ALJDEC - Licensing
2022A-02871-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-04-03
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Cindy Lu Hall,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Gehan Homes Construction Company LLC
License No. ROC 281891,
RESPONDENT
No. 2022A-02871-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: March 21, 2022
APPEARANCES: Complainant Cindy Lu Hall appeared on her own behalf via Google Meet. Rosary Hernandez appeared via Google Meet on behalf of Respondent Gehan Homes Construction Company LLC. Registrar of Contractors Investigator John Smith appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Gehan Homes Construction Company LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 281891 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about December 21, 2020, Cindy Lu Hall (Complainant), and her husband Richard Hall, closed on a house built and sold by Respondent.
On or about April 12, 2022, the Registrar received a Complaint containing sixteen items against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to home.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator John Smith. The jobsite inspection was performed on May 11, 2022.
Investigator Smith then issued a written directive on or about May 18, 2022, to Respondent that provided as follows:
After investigation, the Registrar determined that you failed to meet the requirements of A.R.S. §32-1154(A), and now issues this Directive requiring you to take appropriate corrective action. Failure to comply with this Directive constitutes a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22) and may result in the issuance of a citation, discipline of your license, and a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E) of up to $500.00. You must notify the Registrar’s assigned Investigator of your compliance with this Directive prior to 5:00 p.m. on June 16, 2022.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
General Notes:
The respondent has already started evaluating the conditions present on this property. The respondent has had the property evaluated and is planning to perform all work suggested by the provided third party report. The intended work was stated to include at minimum, installing gutters, regrading as needed to confirm positive drainage away from the structure, adding French drains if needed, and correcting all conditions currently present and identified in this complaint.
Complaint Item 1: “doors: Sliding glass patio door. not operating correctly.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The patio doors is difficult to slide the last 1/3 of the opening. The outer glass of the stationary panel is broken.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 2: “pantry door. not operating correctly.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The pantry door slab is hitting on the jamb and has uneven reveals.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 3: “laundry door. not operating correctly.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The laundry door slab is hitting on the jamb and has uneven reveals.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 4: “garage entry door.(from house) not closing or operating properly.;”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The garage entry door slab is hitting on the jamb and has uneven reveals.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 5: “Drywall: cracking from left side of patio door up to ceiling.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The drywall above the patio door is cracking.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 6: “Cracking above pantry door right side.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The drywall above the pantry door is cracking.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 7: “Cracking above right side of garage door both sides.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The drywall above the garage entry door is cracking, both sides.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 8: “Cracking in owner suite bath entry upper left .”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The drywall is cracking in the arch ways of the master suite area.
Additionally, there is grout cracking along one of the master bathroom walls.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 9: “Nail pops at owner suite entry ceiling and closet.;”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
There are nail pops in the ceiling of the master suite area.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 10: “separation of ceiling and wall on patio.;”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
There is cracking around the perimeter of the drywall patio ceiling.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 11: “concrete driveway cracked outside of control joint...”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The concrete driveway is cracked. The cracks extends almost the full width of the driveway.
The present conditions appear to be related to movement caused by expansive soils.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 12: “concrete driveway...heaving above garage door.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
Part of the driveway concrete is higher than the garage floor concrete.
The present conditions appear to be related to movement caused by expansive soils.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 14: “Foundation cracking on east and west side of home.;”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
The visible portion of the foundation cracks are hairline cracks, and visibly considered to be within industry standards. Based on other conditions present and identified in this complaint, all conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 15: “fence on both east and west side of house ,separating in area of foundation cracking.;”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
There ae stair step cracks in the block wall at both sides of the property.
As stated in the Arizona Workmanship Standards, any stair step crack larger than 1/8 inch in width could be structural. The contractor should determine the cause and make appropriate repairs.
The present conditions appear to be related to movement caused by expansive soils.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 16: “stucco cracking above service entry door to garage. and rollup door. Stucco cracking most of house.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified.
All stucco cracks wider than 1/16 inch in width are wider than the acceptable tolerance allowed by Arizona Workmanship Standards.
Other cracks observed are less than 1/16 inch in width; however, some of those cracks appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
(All errors contained in the original).
On September 21, 2022, Investigator Smith conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection, and noted the following:
Compliance Findings: The respondent has not taken appropriate corrective action to comply with the Directive.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22): Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter...
General Notes:
As confirmed by the respondent:
• The only exterior work performed is installation of gutters and drains.
• The only interior work performed is replacement of three doors; however, those doors have not been painted.
• No work has been started or performed to correct the patio door, drywall, concrete, foundation, stucco, or block walls.
On September 27, 2022, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about October 12, 2022, Respondent filed an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about November 8, 2022, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on December 12, 2022, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency.
A Prehearing Inspection was conducted by Investigator Smith on January 27, 2023. In his notes regarding the same, Investigator Smith noted:
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• Regrading has been performed; however, damp soil at both sides of the house indicates drainage issues are still present.
• French drain(s) have been added; however, at least one inlet opening/box is sealed with tape making the water inlet ineffective.
• During this inspection, Curt Peterson of Geotech stated measurements were taken to determine flatness and levelness of the concrete foundation.
As stated by Curt Peterson, the floor/foundation is 9/10 of an inch out of level from front to back, and at least one bedroom is 7/10 of an inch out of level.
These measurements do not meet Arizona Workmanship Standards.
Arizona Workmanship Standards require to concrete to be flat within 1⁄4 inch in any 10 foot span, and level within 1/4 inch in any 12 foot span.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 1: “doors: Sliding glass patio door. not operating correctly.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
The patio doors is difficult to slide the last 1/3 of the opening. The outer glass of the stationary panel is broken.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• The broken glass has been replaced, and does fully open and close; however,
• The patio door is not square in the wall
Vertically, the operating sash is within 3/16 inch (in and 80 inch span) of being parallel with the side jamb.
Horizontally, the operating sash is 3/8 inch (in a 36 inch span) away from being parallel with the top jamb.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 2: “pantry door. not operating correctly.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
The pantry door slab is hitting on the jamb and has uneven reveals.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• The complainant stated this door is now acceptable.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 3: “laundry door. not operating correctly.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
The laundry door slab is hitting on the jamb and has uneven reveals.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• This door does open and close; however, the reveals are still uneven. The spacing between the door slab and the jamb varies from 0 to approximately 5/16 inch.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 4: “garage entry door.(from house) not closing or operating properly.;”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
The garage entry door slab is hitting on the jamb and has uneven reveals.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• This door was stated to have been replaced.
• This new door has paint on the weather stripping.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 5: “Drywall: cracking from left side of patio door up to ceiling.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
The drywall above the patio door is cracking.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• The drywall cracks have been repaired; however, there are cracks in the caulking between the trim and the patio door frame.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 6: “Cracking above pantry door right side.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
The drywall above the pantry door is cracking.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• The complainant stated this area is now acceptable.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 7: “Cracking above right side of garage door both sides.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
The drywall above the garage entry door is cracking, both sides.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• There are still cracks present in this area.
• Additionally, there is now cracking along the base of the wall, between the base trim and the concrete.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 8: “Cracking in owner suite bath entry upper left .”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
The drywall is cracking in the arch ways of the master suite area.
Additionally, there is grout cracking along one of the master bathroom walls.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• There are cracks in the drywall in the master suite area.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 9: “Nail pops at owner suite entry ceiling and closet.;”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
There are nail pops in the ceiling of the master suite area.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• There are nail pops in the drywall in the master suite area.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 10: “separation of ceiling and wall on patio.;”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
There is cracking around the perimeter of the drywall patio ceiling.
The present conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• There is cracking around the perimeter of the drywall patio ceiling.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 11: “concrete driveway cracked outside of control joint...”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
The concrete driveway is cracked. The cracks extends almost the full width of the driveway.
The present conditions appear to be related to movement caused by expansive soils.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• The concrete driveway was stated to have been replaced.
• Currently the only cracks visible in the concrete driveway are in the control joints and within acceptable tolerance.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 12: “concrete driveway...heaving above garage door.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
Part of the driveway concrete is higher than the garage floor concrete.
The present conditions appear to be related to movement caused by expansive soils.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• The complainant acknowledged this has been corrected.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 14: “Foundation cracking on east and west side of home.;”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
The visible portion of the foundation cracks are hairline cracks, and visibly considered to be within industry standards. Based on other conditions present and identified in this complaint, all conditions appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• The complainant stated these areas have been patched and painted.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 15: “fence on both east and west side of house ,separating in area of foundation cracking.;”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
There ae stair step cracks in the block wall at both sides of the property.
As stated in the Arizona Workmanship Standards, any stair step crack larger than 1/8 inch in width could be structural. The contractor should determine the cause and make appropriate repairs.
The present conditions appear to be related to movement caused by expansive soils.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• Two sections of the block/masonry fence have been replaced.
• Both sections have excessive mortar on the surface of the blocks.
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 16: “stucco cracking above service entry door to garage. and rollup door. stucco cracking most of house.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified.
All stucco cracks wider than 1/16 inch in width are wider than the acceptable tolerance allowed by Arizona Workmanship Standards.
Other cracks observed are less than 1/16 inch in width; however, some of those cracks appear to be related to foundation movement commonly referred to as slab curl.
The respondent acknowledged this condition and agreed to correct.
Prehearing Inspection Findings for this item:
• Currently, there are no visible stucco cracks wider than 1/16 inch.
(All errors contained in the original).
After a couple of continuances, the hearing was held on March 21, 2023. At hearing, Investigator Smith testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline.
Investigator Smith testified that while some repairs were made there were still outstanding items that were not corrected, or, like some cracks, re-appeared after the repairs were made.
Further, Investigator Smith testified that the front room floor by the garage was not level and not within industry standards, however, he was not aware of any damage or cracking in that room.
Investigator Smith also testified that while Respondent installed gutters to help move the water away from the home, cracks reappeared albeit smaller, after the repairs were made in September.
Richard Hall testified and offered one exhibit into evidence.
Mr. Hall testified that on a daily basis the home was cracking, and popping which lead him to believe that the house was still moving.
In addition, Mr. Hall testified that according to the report from Arizona Foundation Solutions, there was unevenness in the soil, and that he did not believe that the foundation did not meet industry standards. Further, the report found, “the home is showing distress at areas indicating minor heave.”
On cross-examination, Mr. Hall testified that Arizona Foundation Solutions offered two options. The first was to wait 12 months and re-test the soils, and second, to install two Moisture Level Systems. The first option was recommended while the second option was at Mr. Hall’s discretion.
Further, Mr. Hall testified that the foundation cannot be cosmetically repaired and would like Respondent to redo the same.
Finally, Mr. Hall testified that he did not frustrate Respondent’s efforts to make the repairs.
Respondent offered the testimony of Jeff Salmon and Curt Peterson. Respondent also submitted sixteen exhibits into evidence.
Mr. Salmon was the Vice President of Operations for Respondent.
Mr. Salmon testified that he hired Peterson Geotechnical Group LLC to inspect the property and to help determine the cause of the house cracks. Mr. Salmon testified it was determined to install rain gutters and downspouts to move the water away from the home. After, this was completed, the house was also re-graded and recertified to ensure that there as the sufficient slope away from the home. Mr. Salmon also testified that it could take 6 to 8 months for the soils to properly dry out for the soils to normalize.
As to the other issues on the Directive, Mr. Salmon did not dispute that minor repairs were still needed on the sliding glass patio door, the laundry door, the weather stripping on the garage entry door, the various cracking in the walls, the various nail pops, the various caulking repairs and that the excessive mortar on the block wall needed to be cleaned. Finally, Mr. Salmon testified that these repairs could be completed within a couple of weeks.
Next. Curt Peterson, owner of Peterson Technological Group testified. Mr. Peterson testified that his company saw erosion in the soils from water runoff from the roof, so he recommended that Respondent install gutters, drains and re-grade the property. Mr. Peterson testified that these options would better control the water runoff, but the soils required time to dry out.
Mr. Peterson also testified that there would still be some cracking as part of the normalization of the spoils, but he believed that additional soils repairs were not needed.
Further, Mr. Peterson testified that the Arizona Foundation Solutions report found that the sols passed the deflection and tilt measurements which would confirm no major issues. However, Mr. Peterson did not believe that installing the Moisture Level System would be beneficial without truly determining how deep the water was, and that installing the system could actually cause more problems.
As to the levelness in the slab, Mr. Peterson testified that the differential was not a problem in that front room as there were no cracks or other damages present. Further, he opined that the when the slab was placed, it was probably not poured in a level manner.
Finally, Mr. Peterson testified that the best option moving forward was to wait a few more months to the summer for the soil to dry out and normalize but that more extreme repairs were not needed at this time. Further, Mr. Peterson testified that the remedies were already working as evidenced by the appearance of the much smaller cracks. Mr. Peterson also testified that the addition of landscape rock can help minimize erosion.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on March 22, 2023. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 281891 was first issued on November 16, 2012, and reflected that there were three open complaint, one of which was the present complaint. It also reflected three resolved or settled cases since June 2021.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. The sliding glass patio door was not square in the wall; the reveals around the laundry door were uneven; the weather stripping had paint on it; there were cracks in the caulking; cracking was still occurring above the right side of the garage door and master bath suite as well as on the perimeter of the patio ceiling; nail pops were present in the master bedroom; and there was excessive mortar from the fence repairs. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
The evidence established Respondent failed to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. Clearly while some repairs were made, there were still repairs which were not made by the January 27, 2023 prehearing inspection which was 254 days since the Written Directive was issued. There was no credible evidence presented that Complainant frustrated Respondent’s attempts to make the repairs to the cracks, nail pops, patio door, the garage and laundry room doors, and the mortar. While some of there were repaired before the Compliance Jobsite inspection, it was clear that they were not fully repaired or done in a haphazard manner. This is not acceptable. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
The tribunal finds however, that the Respondent has taken appropriate steps to remedy the drainage issue at this point. Even Complainant’s report from Arizona Foundation Solutions recommended waiting at least 12 months for the soils to dry out before any further action should be taken. Thus, the tribunal finds no violation for this Directive item.
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 281891 for a period of four days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $400.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, April 3, 2023.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Martín Quezada, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Cindy Lu Hall
1654 E Prickly Pear Place
Casa Grande, AZ 85122-2477
[email redacted]
Rosary A. Hernandez Esq.
Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A.
1850 North Central Avenue, #1700
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff