piers with the friction it created was more than sufficient to withstand the required lateral wind load. Mark Spitznagel, P.E., reviewed both the plans and the calculations and visited the construction site. He opined that the calculations showing wind loads could be supported using dead load friction between the house and the piers were correct, and that the Florida Building Code does not require an engineer to explain that no connector, or strap, is required under this circumstance. His testimony is credited. Despite the fact that no connectors were actually required, page six of the June 25 plans included directions for connectors that were used to provide additional support. The Administrative Complaint alleges that the plans do not provide adequate guidance for transfer of horizontal wind loads from the house to the supporting piers and posts or how the supporting piers and posts are to resist imposed loads from the house. The evidence presented at hearing did not indicate what information the Petitioner believed would be sufficient to meet the applicable standard of care. Moreover, the evidence presented supports the conclusion that the metal posts were never intended to transfer lateral wind loads, but were to support vertical loads. The metal posts were part of the existing house and not subject to redesign under the exemption afforded in Florida Building Code Section 101.4.2.3. Shear walls were not considered in the calculations performed by Irby. However, the June 25 plans included shear walls around the garage area, which served to provide extra support over and above what would be required by Irby's calculations. The detail provided on page 6 of the June 25 plans provided a clear load path from the foundation through the shear walls to the upper original structure. The June 25 plans admittedly do not provide wall thickness or metal yield strength for the pipe posts, nor weld attachment, size or thickness for top and bottom plates for the pipe posts. This information is not provided because the pipe posts were part of the original structure and there was no need to redesign them or include them in the foundation plans. The slab beneath the structure was also shown on sheets 1-3 and 6 of the June 25 plans. The slab characteristics are shown in the monolithic footing detail. The upper floor framing members, including the floor joists and the stringers and the I-beam atop the pipe posts were part of the original house design. The house was elevated at its original location, and the stringers, I-beam and pipe posts were part of the original structure. These components did not need to be shown on the plans because of the exemption provided in Florida Building Code Section 101.4.2.3. Respondents did not include main wind force resisting loads for the structure because the Florida Building Code does not require them to be shown for residential, as opposed to commercial, projects. Based on the evidence presented, only component and cladding pressures are required to be shown on the plans, and page 6 of the June 25 plans clearly provides this information. In accordance with Florida Building Code Section 1606.1.7, wind loads for components and cladding were provided showing that the structure was designed to withstand winds up to exposure category D, at 140 miles per hour. The house was actually moved and put in place on the foundation piers three days prior to Hurricane Ivan. Hurricane Ivan was a major hurricane causing extensive damage to the Pensacola area. According to the National Weather Service's Tropical Cyclone Report for the storm, Perdido Key was "essentially leveled." The house relocation project sustained no structural damage in Hurricane Ivan.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Administrative Complaint against Respondents be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of August, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 29th day of August, 2006. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce Campbell, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 A. G. Condon, Jr., Esquire Emmanuel, Sheppard & Condon 30 South Spring Street Post Office Drawer 1271 Pensacola, Florida 32596 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation 2507 Calloway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Doug Sunshine, Esquire Florida Engineers Management Corporation 2507 Callaway Road Tallahassee, Florida 32303-5267 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue presented for decision herein is whether or not Respondent engaged in conduct, set forth hereinafter in detail, which amount to wilful or deliberate violation of local law and thereafter abandoned a construction project without just cause, prior to completion.
Findings Of Fact Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, documentary evidence received and the entire record compiled herein, I make the following relevant factual findings. The Petitioner, Department of Professional Regulation, is the state agency charged with regulating the practice of contracting. Respondent is, and has been at all time material hereto, a registered general contractor having been issued license number RG 0006192. On July 15, 1985, Respondent contracted with Mr. and Mrs. Louis Mara to renovate a garage at the Mara home in Hollywood, Florida for a price of $3,000. (Petitioner's Exhibit 2). Respondent was given, prior to commencement of the job, a $2,000 deposit. Respondent commenced performing the Mara job in Hollywood without first obtaining a building permit. About one month after Respondent commenced completion of the Mara's project, he left the project having completed less than 20% of the work he contracted to perform. Respondent has not returned to the Mara's project in more than two years despite the Mara's plea that he return to complete the work. A review of the official records for the City of Hollywood reveals that Respondent did not obtain any permit to complete the garage renovation for Mr. and Mrs. Louis Mara. Pursuant to Chapter 71-575, Laws of Florida, special acts of 1971, the City of Hollywood has adopted the South Florida Building Code, as revised from time to time, as the building code for the City of Hollywood and its regulations governed the construction, maintenance, repair and condemnation of buildings for the City of Hollywood. (Ordinance #0-71-158, Section 1, 12 22-71 Petitioner's Exhibit 6). As noted, Respondent, or a representative on his behalf, did not appear at the hearing to contest or otherwise refute the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED: That Respondent's license number RG 0006192 as a registered general contractor be REVOKED. DONE and ORDERED this 28th day of January, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. JAMES E. BRADWELL 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 28th day of January, 1988.
