The Issue Whether the Respondent willfully violated local building codes and abandoned a job.
Findings Of Fact David Cobb is a registered general and registered roofing contractor with the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The job in question was done in Gainesville, Florida. Gainesville has a local building code, having adopted the Southern Standard Building Code, but does not have a local competing board. Cobb entered into a contract with John Larramore for a room addition to Larramore's home. Larramore paid Cobb a total of $2,475.84 on the job which was priced as $4,080.24, an amount which included the price of floor covering which both parties acknowledged would be purchased by Larramore and deducted from the monies paid Cobb. Cobb began work on the project. Larramore was not happy with the craftsmanship on the job, which was overseen by Cobb's foreman. Eventually, Larramore contacted a friend who was a contractor. This friend indicated to Larramore that the job should be inspected by the building inspectors of Gainesville, and Larramore contacted the Building Department of Gainesville. Pending inspection by the Department, Larramore told Cobb to stop work until he was contacted again. The chief building official, Leslie Davis, inspected the Larramore job on May 4, 1979. He found several violations of the local building code. Davis was accompanied by the Board's investigator, Herman Cherry. Davis contacted Cobb and advised him to correct the code violations. Davis sent Cobb a letter on May 10, 1979, outlining the violations and giving Cobb 14 days to correct these violations. See Exhibit 5. Cobb tried to contact Larramore by telephone without success concerning correction and completion of the job. Eventually, Cobb wrote Larramore an undated letter, Exhibit 4, which was written after the inspection by Davis and Cherry on May 4, 1979. Larramore was uncertain of the date he received the letter but did acknowledge it was after the Davis/Cherry inspection. Larramore did not contact Cobb after he received Cobb's letter. Instead, he contracted with another contractor to complete the job. This contractor began work on May 17, 1979.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Hearing Officer recommends that the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board take no action against David Cobb. DONE and ORDERED this 9th day of April, 1980, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. STEPHEN F. DEAN, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Michael E. Egan, Esquire 217 South Adams Street Mr. David Cobb Post Office Box 1306 16146 James Couzens Freeway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Detroit, Michigan 48221
Findings Of Fact This cause comes on for consideration based on the Administrative Complaint of the Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional and Occupational Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, now referred to as State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. The essential allegations of the Administrative Complaint are as found in the issue statement of this Recommended Order and that discussion in the issue statement is incorporated into the Findings of Fact and made a part hereof. The Petitioner, State of Florida, Department of Professional Regulation, Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, is an agency of the State of Florida, which has the responsibility to regulate those individuals who serve the public in the capacity of contractors in the State of Florida. This regulatory function carries with it the obligation to prosecute those individual licensees whom the regulatory agency believes to have committed offenses as defined by Chapter 468, Florida Statutes. The possible outcome of such a prosecution carries with it the potential revocation or suspension of the license of those persons regulated by the agency. On this occasion, by Administrative Complaint, the Petitioner has charged E. J. Pollock, d/b/a Miami Advertising, Inc., with violations of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes, as set out herein. The Respondent has replied to the Administrative Complaint by reguesting a Subsection 120.57(1), Florida Statutes, hearing, which de novo hearing was held on the date and at the time and place set out above. E. J. Pollock, d/b/a Miami Advertising, Inc., is the holder of a Certified general Contractor's license, No. CG C004577, held with the Petitioner. That license was current and active in October, 1975, and continued as an active license until the year 1977 when the license became inactive and it remains inactive at this time. The facts reveal that the Respondent in 1975 entered into a discussion with Dr. Thor Brickman about assisting Dr. Brickman in obtaining a building permit from the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department, Dade County, Florida. This permit was to allow the construction of certain office alterations of Dr. Brickman's office located at 1136 N.W. 119th Street, Dade County, Florida. The plans and specifications for such alterations may be found as Petitioner's Exhibit No. 8 admitted into evidence. After some discussion, the Respondent and Dr. Brickman concluded an arrangement by which the Respondent would act as a contractor on the job, in the sense of having the overall responsibility for its construction. This included the responsibility to pay the workers, sub contractors and material man. The agreement between Pollock and Brickman was one in which Pollock was acting in his individual capacity as opposed to through affiliation with a contracting firm. However, at the time Pollock entered into this agreement with Dr. Brickman, his Certified general Contractor's license had been transferred to an affiliation with Miami Advertising, Inc. The Respondent had made this transfer in anticipation of a job to be performed for Miami Advertising, Inc., and in fact certain preliminary matters had been concluded with Pollock acting as manager for the project for Miami Advertising, Inc. Miami Advertising, Inc., was without knowledge of the contract between Pollock and Dr. Brickman. Notwithstanding the lack of knowledge on the part of Miami Advertising, Inc., and the representations to Brickman that the Respondent was acting in his individual capacity when he contracted to remodel Brickman's office, the Respondent applied for a building permit to be issued by the Dade County Building and Zoning Department and in doing so he indicated that he was securing that permit as a qualifier for Miami Advertising, Inc. This can be seen in the petitioner's Exhibit No. 5 admitted into evidence which is a copy of the building permit application as issued on October 31, 1975. Pollock commenced the work and Dr. Brickman paid Pollock directly for the work that was being done. The parent checks were endorsed and cashed by Pollock. The amount Pollock received totaled $6,797.22. Sometime in December, 1975, the owner, Dr. Brickman, became disenchanted with some of the workers whom Pollock had on the job in the sense that those workers had been drinking while on the job. Brickman advised Pollock of this and indicated to Pollock that he did not want those persons on the job without supervision. Nonetheless, the owner continued to advance money to Pollock to pay for the job as contracted for. In January, 1976, the Respondent left the job and Brickman was of the impression that the roof on the extension was finished and that there was no problem with the roof, but this impression was wrong because in February, 1976, one of the owner's tenants began to complaint about the roof leaking and those complaints continued until the tenant moved out due to water damage. This caused Brickman to lose moneys in rentals. When Brickman spoke with Pollock about the leaking roof, Pollock sent a roofer to the job to see about the problems but Brickman was not satisfied with that roofer and declined to have him make any corrections to the roof job. (Although the Respondent denies the responsibility for the completion of the roofing work on the Brickman project, the testimony clearly reveals that he had accepted that responsibility as a part of the contract.) The roofer spoken of, whose name is Montgomery, came to the job in March, 1976. Subsequent to Montgomery's visit, problems continued to occur with the roof and the condition of the roof in April, 1976, and the interior of the building may be seen in the Composite Exhibit No. 1 by the Petitioner, which is a series of photos depicting the roof and interior. Pollock would not return and complete the job and Dr. Brickman made a complaint to cause administrative charges against the Respondent. This original complaint was dropped and in November, 1977, Pollock called about completing the job which was still unfinished. Brickman agreed to have Pollock cane and complete the job. Pollock did not return to the job as he stated he would do. In December, 1978, a representative of the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department went to the project and found that the job was closed and found that no framing inspection had been requested by Pollock and completed as required by Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department Code. Other matters within the job site were found to be deficient. The original building permit had expired and the required roofing permit had never been granted. The condition of the project as it existed at the time of the inspection may be found in certain photographs taken by the Building Inspector which may be found as a part of the Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 2 admitted into evidence. The problem with permits was subsequently rectified; however, based upon the inspector's evaluation, notices of violations were filed in January, 1979, against the Respondent Pollock. The violations spoken to above were for violations of the building and zoning code, particularly Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department Code No. 305.2, failure to call for inspections between October 31, 1971, and January 4, 1979, and Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department Code Section No. 304.4(b), failure to construct office alterations according to plans between October 31, 1975, and January 4, 1979. (These provisions are part of the South Florida Building Code which is used by Metropolitan Dade County.) The charges were made through a two-count information in Case 79-53600 in the County Court in and for Dade County, Florida. For the former violation, the Respondent was adjudged guilty and received a fine of $750.00 with $25.00 court costs, and for the latter count Pollock was sentenced, with the sentence being suspended from day to day and term to term. This Statement of Charges and Disposition may be found as petitioner' s Composite Exhibit No 3 admitted into evidence, a copy of the Charges, Judgment, Sentence and Order of the Court. The Respondent, Pollock, was also charged by Metropolitan Dade County with a violation of the Code of Metro Dade, Chapter 10, Section 10-22 (b), abandonment of the construction project without legal authority. (The disposition of that charge is unknown to the Hearing Officer, in that it was not presented as a matter of proof in the course of the hearing and the facts of the existence of such charge came in by a stipulation of fact between the parties to this action.) The Respondent returned to the job in January, 1979, and on the date of the hearing 95 to 99 percent of the job had been completed. Still remaining to be completed were certain roofing work with metal-to-metal soldering and gravel stops to be concluded and at that time the roof was still leaking. In view of the damage to Brickman' s property, a claim was made against the liability insurance required by Subsection 468.106(6), Florida Statutes. This claim was denied by the insurance carrier because their insurance covered Miami Advertising, Inc., only, and that company had no knowledge of the contract or the job. An indication of this denial may be found as Petitioner's Composite Exhibit No. 4 admitted into evidence, which are copies of letters denying coverage. They are addressed to Dr. Brickman and are from Parliament Insurance Company, insurer of Miami Advertising, Inc.
Recommendation It is recommended that the Respondent, E. J. Pollock, who holds his license as qualifier for Miami Advertising, Inc., License No. CG C004577, be suspended for a period of one (1) year. This recommendation is made with the knowledge of the letters offered in mitigation of the penalty. DONE AND ENTERED this 26th day of November, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. CHARLES C. ADAMS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Barry Sinoff, Esquire Sinoff, Edwards & Alford 2400 Independent Square One Independent Drive Jacksonville, Florida 32202 H. Adams Weaver, Esquire 310 Okeechobee Boulevard Post Office Box "M" West Palm Beach, Florida 33402 ================================================================= AGENCY FINAL ORDER ================================================================= BEFORE THE FLORIDA CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY LICENSING BOARD
Findings Of Fact In General: Respondent is, and was at all times material to the Administrative Complaint, a certified general contractor, having been issued license no. CG C016774 by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. At no time material to the Administrative Complaint was Stephen Karlan licensed, registered or certified by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. As to Counts I--III: There is no evidence, direct or indirect, to tie any participation by Stephen Karlan to any event at the Reyes' home (Administrative Complaint Counts I--III). Mrs. Carolyn Reyes is the wife of Augustin Reyes, both of whom have resided at 9355 Southwest 180th Street, Miami, Florida, for approximately 12 years. They first met with Respondent Gomez sometime in July of 1983, and after a series of discussions concerning the work which the Reyes' desired, their budget restrictions, and charges proposed by Respondent, a contract was prepared by Respondent on Respondent's stationery. (P-3) The contracted work included: completely remodeling the kitchen and living room; the installation of central air conditioning and heating; the construction of a swimming pool; and the construction of a covered patio. The Reyes provided Respondent with a check in the amount of $4,227.40, representing a twenty percent down payment on the contract price of $24,237.00. Although signed by Mr. Reyes, who did not testify, Mr. Reyes' signature was identified by Mrs. Reyes on the contract and on the September 20, 1983 check. She was present at the execution of the contract and tendering of the check on the Reyes' joint bank account to Respondent Reyes on September 20, 1983. Existence of this contract and its terms is not disputed by Respondent. Subsequently, approximately $3,100.00 was deducted from the total contract price by way of a change order. This amount represented the cost of installing a roof over the patio and brought the new contract price to $21,137.00. (P-3 and P-6) A change order, prepared by Respondent, and signed by Mrs. Reyes, was agreed to approximately October 18, 1983, for installation of more expensive bronze-tone sliding glass doors in the family room and $250.00 was paid additionally by the Reyes. From September through November, 1983, Respondent performed construction work at the Reyes' residence. Under the terms of the contract, the Reyes provided Respondent with the following amounts, mostly by checks drawn on their joint account and issued over Mrs. Reyes' signature. DATES AMOUNTS September 20, 1983 $ 4,227.40 (20 percent down payment) October 5, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (installation of kitchen cabinets) October 13, 1983 $ 3,170.55 (pool framing inspection) October 24, 1983 $ 250.00 (change order--glass doors) October 25, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (air conditioning equipment) October 28, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (pool gunnited) November 3, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (kitchen remodeling) November 4, 1983 $ 1,056.85 (plumbing payment) November 21, 1983 $ 2,000.00 (kitchen and den) November 23, 1983 $ 1,000.00 (kitchen and den) November 28, 1983 $ 982.00 December 6, 1983 $ 2,137.00 (pool decking) $21,211.50 TOTAL (P-6) All of these checks were cashed by Respondent. During October and November, 1983, work was localized in the kitchen. Mrs. Reyes recalled not being able to use her kitchen for Thanksgiving, 1983. Except for recurring problems of improperly installed tiles, cabinets and appliances, related infra., Respondent completed the bulk of the kitchen remodeling in early December, 1983. Also in early December, 1983, the swimming pool was dug and gunnite was sprayed for the pool. Gunnite is a base of a spray used for installing the concrete bottom of a swimming pool prior to installing further marble-type finishing material, tile, and accouterments. In this same time period, the overhang above the anticipated patio was torn off the existing house by Respondent with the apparent goal of tying the existing roof beams into the new roof. After December 6, 1983, Respondent failed to perform any actual construction at the Reyes' residence until May, 1984. 2/ His crew only worked there one day in December of 1983. Approximately December 20, renegotiation of pool costs and kitchen tile costs were indulged-in by the the participants. The final result was that the Reyes would pay $80.00 more for kitchen tiles and $106.00 more for pool tiles and would be permitted by Respondent to deduct $246.00 from the total owed on the contract to him. Mrs. Reyes purchased the pool materials and paid cash for them rather than turning over any monies to Respondent but she stored them on her property so that the work could go forward. Respondent testified that shortly before that point in time, he realized that he had underestimated the cost of doing the Reyes' job by $6,000.00 to $7,000.00 and attempted to explain to them that having received approximately 90 percent of the contract price, but having not completed that much of the work contracted-for, he would have to do the work as he was able between other jobs in order to stay afloat financially. Respondent's proposal was not initially acceptable to the Reyes and they hired a lawyer who thereafter prohibited Respondent making direct contact with the Reyes. At that time, the following items remained to be completed at the Reyes' residence. The pool tile had not been installed; the pool equipment had not been purchased or installed; the living room windows had not been installed; and the patio roof had not been completed. There were also numerous problems with the quality of the workmanship of the completed items. The kitchen cabinets and the dishwasher were both initially improperly installed. As a result of the Reyes complaining to the Metropolitan Dade County Building and Zoning Department, one of that agency's code enforcement officers, John Delaney, inspected the Reyes' home on April 20, 1984. At that time, Mr. Delaney noted all of the items listed in Paragraph 8 as needing completion and also noted that the patio roof overhang was still exposed to the elements and that the air conditioning unit was only balanced on a concrete slab. Mr. Delaney estimated that at that time the contract work was approximately 55 percent to 60 percent complete. Upon investigation and a record search, Mr. Delaney determined that Respondent had obtained an approved building permit for the construction of the swimming pool and the open beamed porch. (P-13) The building permit did not specify installation of the pool's piping. Likewise the building permit did not specify that Respondent might perform the interior remodeling work. This permit which Respondent did obtain lists, and Respondent's signature acknowledges, that Respondent knew that "unless specifically covered by this permit" separate permits must also be obtained for electrical, plumbing, roofing, and paving and pool, among other items. Upon concluding his investigation, Mr. Delaney felt sufficient evidence existed to charge Respondent with violation of Section 10-22 of the Metropolitan Dade County Code and forwarded his investigative report to the official for the appropriate unincorporated municipality. This report indicates that Respondent also pulled permits for mechanical air conditioning and heating and an electrical permit for the swimming pool. To Mr. Delaney's knowledge, no charges were ever filed by that official against Respondent. 3/ Mr. Delaney conceded that a state certified general contractor such as Respondent can legitimately do pool piping and that the only failure of Respondent was in not pulling the county permit. He indicated that the kitchen work in the Reyes' home would require a special permit because there is electrical and plumbing work in replacing old appliances with new. However, as to the kitchen cabinets he felt it would be permissible for either the general contractor to pull a general permit or for a subcontractor to pull a specialty cabinet permit. By questions on cross-examination of Mr. Delaney, Respondent asserted that no electrical work was done, no switches were moved and his only work was replacement of kitchen cabinets, floor, and acoustical tile but this is in the form of his questions and not sworn testimony. Respondent eventually came back to the Reyes job. He finished the pool in July, 1984. He finished the open beamed roof in October 1984. Respondent's carpenters or subcontracting cabinetmakers Carlos and Hector eventually fixed a kitchen door drawer Mrs. Reyes had complained about. (It was never established what these workers' status was/is.) Despite her general dissatisfaction with the tiles in her kitchen, despite a chipped sink, and despite personally having to explain to the plumber (again the tile setter and plumber's contract or employment relationship with Respondent is unclear) how to install the dishwasher, Mrs. Reyes currently feels 95 percent of the contract work has been completed by Respondent. 4/ She acknowledged that Respondent has provided additional bronze fixtures in her family room by way of mitigation. As to Counts IV--VII: In March, 1982, June Mildred Cooper contracted with one Steve Karlan for the construction of a bathroom addition on a residence located at 4835 Westwood Lakes Drive, Miami, Florida. The contract price was $6,700.00. Steve Karlan is not registered, certified, or otherwise licensed by the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board. See supra. All oral representations made by Karlan to Mrs. Cooper are total hearsay and excludable, but it is clear that Respondent was never mentioned or otherwise identified during the contract negotiation of Cooper and Karlan. Cooper submitted contract payments directly to Karlan and never paid anything to Respondent. Cooper found Respondent on the job one day and thinks he said something to her like, "I'm the boss," but her memory of the exact language, if any, is vague. Cooper was admittedly not on the premises most of the time the construction was in progress because she repeatedly visited her other residence in Indianapolis for several months at a time. Respondent admits he was approached by Steve Karlan to give an estimate for the bathroom job and they thereafter agreed that Respondent should do the work. Respondent admits Karlan later gave him a piece of paper, probably a tax assessment, showing June Cooper's name as the owner, which Respondent used as the basis for filling out the building permit application which he applied for and received covering the portion of the construction work he did at her Florida residence. At the conclusion of his job, Respondent also executed a waiver-of- mechanic-lien affidavit which did not specify any owner and gave it to Karlan. Gomez never inquired into the relationship between Karlan and Cooper and just assumed Karlan was a relative, probably a son, living at the same address, and initially assumed Karlan had authority to authorize the work because Karlan opened the door to him the first time Respondent came to do the requested estimate. At the time Karlan opened the door to Respondent, some construction was already in progress in the house. Respondent represents that this scenario of obtaining a construction job is so customary in the trade that he never questioned Karlan's statement until Mrs. Cooper ultimately complained about the construction after completion. He recalls meeting her at the house twice during construction, but does not think he told her he was the boss. In mitigation, he represents that he made good on Mrs. Cooper's complaints. Respondent admits he later entered a contract with Steve Karlan as a "salesman" after satisfying Mrs. Cooper but that contract had nothing to do with the Cooper job.
Recommendation Accordingly, upon the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order requiring Respondent to pay a penalty of $1,000.00 and monitoring his license for one year in a probationary status. DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of July, 1985, in Tallahassee, Florida. ELLA JANE P. DAVIS Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of July, 1985.
The Issue The principal issue in this case is whether certain local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by the Broward County Board of Review and Appeals (BORA) comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b), Florida Statutes (2001). As to Broward County, there is the additional issue of whether Broward County is a proper party to this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the testimony and evidence received at the hearing, and upon the parties' stipulations, the following findings are made: Findings about status of Broward County Respondent Broward County is a county created pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida. Broward County became a charter county effective on January 1, 1975, by a referendum approved by the voters of Broward County in November of 1974. In 1976, the Broward County Charter was amended to add a new Section 8.18, which the legislative history for the charter describes as establishing BORA as “an arm of Charter government.” Broward County has not voted to adopt any local amendments to the Florida Building Code. Findings about status of BORA Respondent BORA, is a board created under the provisions of the Charter of Broward County (the “Charter”). BORA was originally created in 1971 by a special act of the Florida legislature, 71-575, Laws of Florida, Special Acts of 1971. That special act adopted the South Florida Building Code, as the applicable building code for Broward County and included within the South Florida Building Code as Section 203 the following language, which created BORA: 203. Board of Rules and Appeals. In order to determine the suitability of alternate materials and types of construction, to provide for reasonable interpretation of the provisions of this code and to assist in the control of the construction of buildings and structures, there is hereby created a BORA, appointed by the appointing authority, consisting of twenty-four (24) members who are qualified by training and experience to pass on matters pertaining to building construction. Findings about status of Petitioners Petitioner, TRG-Aquazul, Ltd. ("TRG"), is a Florida limited partnership and is the developer of a high-rise multi- family residential building project located in Broward County (“Project”) which is subject to the Florida Building Code, as amended, in Broward County. Petitioner, Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, is a principal of Initial Engineers. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga and Initial Engineers are the mechanical engineers of record on the Project. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga's firm has designed other high-rise residential buildings in Broward County in the past and plans on doing more such projects in the future. Petitioners allege that they will be materially and adversely affected by the application of the Broward County local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code in that the application of said technical amendments to the Project will require a redesign of the mechanical systems of the Project to comply with those technical amendments and undertaking such redesign will cost significant time and money. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga submitted plans to the Broward County Building Department for approval in connection with the Project. The plans submitted included plans for smoke control measures. The smoke control measures were not approved by the chief mechanical official because in his estimation they did not comply with the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code enacted by BORA on March 1, 2002. Despite the Broward County Building Official’s suggestion that Mr. Fernandez-Fraga appeal the Building Official’s decision interpreting the applicable code, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga decided not to appeal that decision. Rather, Mr. Fernandez-Fraga chose to challenge the validity of the local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code adopted by BORA, a different appeal than the one discussed with the Building Official. TRG, through its engineer and its architect of record on the project, attempted to comply with option four of the local technical amendments at issue here, which allows one to achieve an understanding with the local building official on an alternative method for smoke control. TRG could not, and did not, reach that understanding with the Broward County Building Official. The building that TRG proposes to build is over 75 feet high, which makes it subject to the local technical amendments at issue here. At the time the local technical amendments at issue here were being adopted, Petitioners were not concerned with such developments because at that time they did not have any projects in Broward County. Findings about BORA's amendment process Once it was clear that Florida was going to have a new statewide Florida Building Code, BORA embarked upon a course of action to adopt several local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code. Such amendments were allowed, with certain qualifications and requirements, by the then-new statutes providing for the implementation of a new Florida Building Code. On March 1, 2002, BORA adopted the local technical amendments that are at issue here. Those two local technical amendmants, Sections 412 and M403.6.4, contained standards for the application and testing of smoke control systems for high-rise buildings. The two amendments were more stringent than the corresponding requirements in the Florida Building Code. Each of these local technical amendments had been part of Broward County’s local building code in effect prior to the adoption of the Florida Building Code, and as set forth in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. BORA sought to maintain the status quo within Broward County with respect to the adoption of these two local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code, a status quo that had been in effect since the mid 1980's. The two local technical amendments at issue here did not introduce any new subjects that had not previously been contained in the South Florida Building Code, Broward Edition. The process leading up to the adoption of amendments on March 1, 2002, began several months earlier with the appointment of a committee and a sub-committee to discuss and draft proposed amendments. The chairman of BORA’s Mechanical Committee appointed a subcommittee which reviewed materials and made decisions with respect to the Local Amendments and made recommendations to the Mechanical Committee which, in turn, made recommendations to BORA The meetings of BORA’s Mechanical Committee and its Smoke Control Subcommittee were not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper of general circulation. No findings or determinations made by BORA’s Mechanical Committee or Smoke Control Subcommittee with respect to the local need to enact the Local Amendments are reflected in the minutes of their meetings. On December 13, 2001, BORA held a hearing to receive and consider information from the subcommittee and the committee regarding the pending proposed amendments. BORA’s December 13, 2001 hearing was not publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. Final BORA action to adopt the proposed amendments was eventually scheduled for March 1, 2002. The March 1, 2002, BORA meeting was the only BORA meeting pertaining to the local technical amendments at issue here that was publicly noticed in the Sun Sentinel or any other local newspaper. BORA did not make any findings or determinations at the March 1, 2002, meeting. There was no discussion or determinations made at the March 1, 2002, hearing regarding whether there was a local need justifying the subject local technical amendments. There was no discussion at the March 1, 2002 hearing regarding the subject local technical amendments. At the March 1, 2002, meeting, BORA determined that what its Mechanical Committee presented was acceptable and BORA therefore voted to adopt it without any meaningful discussion. BORA did not make any other determinations with respect to the local technical amendments at that hearing. The members of the Florida Building Commission’s Mechanical and Technical Advisory Committee, which drafted and/or made recommendations with respect to the Florida Building Code, are presently considering the possibility of putting more stringent smoke control measures into the Florida Building Code for statewide application. Findings about the challenge process Broward County does not have, and has never had, an interlocal agreement establishing a countywide compliance review board for the purpose of reviewing any challenges to local technical amendments to the Florida Building Code that may be challenged by a substantially affected party. Neither Broward County, per se, nor any of the municipalities in Broward County, is authorized to exercise any authority over the building code in Broward County. In light of this situation in Broward County it appears to have been the concensus of the members of BORA that it was simply not necessary to structure any interlocal agreement nor create any county-wide compliance review board as otherwise generally provided for in the applicable statutory provisions. Thus, when Petitioner Fernandez-Fraga advised BORA that he wished to challenge the validity of two of the local technical amendments adopted by BORA, it was initially unclear where the challenge should be filed and where it should be heard. Following discussion with Commission staff, BORA advised that the challenge should be filed with BORA and would be heard by BORA. On or about March 20, 2003, Petitioners filed an appeal with BORA challenging the validity of the subject amendments. BORA scheduled a hearing on the challenge for April 10, 2003. BORA was apparently of the initial view that it was hearing the Petitioners' appeal in the capacity of a statutory "countywide compliance review board" because BORA originally noticed the April 10, 2003, hearing as being held by “the Board of Rules and Appeals sitting as a Countywide Compliance Review Board pursuant to Florida Statutes 553.73(4)(b) to hear challenges to Broward County Local Amendments to Sections 412 and M403.6.4 by Mr. Alfonso Fernandez-Fraga, P.A.” Notwithstanding the notice and agenda of the April 10, 2003, BORA meeting/hearing, during the course of the hearing BORA took the position that Broward County does not have a countywide compliance review board as described in Section 553.73(4)(b)8, Florida Statutes. Counsel for BORA stated, on the record, that BORA “has exclusive authority over the building code in Broward County.” Counsel then advised the Board: That statutory section which refers to an interlocal agreement applies to counties where the county and municipalities have the authority to amend the code. In Broward County, the municipalities and the county do not have that authority. Therefore, we don’t have a Compliance Review Board in Broward County because it’s just not authorized because we operate on a different procedure here. The Board of Rules and Appeals has the sole authority to amend the code, so we’re hearing this appeal tonight really as an appeal to reconsider whether the action of this board in March of 2002, when you passed these amendments, were done properly, and that’s the sole issue. The appeal was heard by BORA on April 10, 2003. BORA voted unanimously to deny the appeal. Mr. Fernandez-Fraga promptly received a letter from James DiPietro advising him that the appeal had been rejected. Thereafter the Petitioners timely filed their petition seeking relief from the Commission.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Building Commission issue a final order which concludes that, for the reasons set forth above, the local technical amendments adopted by BORA which are challenged in this case fail to comply with the requirements of Section 553.73(4)(b)1, Florida Statutes (2001), and are invalid local technical amendments, and further concluding that Broward County is not a necessary or appropriate party to this proceeding. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of June, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S MICHAEL M. 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 30th day of June, 2003.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Respondent violated Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-33.003(2), and if so, what penalties should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Florida Board of Professional Engineers is the administrative agency charged with the licensing and regulation of engineering pursuant to Section 20.165(4)(a) and Chapters 455 and 471, Florida Statutes. At all times material to this proceeding, Respondent was, and remains, a licensed professional engineer, having been issued license number PE 15252. In or about March 2007, Respondent prepared, signed and sealed plans for a project to remodel an existing building for use as a church. Respondent was the only engineer to sign and seal the church plans, and no limitation on his responsibilities as engineer of record were disclosed on the plans. Petitioner's Composite Exhibit 1 consists of three sheets of plans related to the church project: 1) the structural plan, labeled "S"; 2) the existing floor plan, demolishing floor plan, and new floor plan, labeled "A-1"; and 3) the electrical lighting recepts plan and plumbing plan, labeled "E,P." The S sheet contained drawings for the foundation plan, the platform framing plan, and the framing layout plan, along with detail sections for each. The S sheet contained notes for the contractor, and design criteria for structural material. Petitioner makes no claims that there are deficiencies in the structural plans. Sheet A-1 contains drawings for the seating plan, the new floor plan, and the existing floor plan/demolishing plan, as well as a drawing of the typical interior wall section. Sheet A- 1 includes a box listing the scope of work to be performed, and a separate listing of the applicable codes and code summary. Included in the listed applicable codes are the Florida Building Code, 2005 revision; the Florida Plumbing Code of 2004; the National Electric Code 2005; the Florida Mechanical Code 2004; and the Florida Fire Prevention Code 2004. The plans specify that the building will be used as a church, with an occupancy load of 127. Sheet E,P contains drawings for the new plumbing plan, toilets layout, existing water heater detail in the attic; the sewer riser plan; and the electrical lighting and recepts plan. There are work notes for both the plumbing and electrical work, as well as an electrical legend. The electrical plans do not include an electrical riser diagram, and contain no information as to the amount of electrical power coursing through the structure. There are also no load computations or load summary or circuitry reflected on the plans. It cannot be determined from the plans how much load was used prior to the renovation and how much load will exist afterwards. No information is provided to demonstrate how power is delivered to an HVAC unit or water heater, even though the units themselves are shown on the design. The plumbing plans do not include any information regarding the location of a cleanout for purposes of maintenance of the sewage system. Respondent did not include this information because there was already a cleanout in place for the building that was not being disturbed. The plans signed and sealed by Respondent do not contain any mechanical plans. Respondent claimed that mechanical design was beyond the scope of his services and that he discussed this with his client. However, the plans themselves reference the Florida Mechanical Code as being applicable to the plans and nothing expressly excludes mechanical work from the work to be performed. There is no mention in the plans for the provision of "outside air" to the users of the structure. The plans were submitted to and reviewed by the City of Jacksonville permitting office, and were approved for permitting. All required inspections were conducted and passed.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the facts found and conclusions of law reached, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Board of Professional Engineers enter a Final Order finding that Respondent is guilty of violating Section 471.033(1)(g), Florida Statutes (2006), and Florida Administrative Code Rule 61G15-33.003(2). It is further recommended that Respondent be reprimanded, fined $1,000, that his license be placed on probation for a period of two years, and that costs be assessed pursuant to Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of January, 2010, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LISA SHEARER NELSON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of January, 2010. COPIES FURNISHED: John Jefferson Rimes, Esquire Board of Professional Engineers 2507 Callaway Road, Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32303 Kamal Yazji, P.E. 5488 River Trail Road, South Jacksonville, Florida 32277 Paul J. Martin, Executive Director Board of Professional Engineers Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
