During the April 2005
meeting of the Board of
Architecture,
representatives from the
State Construction
Office were in
attendance. The initial
reason for their
attendance was to
discuss the use of
professional seals.
However, as the
dialogue progressed, the
conversation expanded
to discuss the role of
architects as design team
leaders.
With projects becoming
more complex, the State
Construction Office has
witnessed an increase in the
architects’ use of specialized
but unlicensed consultants on
public projects. Some
consultants produce
documents that are
incorporated into the
construction documents, but
unless their work has been
produced under the
architect’s “direct
supervision” the architect
may not be required to seal
the consultants’ sheets.
Regardless, when one
considers the work of food
service, theater, and lighting
consultants, there may be
little doubt that the public’s
health, safety and welfare are
impacted, yet no one is
sealing these documents.
Even though the statutes and
rules governing the practice
of architecture appear to
prohibit architects affixing
their seals to such
consultants’ documents, the
architect has the
responsibility for
coordinating its consultant’s
work into the project for
compliance with building
codes. The concern of State
Construction is that they are
seeing an increase in
documents being submitted
for their review where design
professionals may be failing
to coordinate their
consultants’ work.
The demands of schedules,
budgets, owners’
expectations and project
complexity, have increased
the pressures of practice, but
the role of the architect as
the design team leader still
requires the protection of the
public’s health, safety and
welfare. As architects we
must develop better methods
for coordinating the design
team, to make for a better
built environment for the
public. However, requiring
licensees to accept more
project responsibility might
be only half of the answer to
this problem. The statutes
and rules governing public
construction are becoming
cluttered with exceptions,
exemptions and limitations
that can encroach upon the
“primary obligation and
responsibility” of the
architect to conduct “all
aspects of his or her practice
in such a manner as to
‘safeguard life, health and
property’”.
Kevin G. Montgomery
President, NC Board of
Architecture
Inside Columns
“We Are All Mentors”
By Dan Knight
Enforcement Report
Spring 2005 Newsletter
President’s Message
NC BOARD OF ARCHI T E CTUR E
Up-Coming Board Meeting
All Board meetings are open to the public. Contact Julie Piatek
(juliap@ncbarch.org) for further information.
July 13, 2005 Raleigh—Annual Meeting
2
from the executive director’s desk
You may very well be reading the
last “paper” issue of Columns.
The Board has discussed the possi-bility
of publishing the newsletter
solely electronically. If that be-comes
a reality Columns will be
posted on the Board web site for
easy access. In order to facilitate a
prompt review of the newsletter we
would mail a post card to those of
you who prefer to receive Board
correspondence via U.S. Mail
when the newsletter is published so
you can be alerted to check it out
on the Board’s web site at
www.ncbarch.org. The notion of
“electronic” newsletters seems to
be the wave of the “now”. Several
other states already have made this
shift and others plan to do so by
the end of the year. If you do not
have easy access to the internet, we
would be more than happy to send
you a printed copy of the newslet-ter.
We don’t want to leave any-one
behind while moving toward
the future.
I’d like to know your thoughts on
this. Do you like the idea of elec-tronic
newsletters? We would ap-preciate
your input on this concept.
Email your comments to
cathe@ncbarch.org.
As you may already know, the
Board gives you the choice of re-ceiving
your correspondence via
electronic mail or via U.S. Mail. If
you would prefer all Board corre-spondence
to be sent to you elec-tronically
you may change your
preference from U.S. Mail to e-mail
in the ‘registrants’ only sec-tion
of the Board web site. Please
remember that if your email
changes you would have to update
your records with the Board, just
as you would your physical ad-dress.
Cathe M. Evans, Executive Director
ncarb news
Web-based Emerging
Professional's Companion Now
Available
Washington, DC—The American
Institute of Architects (AIA), to-gether
with The National Council
of Architectural Registration
Boards (NCARB), announces the
release of the Emerging Profes-sional's
Companion (EPC). This
new online training resource is
designed to expose students, archi-tectural
interns, young architects,
and more seasoned professionals to
current practice models through an
array of educational activities.
The EPC was developed in re-sponse
to an ongoing need in the
profession to support emerging
professionals on their path from
education to licensure. This re-source
is a complete revision of the
AIA Supplementary Education
Handbook and can be used by in-terns
to receive up to 225 training
units in the Intern Development
Program (IDP), which is manda-tory
for licensure in most states.
In addition, the EPC addresses the
varied paths that an intern or li-censed
architect may consider dur-ing
his or her career. While the
primary users of the EPC are archi-tectural
interns, the resource pro-vides
material and exercises for
use by mentors in architecture
firms and by professors at schools
of architecture. Each of the 16
chapters begins with a narrative, an
introduction to the latest informa-tion
on that topic. The user can
then choose from a series of exer-cises
and case-based scenarios to
apply their knowledge in areas
such as health, safety, and welfare;
design and construction liability;
and ethical dilemmas.
The EPC is currently available to
all stakeholders. It is free to AIA
Associate members and NCARB
IDP Council Record holders
through the AIA bookstore or by
visiting www.EPCompanion.org.
For more information about the
Emerging Professional's Compan-ion,
please contact Cara Battag-lini
in the AIA's media relations
office or Robert Rosenfeld,
NCARB's director, council records
(202/783-6500).
Attention Veterans
The Architect Registration Exami-nation
(ARE) has been approved
for the Department of Veterans
Affairs education benefit. If you
are a veteran and you are taking (or
wish to take) the ARE you may
qualify for the examination to be
paid in whole or in part.
For further information contact the
Department of Veterans Affairs at
1-888-GIBILL-1 (1-888-442-4551)
Southern Region
of NCARB
The new officers for the 2005-
2006 FY were announced. They
will take office at the close of the
NCARB Annual Meeting and
Conference in June.
Chair – Blake Dunn (AR)
Vice-Chair – Kevin Montgomery
(NC)
Secretary – Stephen Schreiber (FL)
Treasurer – Gordon Landreth (TX)
$10 Increase for ARE Divisions
After eight years of delivering the
computer-based ARE, NCARB
will implement a $10-per-division
fee increase effective July 1, 2005.
This represents the first increase in
the overall cost of the computer-ized
ARE to candidates since its
introduction in 1997. The increase
will help defray future exam devel-opment
expenses and reduces the
subsidy currently underwritten by
NCARB Certificate Holders.
-The fee for each ARE division
will increase by $10 beginning
July 1, 2005.
-Fees collected BEFORE July 1,
2005 are NOT affected.
-Multiple Choice Divisions will be
$102.
-Graphic Divisions will be $153
Call NCARB if you have any ques-tions.
202-783-6500
3
are news
WE ARE ALL MENTORS
By G. Dan Knight
Vice-President
Board Member
The history of our profession is the
history of mentorship. The rela-tionship
of the master builder and
the apprentice was key to the pass-ing
on of knowledge and ability to
design and construct buildings.
From ancient Persia through old
and new Europe to America and
beyond the design process has
been propelled by this men-tor/
mentee dynamic relationship.
One needs only to think of the
renaissance apprenticeships; the
beaux-arts studios; the Bauhaus
school; the Taliesin experience;
the studio culture and today’s cor-porate
office to find a relationship
that goes beyond boss, team cap-tain
and supervisor, It is mentor
and mentee.
The intern (mentee) and mentor
find a path of communication that
transcends the office technology,
the production schedule, and the
required training units. Theirs is a
relationship built on a foundation
of trust, knowledge and experi-ence.
Trust is the necessary mor-tar
that cements the mentor and the
intern. Typically the intern seeks
a mentor and a level of trust is
built block by block. Like all
good relationships trust is a two
way street. To be meaningful the
mentor must trust the mentee just
as she or he becomes trusted. Re-spect,
confidentiality and honesty
are essential ingredients of the
trust. Knowledge is never again to
be a top down process. Today’s
technology has produced gradu-ates
with a near overload of
knowledge. Continuing education,
life-long learning and practice
have provided a body of knowl-edge
for the practioner. In the
mentorship process technology,
concepts and ideas become shared
knowledge. Experience is bought
with time and effort. This is a
value that the mentor can bring
and share. An effective mentor
will share, direct, question, judge,
evaluate, guide—based on the
mentor’s experience. A wise in-tern
will seek a mentor whose life
and practice is rich in experience.
The American Institute of Archi-tects
now provides an on-line
guide, “Mentorship: A Journey in
Collaborative Learning”. It is a
useful guide for young hearts and
old heads. I recommend it to all.
If you are not in a formal mentor-ship
role you should be aware that
your conduct as a professional
makes a statement to those around
you and may open an opportunity
for formal mentorship. From the
moment we accept our license we
become mentors in the long tradi-tion
of architecture. We are all
mentors.
ARE Passing Report for the 1st quarter of 2005.
The pass rates, by division, for all candidates who took the ARE are listed below. Data are the most recent
available from Thompson Prometric, NCARB’s testing consultant. The first number represents the number of
candidates who took the exam, the second represents the number who passed and the final number is the pass-ing
rate.
Division North Carolina Southern Region All Jurisdictions
# #Pass %Pass # #Pass %Pass # #Pass %Pass
Pre-Design 16 15 94 224 173 77 1201 940 78
General Structures 41 33 80 238 168 71 1038 762 73
Lateral Forces 30 24 80 173 135 78 900 698 78
Mech-Elec Systems 24 20 83 226 147 65 1079 763 71
Building Design/M&M 21 19 90 226 189 84 1211 972 80
Construction Documents 20 19 95 217 175 81 1172 931 79
Site Planning 19 17 89 222 159 72 1147 846 74
Building Planning 17 11 65 216 136 63 1195 761 64
Building Technology 16 12 75 214 144 67 1147 758 66
North Carolina Board of Architecture
License Statistics As of May 16, 2005
Currently licensed architects - 4990
Breakdown:
NC - 2064
Out-of-State - 2926
Emeritus Status - 38
Individuals on this status may use the title Architect
Emeritus but may not offer or render architectural
services.
ARE Candidates - 293
This number reflects the number of individuals who are
qualified to take the ARE for NC. They may not
necessarily be currently signed up to take an exam.
Currently licensed firms - 1007
Breakdown:
NC - 509
Out-of-State - 498
PLEASE CUT OUT AND POST THE
FOLLOWING INFORMATION IN A
PROMINENT PLACE IN YOUR OFFICE.
Attention all administrative staff: The North Carolina
Board of Architecture phased out wallet cards during
the 1999-2000 renewal year. To obtain the new wallet
card equivalent follow these steps:
-Go to www.ncbarch.org
-Click on “directory”. (Third menu choice on to the
left of the screen.)
-Click on “licensee”.
-Enter your license number (or last name.)
At this point your record will appear on the screen.
-Click on “create a certificate”
The ensuing printable document is the new ‘wallet-card’
equivalent. It is a ‘certification’ of your license
registration and is considered proof of current
licensure.
Regarding Deceased License Holders
The Board would like to extend its respects to those
who have lost loved ones. If you are of aware of a
licensee who is deceased please contact Julie Piatek in
the Board office at 919-733-9544 or
juliap@ncbarch.org. The Board would like to update
its records so as not to burden family or firms with
inappropriate renewal notices or other communications.
Congratulations to New
Licensees by Exam!
The following individuals have successfully completed
the Architectural Registration Exam and were licensed
between September 21, 2004 and May 12, 2005.
David Ross Alder , Jennifer Attride, Brian Abram
Baker, Laura W. Barker, Robert Keith Barnhouse,
Andrew Jerome Button, II, Teri Spain Canada,
Marcus Jay Copolillo, Lynn E. Dunn, Audrey
Courtney Fleming, Stacey Christine Franz,
Katheryn Blake Fricke, Mary Ellen George, Whitney
Wood Grumhaus, Stephen E. Hall,
Tomas Jimenez-Eliaeson, James LaVern Kirby, Jr.,
Leslie Linsmier, Laura Lynn Miller, Joelle Deborah
Mirco, Christopher William Morales, Sanjeev Jayanti
Patel, Shannon Ronn Rushing, David Virgil Sears, Jr.,
Paul William Sirek, Tracey Bock Stebbing, Dana Laine
Strickland, Michael David Sutton, Steven Dale Sweat,
Robert William Thomas, Curtis Ryan Thrush, Jeffrey
Tiddy, Grace Helene Wallace, Angela Pridgen Wooten
Please join the Board of Architecture in congratulating
these individuals. A luncheon will be held in their
honor in October 2005. Details of the luncheon will be
furnished at a later date.
Block of Experimental ARE Questions to
Debut in July 2005
The National Council of Architecture Registration
Boards is currently exploring new methodologies in the
development of the ARE. The success of our new
initiative depends on the cooperation of exam
candidates. Beginning in July 2005, a block of 25
experimental questions, known as a “testlet”, will be
delivered to all candidates at the conclusion of the
Mechanical & Electrical Systems Division. Candidates
will have one additional hour to complete these 25
questions. The block of questions will contain a
mixture of traditional four option multiple-choice
questions and experimental questions, such as “fill-in-the-
blank” and “check-all-that-apply.” Contact
NCARB for examples of the questions. It is important
to understand that a candidate's performance on these
experimental questions WILL NOT affect their score on
the ME Systems Division. In recognition of their
participation, NCARB will issue a check for $100 to
those candidates who successfully complete the
experimental divisions. Checks will be distributed
after completion of the study during the first quarter of
2006. Contact NCARB at 202-783-6500 for more
information.
of relevance ….
4
enforcement report
Following is a report of the cases that were closed during
the period September 16, 2004 to April 13, 2005. The
Board is not bound by precedence in matters of
disciplinary action. It is the prerogative of the Board to be
conservative in their review of cases and to enforce the
rules and laws with more sanctions and civil penalties as
allowed by law. This Enforcement Report also includes
listing of delinquent firm licenses.
Closed Without Prejudice
The Board closed four cases without prejudice.
Dismissed as Unfounded
The Board dismissed four as unfounded as there was no
evidence of rule or law violations.
Letters of Warning
The following individual received Letters of Warning for
the unauthorized use of the title architect or any form there
of without being duly licensed:
Case 583 Martha Faw - Greensboro, NC
Case 575 William G. Barber - Cashiers, NC
Case 574 Dale D. Maxwell - New Bern, NC
Case 594 Tim Gratton - Sapphire, NC
Case 596 John Schiedegger - Davidson, NC
Letters of Caution
The Board closed seven cases with letters of caution.
Referrals
The Board of Architecture referred two professional
engineers to the NC Board of Examiners for Engineers
and Surveyors for investigation of possible violations.
Cease and Desist Orders
Orders to Cease and Desist the non-licensed practice of
architecture were issued to the following individuals:
Case 483 Robert G. Knowles, Arks, Inc.
Case 503 Don Chesner
Case 584 Pamela Poole
Continuing Education Disciplinary Action
One individual was disciplined for failure to comply with
the Continuing Education (CE) requirements as set forth
in 21 NCAC 02.0900. On a license renewal the individual
indicated compliance with rules governing CE, however,
an audit of his records showed that the CE was not
obtained.
Continuing Education Suspensions
The following individuals indicated delinquent CE hours
for the year 2003 on their renewal form for 2004-2005.
The license was placed on probation for failure to comply
with CE requirements for the 2003 calendar year and they
were given until December 31, 2005 to obtain the
delinquent CE. When they were unable to demonstrate
compliance the license by that date their was suspended.
As of January 19, 2005 following individuals are no
longer licensed to practice architecture in the state of
North Carolina:
Kirk Evan Denyes-Westerville, OH
Robert Allen Gilbert-Hertford, NC
Michael Robert Howard-New Orleans, LA
Consent Orders
Respondent Lee Nichols Clark Patterson, P.C.
1. Respondent Firm Lee Nichols Clark Patterson, P.C. is
registered with this Board and is subject to Chapter 83A of
the General Statutes of North Carolina and Title 21,
Chapter 2 of the North Carolina Administrative Code. 2.
Respondent Firm prepared submitted to the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg School System (CMSS) a document in
response to a “Request for Qualifications for Professional
Services CMS 2003 CIP Program” (“CMS-RFQ”). The
document identifies Darryl Watts, AIA as “Principal in
Charge/Project Manager/Project Architect” for certain
projects constructed in North Carolina. 3. Watts has never
been licensed to practice architecture in the state of North
Carolina. Watts is licensed in South Carolina but does
not currently have the qualifications necessary for a
reciprocal license in North Carolina. Watts could not have
been the “Project Architect” for prior North Carolina
projects. 4. Further, in the document submitted to the
CMSS, Respondent Firm claimed that Watts had
“graduate education” from Harvard University and a
Bachelor of Technology from Appalachian State
University when, in fact, he did not have a four year
degree from any college, attended Appalachian State
University for only one semester, and did not attend
Harvard Graduate School of Architecture. 5. Respondent
Firm also failed to accurately represent the scope of
Watts’ responsibility for work for which he claimed credit
while employed by another firm. 6. Respondent Firm
contends that its North Carolina licensees were unaware of
Watts’ misrepresentations. Nevertheless, Respondent
Firm failed to take adequate actions to ascertain the
accuracy of the information provided to CMSS. 7.
Respondent Firm’s failure to ensure that firm employees
as well as non-licensed firm principals abided by Board
rules and laws is a violation of N.C.G.S. 83A-15(a)(3)d
and 21 NCAC 2 .0202 and 2.0209 (4), (8)(a). 8.
Respondent Firm wishes to resolve this matter by Consent
and agree that the Board staff and counsel may discuss
this Order with the Board ex parte whether or not the
Board accepts this Order as written.
BASED on the foregoing and in lieu of further
proceedings under 21 NCAC Chapter 2, Section .0600, the
Board and Respondent agree to the following:
Respondent Firm shall pay a civil penalty in the amount of
$1,000.00.
5
John H. Tabor, Respondent
Respondent was previously licensed as an architect by
this Board. Respondent failed to renew his license by
July 1, 2003 for the 2003-2004 license year. Despite
not having been licensed to offer or provide
architectural services since July 1, 2003, Respondent
has nevertheless continued to offer and render
services using the title “architect” to the present date.
Respondent participated in continuing education
during such time as he was rendering services.
Respondent wishes to resolve this matter by Consent
and agrees that the Board staff and counsel may
discuss this Order with the Board ex parte whether or
not the Board accepts this Order as written.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction over this matter and over
Respondent and Respondent is therefore subject to
Chapter 83A of the General Statutes of North
Carolina and Title 21, Chapter 2 of the North Carolina
Administrative Code. The conduct described in
Paragraphs 2-3 constitutes violations of NCGS. 83A-
11, 83A-12, 83A-15 (a)(3)(a) and 21 NCAC 02.0213.
BASED on the foregoing and in lieu of further
proceedings under 21 NCAC 02.0600, the Board and
Respondent stipulate and agree to the following:
Respondent shall come into compliance with all
architectural laws and rules governing reinstatement
of his license. Respondent shall pay renewal fees and
late fees for 2003-2004 totaling $150.00.
Respondent’s license will be reinstated as of the date
of this order. Respondent shall pay a civil penalty in
the amount of $500.00.
Gregory A. Bailey, Respondent
Respondent was previously licensed as an architect by
this Board. Respondent failed to renew his license by
July 1, 2000 for the 2000-2001 license year. Renewal
notice for the 2000-2001 license year was sent to the
address last known to the Board. Respondent failed to
notify the Board of a change of address. Despite not
having been licensed to offer or provide architectural
services since July 1, 2000, Respondent has
nevertheless continued to offer and render services
using the title “architect” to the present date.
Respondent has indicated that he participated in
continuing education during such time as he was
rendering services. Respondent wishes to resolve this
matter by Consent and agrees that the Board staff and
counsel may discuss this Order with the Board ex
parte whether or not the Board accepts this Order as
written.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction over this matter and over
Respondent and is therefore subject to Chapter 83A of
the General Statutes of North Carolina and Title 21,
Chapter 2 of the North Carolina Administrative Code.
The conduct described in Paragraphs 2-4 constitutes
violations of N.C.G.S. 83A-11, 83A-12, 83A-15
(a)(3)(a) and 21 NCAC 02.0201 and 02.0213.
BASED on the foregoing and in lieu of further
proceedings under 21 NCAC 02.0600, the Board and
Respondent stipulate and agree to the following:
Respondent shall come into compliance with all
architectural laws and rules governing reinstatement
of his license, including proof of meeting continuing
education and reinstatement fee of $250.00.
Respondent shall pay renewal fees and late fees for
2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2003-2004 totaling $450.00.
Respondent’s license will be reinstated as of the date
of this order. Respondent shall pay civil penalties
totaling in the amount of $1500.00.
Raymond L. Enfield, Respondent
Respondent is licensed as an architect by this Board
and is subject to Chapter 83A of the General Statutes
of North Carolina and Title 21, Chapter 2 of the North
Carolina Administrative Code. Respondent provided
design plans for the Brunswick Community Hospital
MRI Supply Building. The plans included
mechanical, plumbing and electrical engineering
drawings which were sealed by Respondent. The
North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services Division of Facility Services personnel
identified deficiencies said documents. Respondent
does not hold a license to practice engineering from
the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers
and Surveyors. Respondent wishes to resolve this
matter by Consent and agrees that the Board staff and
legal counsel may discuss this Order with the Board
ex parte whether or not the Board accepts this Order
as written.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction over this matter and over
Respondent and they are therefore subject to Chapter
83A of the General Statutes of North Carolina and
Title 21, Chapter 2 of the North Carolina
Administrative Code. The conduct described in
Paragraphs two and three above constitutes violations
of NCGS 83A-15(a)(1)a and 21 NCAC 2 .0210.(b).
BASED on the foregoing and in lieu of further
proceedings under 21 NCAC Chapter 2, Section
.0600, the Board and respondent agree to the
following:
Respondent is reprimanded. Respondent shall pay a
Civil Penalty in the amount of $500.00. Respondent
shall not seal engineering plans for any future projects
for which he is engaged to provide architectural
services until such time as he receives an appropriate
license from the North Carolina Board of Examiners
for Engineers and Surveyors.
enforcement report
6
enforcement report
Joel P. Van Dyke for Van Dyke Design Group,
Inc., Respondent
Respondent Van Dyke is licensed as an architect by
this Board and is subject to Chapter 83A of the
General Statutes of North Carolina and Title 21,
Chapter 2 of the North Carolina Administrative
Code. Respondent offered services through the firm
Van Dyke Design Group, Inc. Van Dyke Design
Group, Inc is not registered with this Board to offer
architectural services in North Carolina.
Respondent’s action in practicing architecture
through a firm not properly registered with this
Board is a violation of G.S. 83A-12 and 21 NCAC
02.0218. Respondent wishes to resolve this matter
by Consent and agrees that the Board staff and
counsel may discuss this Order with the Board ex
parte whether or not the Board accepts this Order as
written.
BASED on the foregoing and in lieu of further
proceedings under 21 NCAC Chapter 2, Section
.0600, the Board and respondent agree to the
following: Respondent shall, within sixty (60) days
from the date this Order is approved by the Board,
complete the process to properly register Van Dyke
Design Group, Inc. Respondent shall pay a civil
penalty in the amount of $250.00 for practicing
architecture through a firm not registered to do so in
North Carolina.
James R. Lencioni for Aria Group Architects,
Inc., Respondent
Respondent Lencioni is licensed as an architect by
this Board and is subject to Chapter 83A of the
General Statutes of North Carolina and Title 21,
Chapter 2 of the North Carolina Administrative
Code. Respondent offered services through the firm
Aria Group Architects, Inc. on the following
projects: two McCormick & Schmick’s Seafood
Restaurants and one California Pizza Kitchen. Aria
Group Architects, Inc is not registered with this
Board to offer architectural services in North
Carolina. Respondent’s action in practicing
architecture through a firm not properly registered
with this Board is a violation of G.S. 83A-12 and 21
NCAC 02.0218. Respondent wishes to resolve this
matter by Consent and agrees that the Board staff
and counsel may discuss this Order with the Board
ex parte whether or not the Board accepts this Order
as written.
BASED on the foregoing and in lieu of further
proceedings under 21 NCAC Chapter 2, Section
.0600, the Board and respondent agree to the
following: Respondent shall, within sixty (60) days
from the date this Order is approved by the Board,
complete the process to properly register Aria Group
Architects, Inc. Respondent shall pay a civil penalty
in the amount of $750.00 for practicing architecture
through a firm not registered to do so in North
Carolina on three projects.
DeMattia Associates North Carolina, Inc.,
Respondent
Principle W. Keith Owen is licensed as an architect
by this Board and is subject to Chapter 83A of the
General Statutes of North Carolina and Title 21,
Chapter 2 of the North Carolina Administrative
Code. DeMattia Associates North Carolina, Inc. has
offered architectural services on a project in the State
of North Carolina. DeMattia Associates North
Carolina, Inc is not registered with this Board to
offer architectural services in North Carolina. A
copy of the Certificate of Authority for DeMattia
Associates North Carolina, Inc. as issued by the
North Carolina Secretary of State has been provided
to the Board. Practicing architecture through a firm
not properly registered with this Board is a violation
of G.S. 83A-12 and 21 NCAC 02.0218. Respondent
wishes to resolve this matter by Consent and agrees
that the Board staff and counsel may discuss this
Order with the Board ex parte whether or not the
Board accepts this Order as written.
BASED on the foregoing and in lieu of further
proceedings under 21 NCAC Chapter 2, Section
.0600, the Board and respondent agree to the
following: Respondent shall pay a civil penalty in
the amount of $250.00 for practicing architecture
through a firm not registered to do so in North
Carolina. This matter will not be reported to the
NCARB Disciplinary Data Base. Firm license will
be approved and issued upon approval of this
Consent Order.
Interplan LLC d/b/a Interplan, PLLC,
Respondent
Principle David Boyce is licensed as an architect by
this Board and is subject to Chapter 83A of the
General Statutes of North Carolina and Title 21,
Chapter 2 of the North Carolina Administrative
Code. Interplan LLC d/b/a Interplan, PLLC has
offered architectural services on seven projects in the
State of North Carolina. Interplan LLC d/b/a
Interplan, PLLC is not registered with this Board to
offer architectural services in North Carolina. A copy
of the Certificate of Authority for Interplan LLC
d/b/a Interplan, PLLC as issued by the North
Carolina Secretary of State has been provided to the
Board. Practicing architecture through a firm not
properly registered with this Board is a violation of
7
enforcement report
G.S. 83A-12 and 21 NCAC 02.0218.
Respondent wishes to resolve this matter by
Consent and agrees that the Board staff and counsel
may discuss this Order with the Board ex parte
whether or not the Board accepts this Order as
written.
BASED on the foregoing and in lieu of further
proceedings under 21 NCAC Chapter 2, Section
.0600, the Board and respondent agree to the
following: Respondent shall pay a civil penalty in
the amount of $1750.00 for practicing architecture
through a firm not registered to do so in North
Carolina. This matter will not be reported to the
NCARB Disciplinary Data Base. Firm license will
be approved and issued upon approval of this
Consent Order.
James B. Stewart and Dana Conners for Stewart
& Conners Architects, PLLC, Respondent
Respondents Stewart and Conners are licensed as
architects by this Board and are subject to Chapter
83A of the General Statutes of North Carolina and
Title 21, Chapter 2 of the North Carolina
Administrative Code. Respondents offered and
rendered services through the firm Stewart &
Conners Architects, PLLC. Stewart & Conners
Architects, PLLC is not registered with this Board to
offer architectural services in North Carolina.
Respondent’s action in practicing architecture
through a firm not properly registered with this
Board is a violation of G.S. 83A-12 and 21 NCAC
02.0218. Respondent wishes to resolve this matter
by Consent and agrees that the Board staff and
counsel may discuss this Order with the Board ex
parte whether or not the Board accepts this Order as
written.
BASED on the foregoing and in lieu of further
proceedings under 21 NCAC Chapter 2, Section
.0600, the Board and respondent agree to the
following: Respondent shall, within sixty (60) days
from the date this Order is approved by the Board,
complete the process to properly register Stewart &
Conners Architects, PLLC. Respondent shall pay a
civil penalty in the amount of $250.00 for practicing
architecture through a firm not registered to do so in
North Carolina.
Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company, Respondent
Respondent Duany Plater-Zyberk Company,
(hereinafter “DPZ”), is not currently registered as an
architectural firm by this Board. DPZ is registered as
an architectural firm in at least one other state.
Since at least 1995 DPZ has had an office at 13823
Cinnabar Place, Huntersville, North Carolina. 100%
of the ownership of DPZ is held by persons licensed
in another jurisdiction as architects. The
Huntersville, NC office of DPZ is staffed by Tom
Low, who is currently licensed as a North Carolina
architect. Despite not being registered as an
architectural firm by the Board, DPZ has offered and
rendered architectural services in North Carolina.
Despite not being registered as an architectural firm
by the Board, DPZ has held itself out as legally
qualified to perform architectural services in
publications, including, but not limited to, the
Bellsouth yellow pages, Metro Magazine and DPZ’s
website. On January 16, 2004 the Board wrote to
Tom Low, approving his application to reinstate his
individual license, but reminding him that “Duany,
Plater-Zyberk & Company, Inc. (DPZ & Co. Inc.)
does not have a license to practice architecture in
North Carolina, nor does it have a Certificate of
Authority from the North Carolina Secretary of State
to transact business in this state. The January 16,
2004 correspondence further cautioned Respondent
“the case against DPZ, Inc. remains open until such
time as the firm comes into compliance with Board
rules and law governing the practice of architecture
in this state.” On March 4, 2004, DPZ applied for
and on or about June 2004 erroneously obtained a
Certificate of Authority from the North Carolina
Secretary to transact business pursuant to Chapter 55
of the North Carolina General Statutes, rather than as
a professional corporation pursuant to Chapter 55B.
On September 28, 2004, the North Carolina
Secretary of State revoked the Respondent’s
Certificate of Authority because Respondent was
exceeding the authority conferred upon it by
transacting business as a professional corporation
without registering with the North Carolina Board of
Architecture. Despite not having been registered to
offer or render architectural services, Respondent
DPZ has nevertheless offered and rendered services
using the title “architect” or “architectural firm” from
some date prior to 2003 to the present date.
Respondent wishes to resolve this matter by Consent
and agrees that the Board staff and counsel may
discuss this Order with the Board ex parte whether or
not the Board accepts this Order as written.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction over this matter and over
Respondent and Respondent is therefore subject to
Chapter 83A of the General Statutes of North
Carolina and Title 21, Chapter 2 of the North
Carolina Administrative Code. The conduct
described in paragraphs 1-11 above constitutes
violations of N.C.G.S. §§83A-11, 83A-12, 83A-15
(a)(3)(a) and 21 NCAC 02.0201 and 02.0213.
Based on the foregoing and in lieu of further
8
proceedings under 21 NCAC 02.0600, the Board and
Respondent stipulate and agree to the following:
Respondent shall come into compliance with all
architectural laws and rules governing firm licensure
in this state. Respondent shall pay renewal fees and
late fees for the previous eight years it has practiced
without being registered with the Board, totaling
$1600. Respondent shall pay civil penalties in the
amount of $4250.
As of May 16, 2005 the firm has not fully complied
with said Consent Order. Specifically, the firm has
yet to obtain licensure in the State of North Carolina
and is still in violation of Board Rules and Laws.
Susman Tisdale Gayle Architects, Inc.,
Respondent
Respondent firm Susman Tisdale Gayle Architects
Inc. (STG) is registered as an architecture firm in
Texas, but was not registered as an architecture firm
in this state at times relevant to this matter. STG has
submitted an Application for a Certificate of
Registration to Practice Architecture in the State of
North Carolina. Dell, Inc. is a regular client of STG
in Texas and other places across the country. In
January 2005, STG offered to render architectural
services and prepared and submitted a response to a
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for a proposed Dell
facility in Winston-Salem, North Carolina despite the
fact that STG was not registered in this State. On
January 20, 2005, STG was informed that it had been
selected by Dell as a “Bid finalist�� for the project.
No drawings have been issued, stamped or sealed by
STG to date. STG represents that STG has not
otherwise directly or indirectly engaged in the
practice of architecture in North Carolina. On
January 20, 2005, STG submitted its Application to
the Board for a Foreign Corporation for a Certificate
of Registration to Practice Architecture. STG
submits that, since learning that its actions to date
have required it to be licensed under the North
Carolina architectural laws as a foreign corporation
in North Carolina, it has worked diligently to comply
with the applicable architectural licensure
requirements. STG submits that it did not seal
architectural drawings on matters involving Dell and
did not intentionally violate any architecture laws but
wishes to resolve this matter by Consent and agree
that the Board staff and legal counsel may discuss
this Order with the Board ex parte whether or not the
Board accepts this Order as written.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction over this matter and over
STG and it is therefore subject to Chapter 83A of the
General Statutes of North Carolina and Title 21,
Chapter 2 of the North Carolina Administrative
Code. STG’s failure to register to practice
architecture prior to offering to render architectural
services in North Carolina constitutes violations of
N.C.G.S. §83A-1(7), § 83A-12, and 55B–10.
BASED on the foregoing and in lieu of further
proceedings under 21 NCAC 2 .0600 or otherwise,
the Board and Respondent stipulate and agree to the
following compromise in lieu of any other or further
proceedings that:
Respondent shall pay a civil penalty of $250.00.
STG��s pending application for a North Carolina
certificate of registration shall not be prejudiced by
this Consent Order.
James L. Robinson
Respondent is licensed as an architect by this Board
and is subject to Chapter 83A of the General Statutes
of North Carolina and Title 21, Chapter 2 of the
North Carolina Administrative Code.
Respondent provided design plans for “Proposed
China Buffet” in Carrboro, NC. The plans included
mechanical, plumbing and electrical engineering
drawings which were sealed by Respondent. The
North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers
and Surveyors (NCBEES) identified deficiencies
said documents. Deficiencies included, but are not
limited to, mechanical plans with no load
calculations, no duct work layout, and no code
information. Electrical plans did not include
equipment location details, no equipment connection
details and no code calculations for service size.
Sprinkler plan is incomplete, non piping and no
calculations were shown. Respondent does not hold
a license to practice engineering from the North
Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and
Surveyors. Respondent was notified of this case on
November 19, 2004 and response was requested by
December 14, 2004. Response was not received by
that date so a follow up letter was sent via Federal
Express for delivery on January 12, 2005. Response
was requested by February 1, 2005. Respondent did
not respond as requested. Respondent wishes to
resolve this matter by Consent and agrees that the
Board staff and legal counsel may discuss this Order
with the Board ex parte whether or not the Board
accepts this Order as written.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Board has jurisdiction over this matter and over
Respondent and they are therefore subject to Chapter
83A of the General Statutes of North Carolina and
Title 21, Chapter 2 of the North Carolina
Continued on the next page.
enforcement report
9
Administrative Code. The conduct described in
Paragraphs two, three and four above constitutes
violations of NCGS 83A-15(a)(1)a and 21 NCAC 2
.0210.(b). The conduct described in Paragraph 5
above constitutes violations of 21 NCAC 02.0209
(11).
BASED on the foregoing and in lieu of further
proceedings under 21 N.C.A.C. Chapter 2, Section
.0600, the Board and respondent agree to the
following:
Respondent is reprimanded. Respondent shall pay a
Civil Penalty in the amount of $500.00
Respondent shall not seal engineering plans for any
future projects for which he is engaged to provide
architectural services until such time as he receives
an appropriate license from the North Carolina Board
of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors.
AG Architecture, Inc., Respondent
Respondent is registered as an architecture firm by
this Board and is subject to Chapter 83A of the
General Statutes of North Carolina and Title 21,
Chapter 2 of the North Carolina Administrative
Code.
Respondent provided design plans for the Cypress
Glenn Retirement Community Addition and
Renovation in Greenville, NC. The plans included
mechanical, plumbing and electrical engineering
drawings which were sealed by Respondent. Said
plans were prepared by professional engineers who
were employed by Respondent���s Engineering
Division. Respondent represents that prior to
engaging in the above described conduct, it consulted
the website for the National Council of Architect
Registration Boards (NCARB) and formed the
erroneous but good faith belief that such plans were
“incidental” engineering which an architect firm
could prepare and seal under North Carolina law. At
the time design plans were sealed, neither
Respondent nor Respondent’s Engineering Division
held a license to practice engineering from the North
Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and
Surveyors. Respondent represents that when the
problem with the lack of engineering licensure was
brought to Respondent’s attention, the Respondent’s
Engineering Division promptly took steps to comply
with the requirements for licensing with the North
Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and
Surveyors. Respondent wishes to resolve this matter
by Consent and agrees that the Board staff and legal
counsel may discuss this Order with the Board ex
parte whether or not the Board accepts this Order as
written.
BASED upon the foregoing, the Board makes the
following Conclusions of Law:
The Board has jurisdiction over this matter and over
Respondent and it is therefore subject to Chapter
83A of the General Statutes of North Carolina and
Title 21, Chapter 2 of the North Carolina
Administrative Code. The conduct described above
constitutes violations of NCGS 83A-15(a)(1)a and 21
NCAC 2 .0210.(b).
BASED on the foregoing and in lieu of further
proceedings under 21 N.C.A.C. Chapter 2, Section
.0600, the Board and Respondent agree to the
following Order:
Respondent shall pay a Civil Penalty in the amount
of $4000.00. Respondent shall not seal engineering
plans for any future projects for which it is engaged
to provide architectural services unless Respondent
remains properly registered with and otherwise
authorized by the North Carolina Board of
Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors to do so.
Consent Judgment – Church Development
Services, Inc. (CDS)
Findings of Fact indicated that CDS violated
provisions of NCGS 83A. CDS has been
permanently enjoined as follows:
CDS shall not engage in the practice of architecture
as defined in NCGS 83A. The Superior Court of
Wake County, NC shall retain jurisdiction for and
limited to the purpose of enforcing this Consent
Judgment and CDS shall submit to the jurisdiction of
the Court if the Consent Judgment is violated. A
violation of the Judgment shall be deemed contempt
of court and shall be punishable by both civil and
criminal contempt powers of the Court.
A copy of the complete Consent Judgment may be
obtained by contacting the Board office.
enforcement report
10
Expired Firm Licenses
The following firm licenses expired on December 31,
2004, the firm is no longer licensed to offer services
in this state. Please note that this list includes firms
that have officially dissolved and are no longer doing
business in this state. This list is current as of May
17, 2005.
Adams Craft Herz Walker, Inc.
Adams Hennon Architecture, A Professional
Association
Anne Fahim Architectural Services, P.C.
Arch/Tech Incorporated
Architecture, Incorporated d/b/a Schuermann, Hagan
Arch, Inc.
Barry A. Rakes-Architect, PLLC
Bruce L. Watson Architect, PA
Chelsea Place Design, Inc.
Context Design Group, LLC d/b/a Context Design
Group, PLLC
CORGAN ASSOCIATES, INC.
Cox, Kliewer & Company, P.C.
CSJM Architects, Incorporated
Dalgliesh, Eichman, Gilpin and Paxton, P.C.
Design Collaborative, Inc. d/b/a DCI, Inc.
DPF ARCHITECTS, P.C.
Elizabeth S. Joyner Architect, PA
George Graves Architect, P.C.
HLM Design Architecture Engineering and Planning,
P.C.
Howell Rusk Dodson-Architects, P.C.
HP Architects, PC
Jenkins Hancock & Sides Architecture Interiors, Inc.
Kaatz, Binkley, Jones & Morris Architects, Inc.
KEPHART ASSOCIATES, INC.
Lada Architecture, PLLC
Leslie Divoll, Inc. Architecture and Design
LGE (Old Co.), Inc.
MCA Architecture, Inc.
McCoppin Architecture, PA
Miller Associates, P.A.
MILLS, OLIVER & WEBB, INC.
Noelker and Hull Assoc., Inc.
OPN, Inc.
PFI Design, P.C.
Pond & Associates, Inc.
Ponikvar & Associates, Inc.
POWERS & MERRITT, INC.
RTKL Associates, Inc.
Sherman Pardue & Co. Architects
Spectrum Design, P.C. d/b/a Spectrum Designers,
P.C.
St. Onge, Ruff and Associates, Inc.
Stanfield Studio Architects, P.A.
Studios 2711 Architecture, PLLC
The MacEwen Group, Incorporated
The Winthrop Group, Inc.
Thomas Byrum ARCHITECT, PLLC
Trilogy Design, PLLC
Vitetta Group Incorporated
W. F. CANN COMPANY, P.C.
Wade Barber Architect, Inc.
Waller, Todd and Sadler Architects, Inc.
Wolfe Groupe, Inc.
This list is current as of May 16, 2005.
For more information or questions about the
Enforcement Report contact Cathe Evans at
cathe@ncbarch.org
MISCELLANEOUS
INFORMATION
Renewal forms for the 2005-2006 license year were
mailed on May 14, 2005. You should have received
your notice already. If you have not received your
2005-2006 renewal notice you may download one
from the forms section of the Board web site
www.ncbarch.org.
Please remember that on-line renewal is available
and is a fast and efficient method of renewal. Go to
the registrants’ only section of www.ncbarch.org,
you will need your PIN and license number. If you
have misplaced your PIN please email the Board
office ncba@ncbarch.org. Please include in your
request your full name and license number.
enforcement report
11
tel 919.733.9544
fax 919.733.1272
e-mail ncba@ncbarch.org
website www.ncbarch.org
Kevin G. Montgomery, AIA
President
G. Dan Knight, AIA
Vice President
Charles H. Boney Jr, AIA
Treasurer
Kiki Teague, Public Member
Secretary
Barbara Field, FAIA
Member
Jeffrey A. Huberman, FAIA
Member
Nick Garrett, Jr.
Public Member
BOARD STAFF
Cathe M. Evans
Executive Director
Julie L. Piatek
Administrative Services
Coordinator
Noel L. Allen
Allen & Pinnix
Board Counsel
21 NCAC 02 .0201 BOARD LISTING OF
INDIVIDUAL AND FIRM NAMES
Every individual licensee, partnership, firm or
corporation has the continuing responsibility of
keeping the Board currently advised of his or its
proper and current mailing address and the name
or names under which he or it is practicing. Each
licensee or firm shall immediately notify the
Board in writing of any and all changes of associa-tion
or address.
Notification of Change of Address
For Individual Licensee
Please PRINT All Information Clearly
Please send correspondence to my:
HOME or FIRM (Please Circle One Only)
______________________________________
Last Name
_______________________________________
First Name Middle Name
_________________________
NC Individual License Number
Pre-Sort
Standard
US Postage
PAID
Permit No. 1998
Raleigh, NC
NC BOARD OF ARCHI T E CTUR E
127 W Hargett Street Suite 304 Raleigh, NC 27601
_____________________________________
Name of Firm
Address for Correspondence:
_____________________________________
Street or P.O. Box
_____________________________________
City State Zip Code
____________________________
Daytime Phone Number
____________________________
Fax Number
____________________________
E-Mail Address
___________________________
Signature
___________________
Date