The Issue Whether the Respondent committed the violation alleged 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 either an applicant for licensure or held a building inspector license, license number BN 0002765. 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 her residence. She retained a contractor to perform the work and returned to Ohio during the time of the construction. When Ms. Edwards returned to Florida she was dissatisfied with the quality of the work. Mr. Joyce, Ms. Edwards' friend, expressed that they had expressed a desire for, and requested only, 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 the Respondent. All of the inspections listed on the permit card occurred prior to December 17, 1996. The Respondent was issued a provisional license to perform building inspections on or about December 17, 1996. All of the inspections initialed by the Respondent had been performed by another inspector employed by the Martin County Building Department, Bobby T. Chambers. Mr. Chambers was fully licensed at the times of the inspections and acted as the Respondent's training supervisor. The Respondent accompanied Mr. Chambers during a training period during which time Mr. Chambers was to instruct the Respondent in the procedures and practices of the Martin County Building Department. At all times material to the allegations of this complaint, the Martin County Building Department allowed unlicensed employees to assist its inspectors at construction sites. Such employees were authorized to initial permit cards and to radio to the main office the information regarding inspections performed at the job sites. Because of this informal and haphazard reporting system the official records maintained by the County falsely reflected that the Respondent had performed the inspections listed in this Administrative Complaint. He did not. The records were maintained inaccurately. By initialing the permit card and transmitting the information to the County, the Respondent was performing his duties as an employee-in-training and as directed by his supervisors. The Respondent did not intend to mislead officials and did not intend to file a false report required by law. As a result of the flawed training system used by the Martin County Building Department, this Respondent initialed permit documents prior to licensure.
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 Board, enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against this Respondent. 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 Michael A. Rodriguez, Esquire County Attorney's Office 2401 Southeast Monterey Road Stuart, Florida 34996 Leif Grazi, Esquire LAW OFFICES OF GRAZI & GIANINO, P.A. 217 East Ocean Boulevard Stuart, Florida 34995 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
Findings Of Fact At all times material to these proceedings, Section 4-67 of the Building Regulations, Supplement Number 44, Pasco County Ordinances were in effect and said regulation is the applicable local law. During the applicable time period, the Respondent, ROBERT G. FELLENZ, SR., was registered by the State of Florida as a roofing contractor and held license number RC0027998. Mr. Fellenz is the qualifying agent for Fellenz Roofing Co., Inc. On or about March 24, 1987, the Respondent, FELLENZ entered into a contract with James J. Hoover to re-roof a portion of his residence located at 822 Crestfield Avenue, Holiday, Pasco County, Florida. On April 1, 1987, the Respondent went to the building department in Pasco County to acquire the necessary permit to begin the Hoover project. During the processing of the permit, the Respondent learned that a stop order had been placed on the job. His work crew had disobeyed his direct orders and began work before the permit was obtained. While the Respondent was in the process of having the stop order removed, he learned that his liability insurance had expired. Proof of liability insurance coverage was needed by the Respondent in order for the building permit to be issued by Pasco County on the Hoover project. The Respondent contacted his customer, Mr. Hoover, and explained that he had an insurance coverage problem which he needed to straighten out before work could continue on the roof, and before he could obtain the building permit. Mr. Hoover was not home on the day the re-roofing project was begun and completed by the Respondent. On April 3, 1987, the Respondent obtained liability insurance coverage which went into effect on that date. He began and completed the Hoover re- roofing project on that date. On April 6, 1987, the building department issued the building permit on the Hoover project. A final inspection was never called for by the Respondent. The Respondent has previously been found to have violated Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes, in Case No. 69097 Construction Industry Licensing Board.
The Issue The issue is whether Respondent's license as a registered building contractor should be disciplined for the acts alleged in the Administrative Complaint, as amended?
Findings Of Fact Respondent, Robert Tucker, is a registered building contractor holding State of Florida license number RB 0033063 (Ex. 7). Respondent was licensed as a building contractor by the State of Florida in September 1978, and has remained licensed at all times material hereto (Ex. 7). Since September 20, 1978, Respondent has held a local Building Contractor's License issued by the Leon County Contractor Licensing and Examination Board (Ex. 7). Respondent's license with the Department has been delinquent since July 1, 1985 (Ex. 7). In July 1983, Respondent made an oral agreement with Violet Gladieux to erect a carport for her at a cost of $1,350 (Ex. 3). Ms. Gladieux's residence is located at 2321 Belle Vue Way, within the city limits of Tallahassee. Jay Gladieux, Jr. became acquainted with Mr. Tucker from his position as an employee of Mr. Tucker on a prior construction project. Mr. Gladieux introduced his mother, Ms. Gladieux, to Mr. Tucker for the carport construction. It was orally agreed that Ms. Gladieux would pay Mr. Tucker for supplies as they were needed. Mr. Tucker began erection of the carport approximately one week after July 11, 1983, when he received the first payment of $300. On July 29, 1983, Mr. Tucker received final payment of $350 so that he could complete the carport (Ex. 3). Approximately two weeks after July 29, 1983, Respondent completed the carport. A permit for the erection of the carport was required by Section 7-63, Buildings and Construction Regulations (The Building Code) of the City of Tallahassee. The language of that ordinance has not changed since 1957 (Ex. 1). No building permit was ever obtained by Mr. Tucker for erection of the carport. Approximately two weeks after completion of the carport, it collapsed after a heavy rainfall (Ex. 4 and 5). Mr. Tucker returned to repair the damaged carport. He erected center studs and was to return later to complete the damage repair. Mr. Tucker has failed to return to complete the damage repair after requested to do so by Jay Gladieux. When an administrative complaint has been filed against a contractor, personal service of the complaint is attempted upon the contractor at his last address of record. If personal service cannot be effectuated at the contractor's last address of record, further attempts are made to locate the contractor. The building departments, both City and County, the telephone company, utility company and post office are contacted. The building departments are contacted to determine if the contractor has obtained any permits, for the permits would list the contractor's address. The telephone company is contacted for prior and new telephone listing(s) with address(es). The post office is contacted for forwarding address(es). The utility company is contacted for new utility service which would contain a new address (es). If the contractor cannot be located after using these avenues, a diligent search affidavit is executed by the investigator who is attempting to serve the contractor. In September 1978 and at all times pertaining to the construction of the carport, Respondent's address of record with the Department was 1515-21 Paul Russell Road and P.O. Box 20234, Tallahassee, Florida. Respondent had not notified the Department of Professional Regulation, Construction Industry Licensing Board of any change in his address (Ex. 7), other than by the new address revealed on the Election of Rights form he filed in response to the administrative complaint. The Department attempted to personally serve Mr. Tucker at his listed address and could not locate him there. On May 21, 1984, Robert E. Connell, an investigator for the Department of Professional Regulation, executed a diligent search affidavit concerning service of the Administrative Complaint upon Mr. Tucker in this proceeding (Ex. 8).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that Respondent be found guilty of the charges in count one of the Administrative Complaint, as amended; that counts two and three be dismissed; and that he be fined $250.00. DONE AND ORDERED this 4th day of April 1986 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. DORSEY,JR., Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of April 1986. COPIES FURNISHED: Mr. James Linnan Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board P.O. Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Mr. Fred Roche Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Salvatore A. Carpino, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Errol H. Powell, Esq. Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Robert Tucker P.O. Box 10218 Tallahassee, Florida 32302
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.
The Issue The issue posed for decision herein is whether or not Respondent engaged in acts and/or conduct, which will be set forth hereinafter in detail, in violation of Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, as alleged by Petitioner in its Administrative Complaints filed herein dated December 1, 1981, and March 8, 1982. Based upon my observation of the witnesses and their demeanor while testifying, the documentary evidence received, and the entire record compiled herein, I hereby make the following relevant:
Findings Of Fact By its Administrative Complaints filed herein, Petitioner charges Respondent with three counts of deliberately disregarding the applicable building code, in violation of Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(d), Florida Statutes (1981); with violation of Section 489.129(1)(k), Florida Statutes (1979), in that he abandoned a construction project; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(m), Florida Statutes (1981), in that he is guilty of fraud or deceit or misconduct in the practice of contracting; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(c), Florida Statutes (1981), to wit: Section 455.227(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1979) in that he is guilty of a misleading, deceptive, untrue or fraudulent representation in the practice of contracting; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes, to wit: Section 489.117(2), Florida Statutes (1979), in that he was engaging in the practice of contracting in a county where he was not properly registered; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes (979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(e), Florida Statutes (1981), in that he aided or abetted an unlicensed person to evade the provisions of the contracting license law; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(f), Florida Statutes (1981), in that he knowingly combined or conspired with an unlicensed person and allowed his registration to be used by an unlicensed person with the intent to evade the provisions of the contracting license law; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(g), Florida Statutes (1981), in that he acted in the capacity of a contractor in a name other than as registered; with violation of Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1979), presently codified as Section 489.129(1)(j), Florida Statutes (1981), to wit: Sections 489.119(2) and (3), Florida Statutes (1979), in that he failed to properly qualify a company under which he was doing business. In support of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 82-1554, Petitioner presented the testimony of Newton B. Webb and Lewis Abbott, and introduced three (3) exhibits into evidence. Respondent testified on his own behalf and introduced no exhibits. In support of the allegations in the Administrative Complaint filed in Case No. 82-1645, Petitioner presented the testimony of Gladys Durden, Carolyn Thomas, and Cory M. Henriksen and introduced four (4) exhibits. Respondent testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of Abe Anderson. Respondent introduced one (1) exhibit. Respondent is a registered residential contractor having been issued license No. RR0022063. That license was initially issued during 1976 and is current through calendar year 1983. On February 17, 1983, (Case No. 82-1554), Respondent entered into a contract with Newton B. and Flora Mae Webb to construct a fireplace in their trailer for the sum of $1,725. (Petitioner's Exhibit 1) The contract was on a letterhead indicating that the Respondent was doing business as James Construction Company. The fireplace was subsequently constructed by the Respondent and payment was made in full. (Stipulation of counsel, TR p. 10). Respondent did not obtain a building permit to construct the fireplace for the Webbs. The Southern Standard Building Code, which is the building code that was being enforced in Wakulla County, Florida, during times material when the fireplace for the Webbs was being constructed, contains a provision which requires that a permit be obtained for the construction of a fireplace. (TR p. 16; Section 106.1, Southern Standard Building Code.) Respondent is not licensed to engage in the practice of contracting in Wakulla County. The site of the Webb home, where the Respondent constructed the fireplace in question, is in Wakulla County. Respondent has not qualified James Construction Company as the entity through which he would engage in the practice of contracting in Wakulla County. Following completion of the fireplace for the Webbs, Mr. Webb complained that the fireplace was improperly constructed in that smoke poured from the hearth in a profuse manner. Mr. Webb complained that his fire detection alarm was constantly triggered by the smoke pouring out of the chimney. Respondent returned to the Webbs' residence and checked the fireplace and its operation on at least three occasions. On the fourth occasion, Respondent returned to the Webb residence with his counsel and an official from the City of Apalachicola, Florida. A small fire with paper was started and Respondent demonstrated to the Webbs, his attorney, and the building official how the damper in the fireplace operated and what Mr. Webb was doing wrong in the operation of the damper. Respondent gave Mr. Webb and those in attendance a brief demonstration in the proper and correct manner in which the damper should be opened so that the chimney vented properly. During that demonstration, the chimney did not smoke. During an inspection by the building official, Lewis Abbott, the following violations of the Southern Standard Building Code were observed: The chimney did not extend three feet above the roof of the residence. The foundation of the fireplace did not comport with the minimum requirements of the Southern Standard Building Code. The liner between the wall and the flue of the chimney was approximately 3-1/2 inches, whereas the minimum thickness required by the Southern Standard Building Code is 8 inches. A smoke chamber was not installed. The outside chimney was constructed against a combustible wall and the one-inch minimum clearance requirement was not met. The hearth was of insufficient size and was not supported sufficiently by a foundation that meets the minimum requirements of the Southern Standard Building Code. (TR p. 17) It is found that these conditions existed at the Webb residence at the time of Inspector Abbott's inspection. On September 30, 1979, (Case No. 82-1645), Respondent entered into a contract with Gladys M. Durden to rehabilitate her residence for the sum of $12,000. (Stipulation of counsel and TR p. 65). Respondent agreed inter alia, to repair the plumbing; install new flooring; build an extra room; install a new kitchen sink and cabinet; install vinyl floors as needed; and replace several windows and doors. According to Ms. Durden and Carolyn Thomas, Manager of the Federal Block Grant Program, the principal items which the Respondent failed to complete and/or correct centered around problems with the plumbing and his failure to install new flooring in the bathroom. Payment for the construction to the Durden residence was made by draws from the Block Grant Program and Respondent received payment based on two-party checks, which required, for negotiation, that both payees (Respondent and the homeowner-- Gladys Durden) sign the check. At the time Respondent presented the check representing final payment for construction to the Durden residence, Ms. Durden refused to sign it based on her claim that Respondent had failed to complete all of the work as contracted. Respondent presented the check for payment, which was honored, at the local bank in Apalachicola even though it was not endorsed by Ms. Durden. Prior to receiving payment for the final phase of the work to the Durden residence, Respondent had the construction on the Durden residence checked by the local building officials and a certificate of occupancy was issued which enabled Respondent to receive final payment for the Durden project from the City of Apalachicola's Block Grant Program. After negotiating the check representing the final payment for construction work done to the Durden residence, Respondent did not return to the site despite notification from the City Attorney of Apalachicola, the Block Grant Administrator, Carolyn Thomas, and phone messages received from Ms. Durden. Respondent encountered numerous problems while in the construction phase on the Durden residence. Ms. Durden had ten (10) children living in her home at the time construction was ongoing and, as a result, Respondent had to redo several phases of the work which had been previously done days earlier based on the number of residents living in the Durden home. Respondent did not return to the Durden residence based on his fear that Ms. Durden believed in "voodoo" and his position that he had completed all that was required by him pursuant to the contract. Respondent utilized the services of a plumber, Abe Anderson, to complete the plumbing and flooring phase of the Durden project. Abe Anderson installed a new floor, consisting of 1/2 inch plywood, and a new vinyl covering to the bathroom floor of the Durden residence in all areas except where the bath tub sat in the bathroom. When Respondent left the Durden project the plumbing operated properly. (Testimony of Respondent, Anderson, and Building Inspector Cory M. Henriksen.) Respondent acknowledged that he did not, in all respects, comply with the Southern Standard Building Code in his construction of the fireplace for the Webbs. However, Respondent contends that the code provisions are incorrect and that in any event he has been constructing chimneys in excess of twenty (20) years and that all other builders in the area construct chimneys in the same manner as he. In support of his position in this regard, Respondent points to the fact that most of the chimneys in the area do not satisfy the three-feet- height criteria and that various other sections of the Southern Standard Building Code, which he is charged with violating, are either not required or not followed. Respondent acknowledges the fact, and it is found herein, that he is not registered to engage in contracting in Wakulla County, and that he has not qualified James Construction Company as the entity through which he is conducting his contracting business.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that Respondent's license as a registered residential contractor (License No. RR0022063) be placed on probation for a period of one (1) year. It is further RECOMMENDED that Respondent be assessed an administrative fine in the amount of five hundred dollars ($500). RECOMMENDED this 26th day of July, 1983, 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 26th day of July, 1983.
The Issue The issues presented are whether Respondent signed and sealed negligent drawings for one single-family residence and provided plan review certification for two other projects designed by Respondent in violation of Subsections 471.033(1)(g) and 553.791(3), Florida Statutes (2002), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-19.001(6)(n).1
Findings Of Fact The Board of Professional Engineers (Board) is charged with regulating the practice of engineering pursuant to Chapter 455, Florida Statutes. Section 471.038, Florida Statutes, authorizes Petitioner to provide the Board with administrative, investigative, and prosecutorial services. Respondent is licensed in the state as a professional engineer pursuant to license number PE 54476. It is undisputed that Respondent is a private provider within the meaning of Subsection 553.791(1)(g), Florida Statues. On October 29, 2002, Respondent signed and sealed drawings for a single-family residence identified in the record as the Barnes residence. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings for the Barnes residence are deficient. The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive. The applicable standard of care does not require the relevant drawings to include multiple ridge heights in order to describe the nature and character of the work to be performed with sufficient clarity. It is less than clear and convincing that the ridge heights in the drawings are unequal. Additional ridge height information would have been non-critical information that may have been interpreted as specific construction requirements and lead to confusion, added costs, conflicting interpretations, and potential hazards in buildings. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings for the Barnes residence insufficiently show heights of the eaves or lintels and sills. The plans can be easily understood by tradesmen and inspectors. The typical wall section at page 4 of the plans addresses eaves, lintels, and sills. The ridge height requirements in Manatee County, Florida (the County), are intended to ensure compliance with maximum height restrictions. The mean heights in the drawings adequately address the maximum local height ordinances. It is less than clear and convincing that the roof entry plan provided insufficient clarity. The roof was constructed according to the local code requirements without apparent exception. The evidence does not support a finding that the roof entry plan, the ridge heights, lintels, eaves, and sills were insufficiently clear to describe the nature and character of the work to be performed. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that the wind uplift for roof trusses in the plans was incorrect or unclear. If the wind load calculations were found to be deficient, the specified fittings were sufficient to withstand wind loads that exceeded the calculations of Petitioner's expert by approximately 70 percent. Wind load calculations are intended to ensure a roof will sustain the load and will not blow off of the house. The fittings were sufficient to secure the roof against the projected wind load. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that the drawings failed to specify the applicable masonry inspection requirements. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that special masonry inspections are required for single-family residences of two stories or less. A masonry inspection is required for such structures when a building inspector finds a need for such an inspection. It is less than clear and convincing that the drawings fail to adequately specify the splice lengths of the bond beam reinforcement for tension, compression, intersections, and corners. The requisite evidence does not support a finding that the plans deviate from the standard of care in the community. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that Respondent failed to comply with applicable soil condition requirements. The County did not require soil conditions on plans at the time Respondent drew the plans. From sometime in the 1940s through November 2003, the County permitted engineers to assume soil conditions with a ground load of 2000 pounds per square foot. Respondent drew the plans for the Barnes project in 2002. The testimony of Petitioner's expert does not relate to facts in evidence. The expert did not know County allowances for soil conditions at the time Respondent drew the plans. The evidence is less than clear and convincing that the design of the concrete footings cannot be verified from the plans. Nor does the requisite evidence support a finding that the plans do not specify reinforcement of the thickened edge under a load bearing wood stud wall at the garage. The plans include two reinforcement specifications for the thickened edge under the load bearing wood stud wall at the garage. The specifications include welded wire mesh and reinforced steel bars. Clear and convincing evidence does not support a finding that Respondent supplied or submitted the Barnes plans for permit. Without such a finding, Respondent was not required to prepare, submit, or seal a site plan. A site plan for the Barnes residence exists in the file of the County Building Department (Department). A Department representative confirmed that the site plan is sufficient and that an engineer of record is not required to prepare, submit, or seal a site plan unless the engineer of record actually submits the plans for a permit. On February 24 and March 7, 2003, Respondent signed and sealed drawings for respective projects at 14815 Coker Gully Road, Myakka, Florida (the Coker project), and 705 50th Avenue, Plaza West, Bradenton, Florida (the Yonkers project). Pursuant to Section 553.791, Florida Statutes, Respondent entered into a contract with an entity identified in the record as Griffis Custom Homes (Griffis) to provide either building code plans or inspection services, or both. Prior to the commencement of the two projects in question, the Department expressly permitted an engineer to provide building code inspection services involving buildings designed or constructed by the engineer. Respondent prepared private provider affidavits, obtained additional insurance, had forms made, and prepared to provide inspections services. Respondent immediately ceased his activities when Department officials objected to Respondent's stated intention of providing "private provider" building code inspection services for the Coker and Yonkers projects. The separate owners of the two projects withdrew their applications as "private provider" projects. The Department processed the projects, performed all inspections, and issued a certificate of occupancy for each project. Neither the Department, Petitioner, nor the Board, ever served Respondent with a Notice of Non-compliance. If it were found that Respondent committed the alleged violation, the violation was minor. There is no evidence of any economic or physical harm, or significant threat of harm, to a person or to the health, safety, or welfare of the public. There is no evidence that Respondent has any prior discipline against his license.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order finding Respondent not guilty of the alleged violations. DONE AND ENTERED this 2nd day of May, 2006, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DANIEL MANRY 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 2nd day of May, 2006.
Findings Of Fact During the applicable time period, the Respondent was a certified building contractor in the state of Florida and held license number CB C026049. On or about January 6, 1986, the Respondent was hired by West Coast Remodeling & Construction Company. The Respondent was hired as an employee to supervise a building project based on a contract between West Coast and Clarence Harrod for the building of a quadriplex in Rotunda West, Florida. On January 17, 1986, the Respondent applied for a building permit for the Harrod project. The Respondent represented on the permit that he was the builder on the project instead of West Coast, who had the written contract with Harrod. Neither of the principals in West Coast, Gunnar Jacobsen or Gerald Hanley, held a building contractor's license and a licensed contractor was necessary to obtain the permit for the project. After the application for the permit was completed, but before the building permit was issued, the Respondent received a document from West Coast evidencing that the Harrod contract was assigned to him as an individual. At the time the Charlotte County Building Permit was actually issued, the Respondent was the assignee of the Harrod contract. Although the assignment was in effect on January 22, 1986, West Coast continued to receive the funds from Mr. Clarence Harrod, who was not notified of the assignment of the contract. The Respondent either allowed or acquiesced in the continued management of the project and the building funds by West Coast until April 15, 1986. Sometime between January 17, 1986, and January 31, 1986, the Respondent became a shareholder in West Coast. By April of 1986, the Respondent was a corporate officer and had a one-third interest in the corporation. The corporation had three shareholders: the Respondent, Gunnar Jacobsen, and Gerald Hanley. Although all three men were corporate officers, the Respondent was to supervise new construction projects, Jacobsen was to handle administrative affairs and solicit new work, and Hanley was to supervise the remodeling jobs obtained by Jacobsen. In April of 1986, the Respondent determined that there were insufficient funds in the corporate accounts to complete the Harrod project if overhead costs were not reduced immediately. This insight was acquired by the Respondent around the same time the following events occurred: A. Mr. Harrod complained in early April that the job was taking too long. The project was still in the framing stage, and Mr. Harrod was asked for $15,000 of the $25,184.44 draw which was set aside in the contract for the drywall phase of the project. B. Smaller projects that West Coast had in progress, such as three concrete jobs, were found to be unprofitable by the principals in the company. C. Jacobsen was complaining to the Respondent and Hanley, the other two corporate officers, that framing costs were too high on the Harrod project. D. The Respondent and Hanley had decided, between themselves, that Jacobsen was not earning his salary with the corporation because he was not acquiring the new remodeling jobs for the company that he was supposed to under their business arrangements. On April 15, 1986, Hanley and the Respondent locked Jacobsen out of the corporate offices and removed all the money in the corporate accounts, including the money involved in the Harrod project. On April 22, 1986, an agreement was signed by Jacobsen, Hanley, and Respondent which dissolved their business relationships. Pursuant to the agreement, the Respondent resigned his position as an officer in West Coast and assigned his stock in the corporation to Jacobsen. The Respondent and Hanley were also required to make an accounting of the corporate funds removed from the corporate accounts on April 15, 1986. The agreement does not reveal whether the Harrod project was to remain with West Coast or the Respondent. However, the project did remain with West Coast, and the Respondent contacted the Charlotte County Building Department to remove his name from the building permit effective 8:00 a.m., April 23, 1986. When the business relationship between the corporate principals was dissolving in April, the Respondent had contact with Mr. Clarence Harrod. He did not tell the owner about the assignment of the contract to him on January 22, 1986, nor did he advise the owner of the cost overruns which he now asserts were a reason for his resignation from the corporation. The documents attached to the April 22, 1986, agreement reveal that the Respondent was aware of the need for two releases of lien totalling $40,185 on the Harrod project at the time he left the corporation and allowed the corporation to take back and continue with the Harrod project. The Respondent appears to have commingled corporate funds with the Harrod project funds when the funds were under his and Hanley's joint control. During the seven days the Respondent and Hanley had joint control of the $11,611.88 seized from West Coast, the Respondent was paid $2,026.30 and Hanley was paid $2,633. On April 22, 1986, $5,281.97 was returned to West Coast with a list of acknowledged outstanding bills totalling $1,711.17. During the period of time between the assignment of the Harrod project to the Respondent on January 22, 1986, and the takeover of the project by West Coast on April 22, 1986, the Respondent accepted his legal responsibilities as a licensed contractor only on the occasions where it best served his most immediate personal interests.
