MINUTES Board of Architecture and Interior Design the Breakers One South Court Road Palm Beach, Florida 33480 561.655.6611 July
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MINUTES Board of Architecture and Interior Design The Breakers One South Court Road Palm Beach, Florida 33480 561.655.6611 July 28, 2008 9:00 a.m. General Business Meeting Call to Order Mr. Kuritzky, Chair called the meeting to order at 9:05 a.m. Board Members Present: John Ehrig E. Wendell Hall Rossana Dolan Lourdes Solera Eric Kuritzky, Chair Mary Jane Grigsby Roymi Membiela Wanda Gozdz Joyce Shore Board Member Absent: Garrick Gustafson, unexcused Others Present: Mary Ellen Clark, Board Counsel David Minacci, Prosecuting Attorney Juanita Chastain, Executive Director Terri Estes, Government Analyst Trent Manausa Emory Johnson Dwight Chastain Bob Lamar David DeHaas Mickey Marrero Ingrid Burgos Willie Peterson Steven Mickley Board of Architecture and Interior Design July 28-29, 2008 General Business Page 1 of 27 Court Reporter: Alexandra Ramirez, Official Reporting Services, LLC, 524 S. Andrews Avenue, Suite 302N, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Disciplinary Cases Mr. Minacci requested that the board approve the following cases on a consent agenda. Settlement Stipulation Licensed DBPR vs. Oscar Benetiz Case Numbers 2006-066090 and 2007-013072 PCP: Rodriguez, Wirtz and Gustafson DBPR vs. Hugo De Ley and J Design Group, Inc. Case Numbers 2007-062663 and 2007-049107 PCP: Rodriguez, Wirtz, and Gustafson DBPR vs. William Edwin Wallace Case Number 2007-065241 PCP: Rodriguez, Wirtz, and Gustafson Unlicensed DBPR vs. Teena M. Benton and Benton Drafting and Design Case Number 2007-008550 PCP: Rodriguez, Wirtz, and Gustafson Motion: Ms. Membiela moved that the board approve the settlement stipulations as presented. Second: Mr. Hall seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Voluntary Relinquish DBPR vs. James P. Goldman Case Number 2007-056874 DBPR vs. Gregg R. Stouder Case Number 2008-024988 DBPR vs. Roland Stout Case Number 2007-064345 Motion: Ms. Solera moved that the board approve the voluntary relinquishments as presented. Second: Mr. Hall seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Board of Architecture and Interior Design July 28-29, 2008 General Business Page 2 of 27 Settlement Stipulation Unlicensed DBPR vs. Mary P. Collins and MPC Design Case Number 2007-048803 PCP: Rodriguez, Wirtz, and Hall (application on file) The respondent was not present but was represented by Diane Perera. The case was before the board based on the respondent offering interior design services on a commercial project when not licensed. Probable cause was found to file a three count administrative complaint for practicing interior designer when not licensed, using the title interior designer when not licensed, and offering services through a business entity without a certificate of authorization. The panel recommended $15,000 fine plus costs. The settlement stipulation reflected a $2,500 fine plus costs. The fine was reduced because this was a first offense and they agreed to comply. Ms. Perera assured the board that she educated Ms. Collins on the statutes and rules. Motion: Ms. Membiela moved that the board approve the settlement stipulation as presented. Second: Ms. Grigsby seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. DBPR vs. Kelly Wearstler, Inc. and Kelly Wearstler Case Number 2007-067706 PCP: Rodriguez, Wirtz, and Gustafson (application on file) The respondent was not present but represented by Mickey Marrero. The case was before the board based on the respondent offering interior design services on a commercial project when not licensed. Probable cause was found to file a three count administrative complaint for practicing interior designer when not licensed, using the title interior designer when not licensed, and offering services through a business entity without a certificate of authorization. The panel recommended $15,000 fine plus costs. The settlement stipulation reflected a $7,500 fine plus costs. The fine was reduced because this was a first offense and they agreed to comply. Mr. Marrero commented that this was only incident and that the respondent began the application process. Motion: Ms. Grigsby moved that the board approve the settlement stipulation as presented. Second: Ms. Shore seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. DBPR vs. Robert B. Lamar Case Numbers 2007-057003 PCP: Rodriguez, Wirtz and Gustafson (application on file) Board of Architecture and Interior Design July 28-29, 2008 General Business Page 3 of 27 Mr. Lamar was present and sworn in by the court reporter. The case was before the board based on the respondent offering architectural and interior design services on two commercial projects when not licensed. Probable cause was found to file a four count administrative complaint for practicing architecture when not licensed on two projects and practicing interior designer when not licensed on two projects. The panel recommended $7,500 fine plus costs. The settlement stipulation reflected a $3,750 fine plus costs. The fine was reduced because this was a first offense, the respondent agreed to comply and appear before the board. Mr. Lamar commented that he was a graduate of Auburn University. He commented that he worked with Mr. Bullock as an intern in the Pensacola area. He commented that he did not realize there was a practice act for interior designers. He commented that he worked with building departments, architects, and engineers and there were many opportunities for them to correct him. He commented that his practice was custom residential design. Motion: Ms. Shore moved that the board approve the settlement stipulation as presented. Second: Ms. Membiela seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. DBPR vs. WDP Drafting & Design, LLC and Willie D. Peterson Case Number 2007-047005 PCP: Rodriguez, Wirtz, and Gustafson Mr. Peterson was present and sworn in by the court reporter. The case was before the board based on the respondent preparing a proposal offering architectural services on a residential project when not licensed. Probable cause was found to file a three count administrative complaint for practicing architecture when not licensed, using the title architect when not licensed, and offering services through a business entity without a certificate of authorization. The administrative complaint was hand served on June 2, 2008 to respondent at the last known address. The respondent has failed to respond. The panel recommended a $15,000 fine plus costs. Mr. Peterson commented that he started the business to offset income because his daughter has a rare kidney disease. He commented that he looked on the internet and got leads for work through a referral service. He commented that he did not receive a lot of referrals but had a business proposal that was pending. He commented that his intent was to offer drafting services and does not have a degree in architecture. He apologized for misrepresenting himself and would like to get into compliance. Motion: Ms. Grigsby moved that the board adopt the findings of fact and conclusions of law as set forth in the administrative complaint. Second: Ms. Membiela seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The board reviewed the process regarding the need for Mr. Peterson to work directly with the architect or engineers not the client. Mr. Manausa explained that he should market his Board of Architecture and Interior Design July 28-29, 2008 General Business Page 4 of 27 services to architects and engineers. The board advised Mr. Peterson to remove all references to architect or architectural from publications. The board discussed that residential plans that required signing and sealing causes drafters to get in trouble. Motion: Ms. Membiela moved that the board impose $3,000 fine plus costs. Second: Mr. Hall seconded the motion. Motion: Ms. Grigsby requested that the motion be amended to impose a $2,500 fine plus costs. Second: Mr. Hall seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Motion: Mr. Ehrig requested that the motion be amended to allow Mr. Peterson to make payments of equal installments over 24 months. Second: Ms. Grigsby seconded the amendment to the motion and it passed unanimously. Reconsideration Motion for Final Order by Hearing Not Involving Disputed Issues of Material Fact DBPR vs. DeHaas Consulting and Design and David DeHaas Case Number 2007-049161 PCP: Rodriguez, Wirtz, and Hall Mr. DeHaas was present and sworn in by the court reporter. Mr. Minacci commented that at the May 6, 2008 meeting the board entered a final order against Mr. DeHaas. Motion: Mr. Ehrig moved that the board reconsider the case. Second: Ms. Membiela seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Mr. Minacci commented that the respondent was a permit facilitator. The plans were rejected and the respondent delivered the plans with a stick on label addressing the building department’s concerns. The Florida licensed architect that originally signed and sealed the plans did not authorize the changes. Therefore, the respondent was charged with practicing architecture when not licensed. Mr. Minacci commented that the complaint was filed by the Monroe County Building Department. Mr. Minacci commented that Mr. DeHaas filed an election of rights and did not dispute the facts. Mr. DeHaas commented that the plans were submitted and rejected with red lines. The building department contacted the architect and he confirmed that he did not red line the plans. He commented that the plan was a storm water management plan and they copied the architects or engineers detail of an augured pylon. Mr. DeHaas commented that he only worked by referrals and only in the Keys. He commented that this was an accident based on misrepresentations. He commented that they believed that the contractor was working with the architect and the plans got ahead of them without the letter of authorization from the architect. He commented that they believe Board of Architecture and Interior Design July 28-29, 2008 General Business Page 5 of 27 the architect’s authorization letter was forthcoming. He commented that they would no longer put sticky notes on the plans but required signed and sealed plans from the architect.