ALJDEC - Licensing

2023A-05475-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-10-23

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Brian Buckson,

COMPLAINANT

v.

Craven Construction LLC

License No. ROC 311721,

RESPONDENT

No. 2023A-05475-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 10, 2023

APPEARANCES: Complainant Brian Buckson appeared on his own behalf. Randy Craven, Owner and Qualifying Party, appeared on behalf of Respondent Craven Construction LLC.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Craven Construction LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 311721 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about April 5, 2023, Brian Buckson (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, a new roof and awning.

On or about May 11, 2023, the Registrar received a complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Mark Nipp. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Nipp issued a written directive 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 August 1, 2023.

. . . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:

Compliance Item #1: Missing two air vents shingle right over holes.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

Both parties agreed that there were two vents that did not get installed. The

Respondent stated that he had a new person working who neglected to cut the paper to expose the vents. I could see the depression where the vents had been and there were no vents installed in those locations. . . .

The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s) 2, 6

. . . .

Compliance Item #5: Nail holes in drip edge in back of roof

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

I saw there were multiple holes in the drip edge on the east side of the property. I also saw nails protruding through the drip edge. I reviewed the contract and noted that it called for, “install new edge metal” (Copy of Written Contract – 1440 Roof.pdf). . . .

The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s) 7-9

. . . .

Compliance Item #6: Flashing between porch and roof done improperly

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

The Respondent agreed that this portion of the work was not complete and there were additional materials (peel and stick) to add on top of the flashing.

I saw the flashing was applied without proper sealing, creating a condition that promotes water leaks. The Complainant should allow the Respondent to complete the work.

. . . .

The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s) 13-16

. . . .

Compliance Item #7: The first 2-3 rows of shingles on the flat roof side are not nailed down or sealed down can lift them up,

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

The Respondent stated that they have not finished the work because the Complainant removed them from the jobsite. The Complainant disagrees and said they left the jobsite. I saw the lower row on the north side was not nailed and could be easily lifted.

. . . .

The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s) 17

. . . .

Compliance Item #9: Did not pull permit for porch roof.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

The Respondent stated that he did not pull a permit for the awning and did not believe it was required.

The Complainant stated there had been an awning on the home prior; however, he wanted a different shape. The old awing was removed and parts were retained to complete the new awning.

I called the Apache Junction Development Services and spoke to Leslie Castillo. Leslie searched their records for permits at the property address and noted the Respondent obtained a permit for the re-roof work; however, no permit had been obtained for the replacement of the awning. Leslie confirmed that Apache Junction requires a permit for awnings attached to a manufactured home.

Apache Junction has adopted the 2018 International Residential Code (IRC). Section R105.1 states in part, “Any owner or owner’s authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish or change the occupancy of a building or structure...shall first make application to the building official and obtain the required permit.”

Section R105.2 – Work Exempt from Permit does not include awnings attached to structures, thus this work required a building permit.

. . . .

The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

. . . .

Compliance Item #10: Used bent /twisted material on porch

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

The Complainant stated that one of the workers stepped on the west trim piece, bending it, then tried to straighten it. The Complainant stated that one of the workers had strapped the beam down and it was bowed when they untied it. The Respondent stated that if they bent it, they would fix it. I could see that the north “beam” was visibly bowed. I also saw that the west edge trim was also visibly bent.

. . . .

The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s) 23-27

. . . .

Compliance Item #11: Support post spaced to far apart per code.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified

The Respondent told me that he purchased the material from “Alumi-Cover”. I researched that product name and found alumi-cover.com based out of Mesa, AZ. I called and spoke to Pamela Pollard. I emailed Pamela three photographs for review (P21, P25, and P28). I later received a voicemail from Alumi-Cover employee, Marion Walker advising that the post spans in the photographs should be a maximum of 8 feet 4 inches.

I measured the span of the two posts and determined they were 11 feet 5 inches on center. The post distance exceeds the manufacturer’s specifications.

. . . .

The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract, applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.

Reference Picture(s) 21, 25, 28

On or about July 17, 2023, Respondent emailed Complainant to ask if Complainant would apply for the permit or if he wanted Respondent to get the permit.

On or about July 18, 2023, Complainant responded to the email and indicated he wanted Respondent to obtain the permit.

On or about July 25, 2023, Respondent contacted Investigator Nipp and requested an extension due to the time required to obtain a permit from the local building authority.

On or about August 2, 2023, Respondent contacted Investigator Nipp again regarding an extension. Investigator Nipp researched the status of the permit application and determined no application for the awning was pending.

After the deadline in the directive expired, Investigator Nipp was notified no corrective work had been performed.

The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and (b); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Investigator Nipp testified as to his observations of the project during his investigation.

Complainant testified that, other than the July 17, 2023 email, he had no contact from Respondent after the directive was issued.

Mr. Craven testified that that he was not aware the awning required a permit.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on October 22, 2023. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 311721 was first issued on February 21, 2017, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were no other open complaints, two prior resolved/settled complaints, and one prior complaint resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.

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 evidence established that Respondent did not complete the project in accordance with the plans without Complainant’s consent and the applicable building code in a manner that was prejudicial to Complainant. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded the plans and applicable building code in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and (b).

The evidence established that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. 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 that Respondent did not attempt to complete the corrective work following the Directive being issued. 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).

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. 311721 for a period of three days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 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)(5), 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, October 23, 2023.

/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer

Administrative Law Judge

Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Mark Nipp

[email redacted]

Brian Buckson

[email redacted]

Craven Construction LLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff