ORDERS:
ORDER REGARDING PETITION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
This matter comes before me on a Petition for Injunctive relief by Petitioners Anonymous
Architect and Anonymous Company (Petitioners) to compel Respondent, South Carolina Department
of Labor, Licensing and Regulation (“LLR”), State Board of Architectural Examiners (the “Board”)
to have the Board make its formal Complaint and Notice of Hearing more definite and certain so as
to provide adequate notice to Petitioners of the charges pending against them. Petitioners requested
that the Board specifically identify the “at least eleven (11) other South Carolina projects” that
involved registration violations by Petitioners and the Board specifically identify each project in which
Petitioners allegedly provided professional engineering (“PE”) services in violation of the
Architectural Practice Act and regulations and specify the basis for the Board’s claim that PE
involvement needs to be reflected within the design documents and which design documents needed
to have PE involvement reflected thereon.
At a teleconference hearing on September 24, 2003, the parties resolved the issues complained
of in the Petition concerning the Petitioners’ claim of inadequate notice regarding the charges against
them
. Regarding the issue of notice concerning the “at least eleven (11) other South Carolina
projects”, counsel for the Board agreed that the Complaint be amended to reflect that all twenty-four
(24) projects listed in Exhibit 9 to the Petition allegedly involved registration violations by Petitioners.
Regarding the issue of notice concerning PE involvement, the Board’s counsel cited to Reg. 11-12(E)(2) as the section violated by Petitioners. Reg. 11-12(E)(2) provides, in pertinent part: “An
architect or firm shall take into account all applicable state and municipal building laws and
regulations.” Respondent agreed that the regulation regarding PE’s that Petitioners had not taken
into account was a statute under Chapter 22, Engineers and Land Surveyors, of Title 40 of the S.C.
Code Ann.—specifically S.C. Code Ann. § 40-22-280(B)(2) (Supp. 2002). Respondent now alleges
that all twenty-four (24) projects violate this engineering statute. Respondent agreed that the
Complaint be amended to reflect this allegation regarding S.C. Code Ann. § 40-22-280(B)(2) (Supp.
2002). The parties subsequently agreed that the Complaint be deemed amended in accordance with
this Order.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Complaint be deemed amended to reflect the
above agreement reached by the parties.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________
C. Dukes Scott
Administrative Law Judge
September 25, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
