Findings Of Fact At all pertinent times, respondent John G. Wood was a registered real estate broker and a registered general contractor; and respondent Bruno Pais was one of approximately 15 registered real estate salesmen employed by respondent Wood, trading as Wood Realty. At the time of the hearing, approximately 125 people were employed in respondent Wood's construction business, which had built some 3,000 houses. John Wood and Associates, respondent Wood's construction firm, built a house at 903 Wakulla Drive in Winter Haven, Florida, on what had previously been a citrus grove. The house sits on a corner lot and adjoins a heavily travelled state road. In 1975, after the house had been built, respondent Wood learned that the ground underneath the patio near a glass door at the rear of the house had settled. He directed a construction superintendent to reinforce the footing underneath the house and to replace the patio. This repair proved ineffectual, however. In the summer of 1976, respondent Wood engaged Ivan Dewitt King, Jr., a civil engineer and land surveyor with some 30 years' experience, to evaluate the house at 903 Wakulla Drive and to advise what should be done to repair the house. Mr. King examined the foundation and dug several test holes. He found that the foundation had deflected downward one-quarter to one-half inch and that the soil was softer where the deflection had occurred than elsewhere. Although the foundation had bowed, it had not cracked. There was no sinkhole in the area. The softness of the soil might have been the result of a tree's having been uprooted. Mr. King recommended excavating under the existing foundation, pouring concrete to make a new, broader footing underneath the then-existing footing and, after the new footing had cured, placing jacks on it to jack up the original footing and hold it there until the space between the old and new footings was filled with concrete. Mr. King suggested a "twenty- four inch footer to go underneath the existing one, (T.56) and advised respondent Wood that taking these steps would solve the problem. In August of 1976, at respondent Wood's instance, Jeffrey N. Riner, who had been in the foundation and concrete business for some ten years, went in and dug out. . below the foundation and put like a three or four foot wide by about fifteen foot long solid concrete pad with steel across both ways coming up and out of it, and then. . took jacks, like twenty- ton jacks, and jacked the foundation and. jacked. . the slab back. . as close as possible to its original. . place, and then poured the concrete back underneath in between this foundation and the original foundation. (T. 65). Mr. Riner testified that, in his opinion, "that part of the house will never go anywhere." (T.65) After this second repair, respondent Wood observed the house and observed "no structural problems" (T.42) "other than minor cracks in the masonry and expansion cracks." (T.41) Originally, respondent Wood had sold this house to Fred Crabill. Shortly before the second repair, respondent Wood took the house back as partial payment for another house he sold Fred Crabill. Some six months after the repair, on February 17, 1977, James D. and Erma C. Anderson signed an agreement to purchase the house. Driving by, Mr. Anderson had noticed the house and had thought about buying it, but decided to do so only after respondent Pais showed him the house. Respondent Pais was aware of the condition of the soil, that the foundation had deflected, and that repairs had been done. He had been given to understand that there was no longer any structural problem with the house. Mr. Anderson asked respondent Pais if there were anything wrong with the house, and respondent Pais assured him that there was nothing wrong. When he first inspected the house, Mr. Anderson observed that the house was dirty, but noticed no other problems. After the Andersons moved in, they found that the bath tub did not drain properly. The drainage problem was not caused by settling of the house or deflection of the foundation, and was known to neither respondent until after the Andersons vacated the premises. After Mr. Anderson removed some sliding glass doors for cleaning, be had difficulty opening and closing the doors. The Andersons began noticing hairline cracks in a rear wall, two or three of which grew over time to be about one-quarter inch wide at their widest points. These cracks reflected minor setting of the soil underneath the house, attributable to vibration caused by nearby traffic. (T.43) The Andersons never made a down payment on the house. Under their agreement with respondents, the sale was to be closed on or before April 3, 1977, with the Andersons making mortgage payments until the closing. The closing was postponed while the Andersons tried to sell other real property so as to be able to apply the proceeds to the house on Wakulla Drive. In September of 1977, respondents threatened to evict the Andersons unless they closed the transaction. On September 11, 1977, the Andersons, who had learned by then of the repairs previously done to the house, and who were worried about the cracks they had seen, moved out. Thereafter, a complaint was filed with petitioner. In November of 1977, respondents caused some re- grouting to be done to repair cracks in the mortar first observed by the Andersons on a rear wall of the house. Subsequently, Lane A. Bohannon took the house in trade for other property. He knew that the foundation had been repaired at the time. Mr. Bohannon, who rents the house, was unaware of any problems with the house's settling or with the operation of the sliding glass doors during the approximately eight months that he had owned the house.
Recommendation Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED: That petitioner dismiss the administrative complaint as against John G. Wood. That petitioner suspend Bruno Pais' registration as a real estate salesman for thirty (30) days. DONE and ENTERED this 26th day of June, 1979, in Tallahassee, Florida. ROBERT T. BENTON, II Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings Room 101, Collins Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 COPIES FURNISHED: Fred Langford, Esquire Florida Real Estate Commission 400 West Robinson Street Post Office Box 1900 Orlando, Florida 32802 Stephen Baker, Esquire and John Wood, Jr., Esquire Suite 2, 200 Avenue K, Southeast Winter Haven, Florida 33880
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Respondent committed the offenses set forth in the Administrative Complaint and, if so, what penalty should imposed.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters Petitioner, Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Department), is a state agency charged with the responsibility, inter alia, of regulating the practice of contracting and, pertinent to this case, prosecuting administrative complaints for the unlicensed practice of contracting, pursuant to the laws of the State of Florida, in particular Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, and Chapters 120, 455, and 489, Florida Statutes, and the rules promulgated pursuant thereto. Respondent, Edward Irons, is not now, nor was he ever, licensed by the Department to engage in the business or profession of contracting in the State of Florida. Irons Contracting For some time prior to August 1992, Respondent's brother, Gerry Irons, was engaged in the business of contracting in the State of New York. At the time, Gerry Irons was licensed by the State of New York as a contractor, and did business as Irons Contracting. Respondent was not present in New York State during that period, and had no interest or involvement with his brother's business. Following the landfall of Hurricane Andrew in August 1992, and the opportunities it presented to the construction industry, Gerry Irons relocated to Fort Lauderdale, Florida. There he engaged in construction related activities under the name Irons Contracting, and, when joined by Respondent as discussed infra, he was engaged by Tank Mangoya, a licensed contractor, to assist in the repair of residential damage caused by Hurricane Andrew. At no time was Gerry Irons or Irons Contracting licensed or certified as a contractor by the State of Florida. The Respondent and his involvement with Irons Contracting Respondent, Edward Irons, was born December 13, 1948, and completed his formal education with graduation from high school. His training and experience post-high school, to the extent it appears of record, was shown to include boat repair (painting and varnishing), but not construction related activities (until his employment by his brother, discussed infra, in or about August 1993). At the time of hearing, Respondent was engaged in reconditioning (washing, waxing, and buffing) automobiles. Personally, Respondent presents as a well, if soft- spoken gentleman, who is pleasant, candid, and credible. At or about the time Gerry Irons relocated to southeast Florida, Respondent was residing in Venezuela with his family, aboard his boat, and had so resided for approximately one year. Previously, Respondent and his family had resided in the Bahamas for approximately five years. In or about August 1993, about a year after Hurricane Andrew struck southeast Florida, the Irons family began their return voyage to the United States. At some point during the voyage they encountered a storm, which severely damaged their boat. Fortunately, Respondent was able to run the boat aground on an island; however, the boat, as well as the family's possessions, were lost. Lacking insurance, Respondent's family was rendered homeless, and without any means of support. Responding to his brother's call, Gerry Irons offered the family accommodations at his home, and sent them money and airplane tickets for their return. Upon their return, Respondent's family resided with Gerry Irons for about six months, after which they relocated to South Carolina. In the interim, Gerry Irons employed Respondent to work in his business (Irons Contracting). At the time of Respondent's initial employment, Gerry Irons was engaged by Tank Mangoya, a licensed contractor, to assist him in repairing residential damage suffered by Hurricane Andrew. Under his arrangement with Mangoya, Gerry Irons included Respondent's time in his billings to Mangoya. Mangoya would pay the bill submitted by Gerry Irons, and Gerry Irons would pay Respondent for his labors. Toward the end of 1993, Mangoya laid-off Gerry Irons and, consequently, Respondent. At the time, or immediately prior, Irons Contracting had been working under Mangoya repairing a home for the Chasner family in southwest Dade County. The Chasner family was apparently satisfied with the work performed because when asked by a neighbor, Ms. Sally Stern, they recommended Irons Contracting. At the time, Ms. Stern was renting a home in the neighborhood, having been displaced from her residence at 10452 Southwest 114th Street, Miami, Florida, because of damage caused by Hurricane Andrew. Apparently, she had employed a number of contractors to work on the home, and at the time she approached the Irons was dissatisfied with the progress made by the current contractor. Following discussions with Ms. Stern, Gerry Irons, who was no longer employed by or working under a licensed contractor (Mongoya), approached a friend of his, Terry Klob, a licensed contractor. While not privy to the entire conversation, it was Respondent's impression that Mr. Klob agreed to be the contractor on the job and Gerry Irons (Irons Contracting) would do the actual work.1 Subsequently, Gerry Irons met with Ms. Stern to inspect the property and negotiate the scope of work to be performed, and then prepared a proposal for the repair of Ms. Stern's home at 10452 Southwest 114th Street, Miami, Florida. The proposal named Irons Contracting as the contractor, and the proposed contract price was $118,093.75. On December 29, 1993, Gerry Irons and the Respondent met with Ms. Stern, and she acknowledged her acceptance of the proposal by affixing her signature to the agreement. Signing on behalf of Irons Contracting were Gerry Irons and the Respondent. Notably, it was not customary for the Respondent to sign documents on behalf of Irons Contracting; however, in this instance, Gerry Irons prepared the contract to include Respondent as a signatory to assure Ms. Stern, who had apparently developed a sympathetic concern for Respondent's loss, that he would be employed to work on her house. At no time was Ms. Stern led to believe, nor did she ever believe, that Respondent was a licensed contractor. Rather, it was always her understanding that Gerry Irons was the licensed contractor. Not only was it not customary for Respondent to sign on behalf of Irons Contracting, it had never occurred before and never occurred again. Notably, Irons Contracting was Gerry Irons' business, and he exercised primary control over its operations. Gerry Irons operated the business from his home; owned all the tools and other equipment used in the business; conducted all negotiations with Irons Contracting customers or potential customers; signed contracts, proposals, correspondent, and all other documents on behalf of Irons Contracting; and paid the bills or debts of Iron Contracting, including Respondent's pay, by check.2 Respondent's association with Irons Contracting was strictly as an employee,3 who was paid on an hourly basis for the work he did on Irons Contracting jobs. On an average week, Respondent would usually earn approximately $400. During part of the period following the signing of the contract and April or May 1994 when work ceased,4 Respondent worked as a day laborer on Ms. Stern's house,5 as well as other Irons Contracting projects. During that period, Ms. Stern made payments totaling $35,000. Each payment was by check payable to Irons Contracting, and each check was endorsed by Gerry Irons. Respondent, apart from being compensated for his daily labors, did not share in any of the proceeds Gerry Irons received from Ms. Stern. The costs of investigation and prosecution At hearing, Petitioner offered proof, without objection, that its costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, as of April 23, 1998, totaled $663.88. (Petitioner's Exhibit 8).
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Petitioner enter a Final Order: Finding the Respondent guilty of Counts I and II of the Administrative Complaint; Finding the Respondent not guilty of Counts III through VIII of the Administrative Complaint; Imposing an administrative penalty of $300.00; and Requiring, pursuant to Section 455.227(3), Florida Statutes, that the Respondent pay Petitioner's costs of investigation and prosecution, excluding costs associated with an attorney's time, in the amount of $663.88. DONE AND ENTERED this 11th day of June, 1998, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM J. KENDRICK 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 11th day of June, 1998.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding is whether Pinewood should be granted a permit to construct and operate an air pollution source, specifically a concrete batching plant. Petitioners contend that Pinewood has failed to give reasonable assurances that it can operate the plant in harmony with the Department's rules and regulations, and that deed restrictions on the property where Pinewood proposes to construct the plant prohibit it. Pinewood and the Department contend that Pinewood has provided reasonable assurance that the plant will not result in violation of the Department's air pollution source standards.
Findings Of Fact Pinewood is seeking to construct a concrete batching plant on Big Pine Key, Florida. The plant would be located within 1,000 feet of a body of water known as "Coupon Bight." Petitioners reside in a residential area across Coupon Bight from the plant location. Their residences are approximately one mile from the plant. If the proposed plant resulted in violations of the Department of Environmental Regulation's air pollution standards, Petitioners would suffer a degradation of their living environment. This would be especially true if the proposed plant resulted in violations of the Department's standards for particulate or dust emissions. Pinewood was formed as a corporation in August, 1981. It appears that the corporation was formed primarily to construct and operate the concrete batching plant which is the subject of this proceeding. In November, 1981, Pinewood obtained applicable construction permits from Monroe County, Florida. Pinewood ordered the plant from Stephens Manufacturing Company in Kentucky. The plant was constructed on the site during November, 1981. Anthony Paterniti, Pinewood's President, was responsible for obtaining the local permits and constructing the plant. He was not aware that permits would be required from the Department of Environmental Regulation before the plant could be constructed and operated. The Department of Environmental Regulation cited Pinewood for constructing the plant without the proper permits by initiating an enforcement proceeding. The enforcement proceeding was concluded by the Department and Pinewood entering into a consent order. Pinewood paid a fine of $250. Paterniti construed the consent order as allowing him to operate the plant. During April, 1982, the plant operated for nineteen days. The Department again initiated enforcement proceedings. These proceedings were concluded by the Department and Pinewood again entering into a consent order. During this time, Pinewood filed its application with the Department to construct and operate the concrete batching plant. The plant, while already constructed, has not operated since April, 1982. The plant, which Pinewood has already constructed and proposes to operate, is a ten yard batching plant. It batches, or loads, aggregate and cement into a cement truck, where the materials are mixed while on route to a job site. The plant is large enough to load only one truck at a time. The only air pollution that is likely to result from operation of such a plant is particulate emissions, or dust. In order to reduce these emissions, a "bag house" is installed in such a manner as to trap cement dust. The "bag house" functions in the manner of a vacuum cleaner, allowing air to pass through it, but trapping emissions. In normal use, a plant such as Pinewood's would emit approximately one-half pound of cement dust per hour into the air. Without use of the "bag house" from 7 to IS pounds per hour could be expected to be emitted. A second source of particulate emissions from operation of a hatching plant is the loose aggregate that is stored adjacent to the plant. If the aggregate is not properly stored, wind can blow it about and cause substantial emission of cement dust into the air. It is possible to virtually eliminate this source of pollution. Pinewood proposes to store loose aggregate within concrete bins. During high wind episodes, the bins could be covered. Pinewood also proposes to keep loose aggregate wet by sprinkling it with water, thus reducing that source of pollution. Other dust that might result from operation of a hatching plant such as would result from the utilization of heavy trucks in dusty areas are controllable. Pinewood has placed a firm marl base around the plant which can be kept wet during dry times. So long as the proposed concrete hatching plant is properly operated, and loose aggregate in the area is properly managed, it is not likely that emissions from the operation would result in violation of the Department's air pollution standards set out in Chapter 17-2, Florida Administrative Code. Pinewood's plant would be operated by Anthony Paterniti. Paterniti is a licensed general contractor. He is familiar with the operation of batching plants. While operating the plant is not difficult and maintenance requirements are minimal, it is necessary that proper operating and maintenance procedures be carefully observed. The property on which Pinewood proposes to operate its batching plant is owned by David S. and Judy A. Shephard. It appears that the Shephards are partners in the cement batching plant venture with Pinewood, and that they are prepared to enter into a lease agreement with Pinewood. The deed by which the Shephards obtained the property contains the following deed restriction: "The property may not be used as a site of a cement plant." Local government authorities in Monroe County have apparently interpreted this restriction to not include a concrete batching plant, but rather pertain to a cement manufacturing plant. There was testimony offered at the hearing from which it could be concluded that the intent of the restriction was to include batching plants. Petitioners have contended that there is a likelihood that operation of the plant would result in violations of water quality standards in Coupon Bight. The evidence does not sustain that contention. In an effort to get the petitioners to drop their opposition to this permit application, Paterniti wrote a letter dated June 1, 1982, to all the Petitioners. The letter included the following: I think that you all should know that the Benhams [two of the originally named Petitioners] themselves have an illegal duplex on RU-1 zoning on lot 17, block 3 Pine Channel Estates. I intend to file a zoning violation with the Monroe County Zoning Dept. and have this violation of our zoning laws investigated. I am prepared to go to court over this matter. * * * I would like to ask your group to write a letter to the DER withdrawing your request for a hearing. If you do this, I will not file the zoning violation with the county, which I intend to do this week. You leave me no other choice. The tone of this letter is certainly threatening; however, it does not stand as evidence to establish that Pinewood is incapable of properly operating a concrete batching Plant. No evidence was offered as to the interests of Petitioners other than Naubereit and Kite in this proceeding, and no appearance was entered on their behalf at the hearing.
Findings Of Fact The certified general contractors examination given on February 23-24, 1993, consisted of two parts. Petitioner received a score of 71 on the first part and a score of 67 on the second part. The minimum score required to pass each part is 70. Petitioner challenged question 5 in the second part. The question related to the "angle of repose". The term "angle of repose" has been used for a number of years in the field of construction. The angle of repose is used when calculating the stability of soils for purposes of excavation. Petitioner chose answer "B" to question 5. The correct answer to question 5 is answer "D", i.e., 5 feet 6 inches. The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive. Petitioner also challenged question 9 relating to the extra square feet needed for fire resistant partition walls. The problem required calculating the linear feet first and then multiplying by the height of the walls after subtracting for slab thickness. The examination was open book. Petitioner was permitted to refer to the Standard Building Code. The correct answer to question 9 was "B". Petitioner chose answer "D". The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive. Petitioner challenged question 10 which required a calculation of the time to lay interior masonry walls. The correct answer to question 10 was "A". Petitioner chose answer "C". The testimony of Respondent's expert witness was credible and persuasive.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's challenge to his score of 67 on the general contractors examination given on February 23-24, 1993. DONE AND ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 2nd day of December, 1993. DANIEL MANRY Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 2nd day of December, 1993. APPENDIX TO RECOMMENDED ORDER, CASE NO. 93-3938 Respondent submitted proposed findings of fact. It is noted below which proposed findings of fact were accepted and the paragraph number(s) in the Recommended Order where they were accepted, if any. Those proposed findings of fact which were rejected and the reason for their rejection are also noted below. No notation is made for unnumbered paragraphs. The Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Respondent's paragraphs 2-3 are rejected as irrelevant and immaterial. Respondent's remaining proposed findings of fact are accepted in substance. COPIES FURNISHED: Daniel O'Brien, Executive Director Department of Business and Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Jack McRay General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Vytas J. Urba, Asst. General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 Behzad Khazaree 142 Tollgate Trail Longwood, Florida 32750
Findings Of Fact In the fall of 1986, the Respondent, James A. Campbell, and his associate, David Ritchie, were operating a construction business known as Town & Country Construction Corp. of Tampa. Campbell was the company's qualifying contractor. At the same time, Campbell and Ritchie were in the process of starting a new company to be known as Bay City Builders, Inc. In the application for state registration of the new business, Campbell also was listed as the qualifying contractor. Campbell and Ritchie had business forms, including contract forms, printed in the name of Bay City Builders, Inc., so as to be ready to do business upon approval of the pending application. On December 5, 1986, an employee of Campbell's company, a Mr. Earl Mills, responded to a telephone inquiry from a Mrs. Josefina Rodriguez, who was interested in having a room added and some other renovations done to her home at 551 South Lois Avenue in Tampa. Mills erroneously committed Bay City Builders to a bid on the job before its application was approved. In addition, the bid was seriously low and committed to completion of the job in just 60 days, an overly optimistic time frame even on a reasonable bid. Rodriguez accepted the bid, and Mills obligated Bay City Builders to a contract with her on December 5, 1986, with an addendum dated December 18, 1986. When Campbell, who was out of town at the time, and particularly Ritchie found out what Mills had done, they fired Mills. But they decided to honor the contract. Work began timely during the last week of December, 1986. At the outset of the work, the plumbing subcontractor discovered seriously deteriorated pipes all the way to the street. It was agreed that the pipes would be excavated and replaced outside the contract, to be paid directly by Rodriguez. This delayed the performance of the contract for a limited period of time. Nonetheless, work progressed in a timely fashion through January, 1987. By January 12, 1987, Rodriguez had paid $7859 of the $12,300 due under the contract. By some point in January, 1987, the foundation footers for the 15' by 24' addition had been dug and put in, the rough plumbing had been done, the concrete slab for the addition had been poured, the concrete block walls had been laid, and the framing for the roof had been built. But then work stopped for several weeks. Mrs. Rodriguez became very concerned for several reasons. First, she was planning a trip to Puerto Rico from June to August, 1987, and, as she had explained to Mills and Ritchie, she wanted the work done before she left. Second, without a roof over the addition, water began to pool in the addition during rains and leak into the main part of the house. Third, she had had difficulty contacting the entity that had taken her money. Mills was gone, and Bay City Builders seemed to her not to exist. Campbell and Ritchie had withdrawn the application to qualify it after the Rodriguez fiasco, and it never did any business before or since. There never was a telephone listing for it. As early as February, 1987, Rodriguez sought help from the Better Business Bureau, which could not even find Bay City Builders, and filed a complaint with the Petitioner, the Department of Professional Regulation, that the contractor had abandoned the job. In mid-February, 1987, a crew returned to the job site and put plywood and tar paper roofing material on the roof. This stopped the water leakage into the main house. But then work came to a virtual standstill. All of the $7859 had been spent, and work had not progressed far enough for the next draw, $2000, under the contract. Ritchie tried to explain the situation to Rodriguez, starting from Mills' unrealistic bid. As it was, Ritchie explained, the work would be done but it was going to be long and slow. Ritchie wound up having to borrow money personally and prevailed upon sympathetic subcontractors to forebear in collecting their due in order for Ritchie to finish the project. Practically no work was done during the rest of February, any of March or the first part of April, 1987. In late April, 1987, without any prompting from the DPR or the Better Business Bureau, Ritchie managed to get workers to the job site to finish the dry wall in the addition, which would trigger the next $2000 draw under the contract, and to shingle the roof of the house (addition and pre-existing roof.) When this work was finished in May, 1987, Ritchie contacted Rodriguez to ask for the $2000 draw. Mrs. Rodriguez asked to be assured that the work would be finished before she left for Puerto Rico in June. Ritchie apologized but said it would be impossible under the circumstances. He asked her to allow the work to continue in her absence. Rodriguez refused and also refused to pay the $2000. She said if Ritchie couldn't finish the work before she went to Puerto Rico, she would get someone else to do it. That was the last Ritchie or Campbell heard about the Rodriguez job until DPR initiated this proceeding. Rodriguez did not contact another builder about finishing the work until the end of October, 1987.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings Of Fact and Conclusions Of Law, it is recommended that the Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a final order dismissing the Administrative Complaint against the Respondent, James A. Campbell. RECOMMENDED this 7th day of July, 1988, in Tallahassee, Florida. J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON 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 7th day of July, 1988. COPIES FURNISHED: Belinda H. Miller, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750 James A. Campbell 719 South 50th Street Tampa, Florida 33619 Fred Seely Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32201 William O'Neil, Esquire General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street 6 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0750
The Issue The issue for consideration in this case is whether Respondent's certification as an aluminum contractor in Pinellas County should be disciplined because of the matters alleged in the Administrative Complaint filed herein.
Findings Of Fact At all times pertinent to the matter in issue herein, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board was the county agency responsible for the regulation of construction industry professionals and contractors operating in Pinellas County, Florida. Respondent was certified as an aluminum contractor and was issued license C-3664. He was, at the time in issue, the qualifying contractor of record for Phoenix Aluminum, Inc. Phoenix Aluminum, Inc. and Ace Aluminum, Inc. are parts of the same entity and are operated by the same individuals. On December 1, 1993, Harvey W. Heimann, the owner of a town house located at 1802 Largo Vista Boulevard, in Largo, Florida, orally agreed with Willard Hill, the reputed representative of Ace Aluminum, to have an aluminum enclosure placed on the rear of his home. Mr. Hill initially had solicited the Heimanns during construction of the home, indicating Ace had done other work in the area. When the parties agreed on a price Mr. Hill indicated that construction would start as soon as the required permit could be obtained, and the job would be completed as soon as possible. No time period for construction was specified. When the job was completed, the Heimanns were not satisfied, feeling the workmanship was poor and the job was esthetically unsatisfactory. They complained numerous times either to Willard Hill or to a Mr. Smart, both reputed to be employees of the company, who promised to come and look the work over. No satisfactory corrections were made by the contractor, however. Nonetheless, an invoice was issued on January 21, 1994 in the amount of $1,720.00, and the Heimanns paid Ace Aluminum the sum of $1,360.00 by check on April 23, 1994, after some corrective work was accomplished. This check was subsequently endorsed and paid to Ace. In November 1995 a strong wind hit the Largo area during which some of the roof panels on the Heimanns' aluminum room installed by Ace/Phoenix blew off. Mrs. Heimann subsequently spoke by telephone with someone at the company office but got no satisfaction, and in February, contacted another aluminum contractor, Mr. Howe, to give them an estimate to repair the damage. When Mr. Howe found out that the installation was so recent, he refused to do any corrective work on it until he determined if the work had been both permitted and finally inspected. He found that a permit had been pulled for the installation. He then advised the owners to contact the original installer. The Heimanns wanted nothing more to do with Ace/Phoenix and on April 5, 1996, Mr. Howe pulled a permit to do the necessary work. The work, which also required the replacement of the screws affixing the base aluminum to the concrete with larger screws and a deeper insertion into the concrete, was completed by April 10, 1996, after which Howe arranged for the job to be properly inspected. The work Howe did passed inspection. According to David Livesay, the chief building inspector for Pinellas County, a permit for the project in issue was pulled by Willard Hill on December 9, 1993. Building Department records also show that on January 24, 1994, a frame inspection was done of the project which resulted in the issuance of a yellow tag, denoting a failure, because of inadequate base anchoring. The actual inspection form reads, "Called in for 'building inspection' YTAG: 9:50AM Need verification of base fastening into slab, Recall J K." J K appears to be the initials of the inspector who did the inspection. On January 25, 1994, a second inspection was done and again the project was rejected because of the base fasteners. That inspection report reads, "9:30 AM Recheck same as previous insp." Both a yellow tag and a red tag mean that a code violation exists. The difference between the two is that while a red tag requires payment of a fee, a yellow tag does not. Notwithstanding the deficiency found in the first inspection was not corrected by Respondent or his company, no further action was taken until March 21, 1996, when Mr. Livesay filed a citation against the Respondent for "construction not to code" based on the work done at the subject address. A court date was set for April 5, 1996, but on March 23, 1996, Respondent appeared in court, pleaded guilty to the charge and paid a fine of $155.00. According to Mr. Livesay, normal procedure is for the contractor who has completed work which requires inspection to call in to have the inspection made. There is no indication here that this was not done. The problem here lies in the failure to make the necessary corrections disclosed by the inspection. Respondent, Bret Hill, admits that he is the individual whose license/certification was used to qualify Phoenix Aluminum, Inc., the company which did the work in issue. However, he denies having ever met or dealt with the Heimanns and this appears to be the case. Respondent's father, Willard Hill, indicates it is he who, as salesman for Ace/Phoenix, dealt with the Heimanns and pulled the permit for the required construction. He is also the individual who did the installation work and who called for the inspection when the work was completed. When the first inspection resulted in the issuance of a yellow tag, he called, the next day, for a second inspection. Mr. W. Hill insists that the first yellow tag resulted from the inspector's inability to determine the size of the lag bolt used to fasten the aluminum to the concrete base. He also asserts that the day after the first inspection he brought the appropriate bolts to the site for the inspector's review, but the inspector did not see them and issued a second yellow tag. Nonetheless, Hill asserts, the bolts used were proper for the job and the room built according to the specifications submitted to the building department by Phoenix. The prime contractor for the housing project was Geiger Enterprises, and it was Geiger who hired Phoenix to do the screening work. Both Ace Aluminum and Phoenix Aluminum were, Hill indicates, owned by a Mr. Brabham, with Bret Hill serving only as the qualifying licensee. Taking into account all the above, the ultimate finding is that the work was done by Phoenix Aluminum, Inc., based on a permit issued to Phoenix; it was found to be inadequate on an inspection called for by Phoenix, and the identified deficiency was not shown to be corrected.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board enter a final order finding Respondent, Bret Hill, guilty of misconduct in the practice of contracting, and imposing an administrative fine of $250.00. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of December, 1996, in Tallahassee, Florida. ARNOLD H. POLLOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (904) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (904) 921-6847 COPIES FURNISHED: William J. Owens Executive Director Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board 11701 Belcher Road, Suite 102 Largo, Florida 24643-5116 Bret Hill 4904 Headland Hills Avenue Tampa, Florida 33625 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of December, 1996.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Respondent has been a certified building contractor in the State of Florida, having been issued License No. CB CO24584. At all times material hereto, Respondent was the qualifying agent for Southern Construction Technologies, Inc. In March, 1988, Alfred and Martha Entrekin entered into a contract with Southern Construction Technologies, Inc., whereby they agreed to pay the sum of $178,000 for construction of a custom-built home. Since the Entrekins were unable to qualify for the financing needed for construction, Southern Construction obtained a construction loan on their behalf. Despite delays, construction commenced in May of 1988 and continued through October, when, the closing on the residence took place, subsequent to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Town of Davie. Just prior to the closing, a "punchlist" was prepared by Respondent and the Entrekins. That punchlist, which became part of the closing, contains 24 numbered items. (Due to misnumbering, the punchlist says 25.) Thirteen 0of those items on the copy of the punchlist offered in evidence by the Petitioner have been crossed off that list. Of the remaining 11 items, the evidence at final hearing reveals that some were corrected and some items were not the subject of any evidence offered by either party at the final hearing. Although additional items appear to have been added to the punchlist by the Entrekins sometime after the closing, those items will not be considered in this cause since no evidence was offered to indicate that those items were agreed to by the Respondent at the time of closing and no evidence was presented as to when those items were added to the original punchlist by the Entrekins. At the time of closing, the sum of $1,500 was placed in escrow to ensure completion of the punchlist by Respondent. Respondent performed some of the punchlist work on the day of the closing and continued working on the punchlist items for the next three weeks. On January 11, 1989, the Entrekins' attorney sent a demand letter seeking the release of the funds placed in escrow at the closing. Attached to that demand letter was a list of 16 items allegedly remaining on the punchlist. Some of the items on the new "punchlist" submitted by the Entrekins did not appear on the punchlist agreed to by the parties at the closing. Others did appear on the closing punchlist but had been struck through and initialed by Mrs. Entrekin, assumedly as having been completed, on the copy of the closing punchlist offered by Petitioner as an exhibit in this cause. In response to the demand letter, Respondent authorized the release of the $1,500 in escrow to the Entrekins. Respondent admits that at the time that the money was released to the Entrekins, there were still some repairs needed to the rake tiles on the roof and he had not seeded the backyard. Respondent testified that four rake tiles on the eaves were missing, some were misaligned, and some had not been "mudded" in with mortar, but no broken tiles remained on the roof. He also testified that he had not seeded the backyard because the Entrekins had not yet placed fill in the backyard, an item which Mr. Entrekin admits was his responsibility as provided in the contract between the Entrekins and Southern Construction Technologies, Inc. The only evidence submitted in corroboration of the complaints of the Entrekins consists of several invoices. In March, 1989, the Entrekins obtained an estimate for roof repairs from Warren Roofing, Inc., in the amount of $1,200. That invoice indicates the need to replace 80 broken tiles on the roof, the need to remove and replace approximately 130 rake tiles to be secured with mortar tinted to match (although Donald Warren testified that the tile used is nail-on tile which does not require mortar), and the need to "repair defects" in two rear valley areas. Warren Roofing was never hired to effectuate the repairs for which it had submitted its $1,200 estimate. The extensive work set forth in the estimate in March of 1989 is inconsistent with the roofing inspection which would have taken place prior to the certificate of occupancy issued prior to the closing in October of 1988. The only roofing repair effectuated to the Entrekin house by anyone other than Respondent was work performed by Warren Roofing in July of 1989 repairing a leak around the skylight. Petitioner also offered in evidence two invoices from pool services dated March of 1989. One invoice in the amount of $275 represents the cost of acid washing the pool, and the other invoice is for $230 to "filter pool water." Due to electrical problems, the water in the pool was not filtered for two days during the period of construction of the Entrekin house. No evidence was offered to show that the absence of filtering a pool for two days would require it to be acid washed, and no evidence was offered in support of the services performed or the need for the services represented by the second invoice. Another invoice represents the cost of 20 loads of muck for the backyard at a cost of $600, and $150 to rent a bulldozer. Since the muck for the backyard was the responsibility of the Entrekins, the bulldozer charge accompanying the 20 loads of muck is, in all probability, also the responsibility of the Entrekins. The last invoice submitted in evidence also bears the date of March of 1989 and represents 50 pounds of grass seed, in the amount of $110.50, a cost item which Respondent admits was his responsibility at the time that the escrowed monies were released to the Entrekins.
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 of the allegations contained in the Administrative Complaint filed against him and dismissing the Administrative Complaint. DONE AND ENTERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, this 25th day of January, 1991. LINDA M. RIGOT Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 25th day of January, 1991. COPIES FURNISHED: Charles N. Tetunic, Esquire Becker, Poliakoff & Streitfeld, P.A. Post Office Box 9057 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310-9057 Joseph Stephen Sharrow, Esquire Post Office Box 8995 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33310 Daniel O'Brien Executive Director Department of Professional Regulation Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Kenneth E. Easley General Counsel Department of Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street, Suite 60 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue Whether Respondent discriminated against Petitioners based on their race in violation of Chapter 760, Florida Statutes (2006) ("Florida Civil Rights Act").
Findings Of Fact Based on the oral and documentary evidence presented at the final hearing, the following Findings of Fact are made: All Petitioners are African-American males; all were employed by Respondent. Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were discharged on September 20, 2006. Petitioner Cole was laid off on August 25, 2006. Respondent, Solid Wall Systems, Inc., is an employer as defined by the Florida Civil Rights Act; it constructs cast-in- place solid concrete wall structures for the production home industry. This construction methodology is typically employed in large residential developments, and the construction "critical path" requires timely completion of each construction progression. For example, if walls are not timely completed, roof truss installation will be delayed, erection equipment will be idle, follow-up subcontractors are delayed, and money is lost. Petitioner, Ralph Alexander, was employed by Respondent in July 2004, as a laborer, being paid $9.00 per hour. He received pay raises and a promotion to leadman during the next several years. At his discharge, he was a leadman being paid $14.00 per hour. Petitioner, Stevie Daniels, was employed by Respondent in March 2004, as a laborer, being paid $9.00 per hour. He received pay raises and a promotion to leadman during the next several years. At his discharge, he was a leadman being paid $13.00 per hour. Petitioner, Ernest West, Jr., was employed by Respondent in October 2004, as a laborer and paid $9.00 per hour. He received pay raises during the next several years. At his discharge, he was being paid $11.00 per hour. Petitioner, Carlos Cole, was hired in September 2003, as a yard helper with Space Coast Truss, a subsidiary of Respondent's corporate owner, being paid $6.50 per hour. In October 2003, he was transferred to Respondent and received $9.00 per hour. He received pay raises and a promotion to leadman during the next several years. At his discharge, on August 25, 2006, he had been promoted to leadman and was being paid $15.00 per hour, but was working as a laborer. On September 11, 15 and 19, 2006, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were "written-up." That is, they were disciplined for failing to follow the specific instructions of supervisors. On September 11, 2006, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were on a "stripping" crew working at Wedgefield in East Orange County. Alexander was advised that the job had to be completed that day, because trusses were scheduled to be installed the following day. Notwithstanding direction to the contrary, the crew left the job without completing the stripping. The time cards of Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West indicate that these Petitioners "clocked-out" at between 5:24 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. It is between 30 and 45 minutes from the job site and Respondent's yard. Petitioners would have spent several additional minutes cleaning up before "clocking- out." Not only did Petitioners fail to complete the job, they left the job site early. Petitioner Ernest West, Jr., had a part-time job working for Space Coast Cleaning, a janitorial service, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m., Monday, Wednesday and Friday. The job was located in Viera approximately 15 to 20 minutes from Respondent's yard. September 11, 2006, was a Monday and a work day for West's part-time job. Petitioner West told Respondent's operations manager that they left the job site so that he could get to his part-time job on time. On September 15, 2006, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were assigned to strip a multi-unit job site in Titusville. The crew was told to complete the stripping before they left the job site. Time cards indicate that Petitioners "clocked-out" between 3:30 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. Petitioners left the job unfinished, because they thought they would be unable to complete the job that day. On September 19, 2006, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were assigned to strip a building at Viera High School. After a building is stripped, crews have standing orders not to leave any "cap" forms on the job site. This is a particular type of form that crews are specifically instructed to return to the main yard immediately after use and re-stock in bins for use on subsequent projects. On this day, Petitioner Alexander called Roy Brock, a field manager, and inquired regarding the "cap" forms. He was instructed to bring all forms to the yard. Brock visited the Viera High School job site after the stripping crew had returned to the yard and found several caps that had been left at the site. He loaded them on his truck and returned them to the yard. As a result of these three incidents, which were deemed acts of insubordination, Petitioners Alexander, Daniels and West were terminated on September 20, 2006. In May, June, and July 2006, the housing construction market suffered a significant decline. This was reflected by Respondent having a profit of $10,000 in May, a profit of $2,000 to $3,000 in June, and a $60,000 loss in July. In August, there was literally "no work." Respondent's employees were being sent home every day because there was no work. As a result of the decline in construction, Vince Heuser, Respondent's operations manager, was directed to lay off employees. Petitioner Cole was among five employees laid off on August 25, 2006. Of the five, three were African-American, one was Caucasian, and one was Hispanic. Seven Hispanic laborers were hired on July 5 and 6, 2006. Respondent had taken over the cast-in-place wall construction portion of two large projects from a subcontractor named "JR." The general contractor/developer, Welch Construction, requested that these seven Hispanic individuals, who had been "JR" employees, and had done all the stripping on these two Welch Construction jobs, be hired to complete the jobs. Hiring these seven individuals to continue to work on the jobs was part of the take-over agreement. In September 2006, three Hispanic laborers were hired. Two were hired to work on "amenity walls" which require a totally different forming process than does the standard solid- wall construction. The third was hired to work on the Welch jobs as he had worked with the "JR" crew previously.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations enter final orders dismissing the Petitions for Relief for Petitioners Ralph Alexander, Stevie Daniels, Ernest West, Jr., and Carlos Cole. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2008, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JEFF B. CLARK 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 31st day of January, 2008. COPIES FURNISHED: Cecil Howard, General Counsel Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Denise Crawford, Agency Clerk Florida Commission on Human Relations 2009 Apalachee Parkway, Suite 100 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Adrienne E. Trent, Esquire Enrique, Smith and Trent, P.L. 836 Executive Lane, Suite 120 Rockledge, Florida 32955 Chelsie J. Roberts, Esquire Ford & Harrison, LLP 300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1300 Orlando, Florida 32801
Findings Of Fact During 1981, a five-story, ninety-eight unit condominium was constructed in Deerfield Beach, Florida. This condominium was called the "Beach House". The prime contractor on the Beach House project was "Morelite Construction Company." The licensed general contractor who qualified Morelite Construction Company at the time of the Beach House project and who was closely involved with that job was Mr. Raymond Orsi. The engineer who designed the Beach House was Mr. Alan Reese. Morelite Construction Company hired as a subcontractor "General Contractors of Florida, Incorporated," which firm was qualified by Respondent at the time of the Beach House project. At the time of the Beach House project and final hearing in this case, Respondent was licensed as a contractor as alleged in the Administrative Complaint, was qualifying agent for General Contractors of Florida, Inc. (hereafter GCOF) and responsible for that firm's work. GCOF was hired by Morelite as the "shell contractor." GCOF's contract called for GCOF to do all the concrete and masonry work in building the Beach House. GCOF was to build the structural shell of the building, leaving all plumbing, electrical, and finish work to be done by other parties. More specifically, GCOF was to construct all the plywood frames for the numerous concrete beams and columns for the Beach House, to assemble the steel reinforcing rods inside those forms, and then pour the concrete into the forms. The steel and concrete was supplied by Morelite. GCOF was also responsible for constructing the numerous concrete block walls throughout the condominium and pouring the concrete floors on each of the five levels of the condominium building. The floor joists and floor form work were done by other firms, and GCOF's responsibility was to pour concrete slabs on top of those joists and to assure proper thickness of the slabs. GCOF's contract called for the firm to construct plywood forms for the various concrete beams and columns on the Beach House, to assemble inside those forms the steel in reinforcing rods, and to pour the concrete into the forms. The steel and concrete was supplied by Morelite, but all labor and know-how was supplied by GCOF. As admitted by Respondent, after removing the plywood forms on numerous beams that had been assembled and poured by GCOF, it was discovered that extensive honeycombing on the bottom of the beams had occurred. Irregular void and pitted areas at the bottom of the beams were found where there should have been solid concrete. It was apparent that the honeycombing was caused by the failure of the concrete to reach the bottom of the forms. Although the Respondent asserted that the honeycombing was caused by an improper concrete mix which was supplied to him, slump tests performed by an independent testing laboratory from concrete as it as being delivered and used by Respondent, show that the concrete Respondent was using was in the range that would be required to properly form the beams. Acceptable construction practice calls for a contractor doing concrete work such as Respondent's firm to repair honeycombing within several days of removing the plywood forms in order to minimize rusting of reinforcing steel. The honeycombing was obvious to the naked eye and with a minimal degree at supervision by GCOF, it would have been immediately corrected. The honeycombing occurred because of Respondent's failure to sufficiently "vibrate" the concrete during the pour. Concrete is vibrated by placing a rapidly vibrating cylinder in the concrete as it is being poured into the form. The vibration tends to cause the crushed aggregate in the concrete to work its way around obstacles such as reinforcing bars and down to the bottom of the form. The honeycombing problem on this project was approximately ten times worse than would normally be expected on similar jobs of similar design and complexity. Ten percent of the concrete on this job was effected with honeycombing, whereas, normally only one percent of the concrete is affected. These voids and honeycombs constitute a violation of Section 2506.4 and 2506.6 of the South Florida Building Code which was in effect in Broward County, where the Beach House is located, when the project was being built. The Respondent received some off-color defectively mixed concrete and for one day concrete delivery was prematurely stopped. However, this occurrence was limited to one or two particular beams, and in any event did not involve the honeycombing problems, unfilled wall cell problems, or other problems alleged in the Administrative Complaint. GCOF's contract called for GCOF to place reinforcing steel in the concrete block walls throughout the project at a spacing of approximately four feet, and then to fill each such cell with concrete. Concrete block walls divided the condominium apartments from one another, and also constituted the exterior walls of the condominium building. The concrete block walls rested on the poured concrete beams for each floor. The walls were of the common variety of concrete blocks commonly seem throughout South Florida. Each such block contains holes or cells. The design called for having, approximately every four feet, a vertical series of blocks in which tee-holes were vertically aligned with one another from top to bottom of the wall. A long piece of reinforcing steel bar was then placed in the vertical series of block cells and the entire vertical series of cells was filled with solid concrete poured from above. There was a failure, however, to comply with the requirement concerning these reinforced masonry cells. On a typical section of this job, approximately 30 or more such vertical cells could be expected to be unfilled. In the same typical section of a comparable job where solid construction practices were being observed, approximately four or five cells could be expected to be unfilled. The cell problem on this project, as stated by one expert, was "grossly out of line." Moreover, in numerous cases the "cleanout holes," which were required by contract, were not present. There was a significant occurrence of instances in which reinforcing steel was not placed in the cells as required. The failure to fill the cells constituted a violation of Section 2704.10(d) of the Broward County Building Code in force when the Beach House was built. The honeycombing and unfilled cell errors occurred in GCOF's work over the course of approximately five months during which several floors of the building were being built and were seen throughout all three floors of the structure. GCOF's contract required that firm to pour the cement for each floor built. The concrete slabs should have been three inches thick, but varied in thickness from 1.75 inches to five and a half inches. It was Respondent's assertion that this variation was caused by a bow in the "Hambro" joists that were used on the Beach House. The "Hambro" joists refers to joists manufactured by the Hambro Company. Each joist has built into it a slight upward bow. The joists are supported an each end of the poured concrete beams. The joists are then covered with forms, and concrete is poured over the forms to constitute the floor of each level of the building. The weight of the concrete presses the bow out of the Hambro joist. It was Respondent's assertion that the thickness variation was caused by a design error in that the concrete weight was insufficient to press out the bow. Thus, Respondent asserted that the pattern of variation in thickness was that the concrete slabs were thickest at each side corresponding to the ends of the Hambro joists, and grew steadily thinner toward the center of the slab, where the joist bow brought the joist and subflooring to their highest point. However, field observations demonstrated that the thickness variations occurred randomly about the slabs as seen through the numerous plumbing holes routinely cut through the slabs. There was no pattern of the slabs being thinnest down their center lines. The variation in slab thickness was excessive as compared to acceptable practice in the industry, and deviated from what could be expected to be found on a similar job. The slabs were at times half as thick as required, and at other points they were twice as thick as required. These variations constitute violations of Broward County Building Code Sections 301.1, 301.2 and 301.4, in force when the Beach House was built. GCOF's duties on the job included placing certain corner steel. The corner steel was made of pieces of reinforcing steel rod, bent in an "L" shape, and placed in the beam forms at each corner of the building before any of the corner beams were poured with concrete. Their purpose was to tie the walls together where they met at 90-degree corners. The corner steel was required by the engineer's drawings and notes, and personnel of GCOF should have noted the requirement for placing said steel. None of the corner steel was placed as required. The absence of the corner steel was noted by other parties when the Beach House was approximately one-third complete. That entire one-third of the job had been done without placing any of the corner steel bars as required. The omission of the corner steel was a serious safety hazard and a violation of the Broward County Building Code Sections 302.1(e), 302.2 and 302.4. Voids in concrete columns existed underneath the beams on the project in at least two places. These vertical columns, which were formed, reinforced, and poured by GCOF were on the lower floor, and across their top ran an important horizontal beam. Upon inspection, it was noted that at the top of each column, which was designed to support the horizontal beam, the concrete had significant voids or empty spots. As a result, the load capacity of the columns was seriously weakened. These voids were critical and severely affected the structural integrity of the building. It was shown that they were visible to the naked eye and were of such a key nature that experienced construction personnel should have noted the problem immediately. Nevertheless, GCOF had removed the forms and had said nothing about the problem, allowing work to go on above without correction, adding another floor on top of the defective columns. When the problem was discovered an immediate temporary shoring all around the affected columns was ordered by the project engineer until repairs could be made. These voids constituted a violation of Broward County Building Code Section 2506.4. On July 22, 1981, the Deerfield Beach Building Department, which had jurisdiction of the Beach House job issued a stop work order on the project. The causes of the stop work order were the same deficiencies alleged in the Administrative Complaint, and described above. A series of meetings between the building department design engineer, the prime contractor, the owner and GCOF, concerning necessary remedial work was necessary. Certain repairs were done, and on August 7, 1981, the building department allowed work to resume. In July of 1981, Morelite Construction Company fired GCOF from the job due to dissatisfaction with the quality of GCOF's work. GCOF entered into its contract for the Beach House job on March 19, 1981, began work in March, and had been on the job approximately five months prior to being fired. The competency of GCOF's personnel on the job and the quality of supervision provided by Respondent and Respondent's personnel were constant problems throughout the job, and this was repeatedly brought to Respondent's personal attention. After the building department issued its stop work order, a series of meetings were held between the building department, the owners, the general contractor, Mr. Reese, and representatives of GCOF concerning necessary remedial work. Respondent did not attend any of those meetings, despite the fact that it was GCOF's work that was in issue. During the five months that Hector Vergara, the project engineer, inspected GCOF's steel placement, he never saw Respondent in the building. It was the Respondent's standard procedure to check on the job by stopping his car outside the site end asking an employee via mobile radio how the job was going. On occasion, Respondent would go to the construction shack on the job, but never ventured into the project. The failure to reinforce the masonry block walls resulted from insufficient supervision by GCOF on the job. GCOF never inspected the placement of steel reinforcing prior to the engineer' inspection. The problems cited in the Administrative Complaint were caused by a lack of supervision by the workmen of GCOF.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED That the Petitioner Construction Industry Licensing Board enter a Final Order suspending the Respondent's license for six months. DONE and ENTERED this 30th day of March, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 30th day of March, 1984. COPIES FURNISHED: Ira L. Varnum Post Office Box 3100 Deland, Florida 32720 Douglas A. Shropshire, Esquire Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 James Linnan, Executive Director Construction Industry Licensing Board Post Office Box 2 Jacksonville, Florida 32202 Frederick M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 =================================================================
