ALJDEC - Licensing
2023A-05528-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2024-11-18
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Maria Fajardo,
COMPLAINANT
v.
Atlas Construction Group LLC
DBA: Camelback Roofing
License No. ROC 295244,
RESPONDENT
No. 2023A-05528-CHC-ROC
No. 2024A-02529-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: October 29, 2024
APPEARANCES: Complainant Maria Fajardo appeared on her own behalf. Respondent David Barajas, Employee, appeared on behalf of Respondent Atlas Construction Group LLC doing business as Camelback Roofing.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Tammy L. Eigenheer
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Administrative Notice was taken of the Hearing Packet submitted by the Registrar of Contractors.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
Atlas Construction Group LLC doing business as Camelback Roofing (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 295244 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about January 22, 2022, Maria Fajardo (Complainant) entered into a contract with Respondent for, among other things, the installation of a new flat roof.
On or about May 12, 2023, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project. That complaint was designated by the Registrar as Case No. 2023-05528.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Gregory Johndrow. After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Johndrow issued a written directive to Respondent that provided as follows:
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: “Roll up was not glued /nailed properly all around the roof”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the roofing material is loose and not adhered in multiple location around the perimeter of the roof along the drip edge.
. . . .
Complaint Item 2: “Roll up not cut correctly overlapping on the edge of roof”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the roofing material that is installed past the drip edge and not trimmed flush. The condition was observed in multiple locations around the perimeter of the residence.
. . . .
Complaint Item 3: “There’s a hole in underneath the porch overhang and wood misplaced in the same area”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the hole in the roof decking located on the overhang at the front entry and the poorly attached blocking used to support the roof decking.
. . . .
Complaint Item 5: “45 Degree angle cuts on wood were not made”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The locations where the fascia meets or intersects other pieces of fascia was not mitered and does not meet industry standards.
. . . .
Complaint Item 7: “Wood is nailed incorrectly all around - Too much pressure on nail gun cracked the fascia and wood inside the ceiling of the house”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed the cracks in the fascia where the fasteners were placed and the tips of the fasteners which were over driven through the finished tongue and groove ceiling inside the residence.
. . . .
Complaint Item 8: “Fascia Trim was nailed incorrectly (Degree Angle)”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed multiple areas where the fasteners used to install the fascia have missed the intended framing member or have splintered the framing member due to the incorrect angle of the nailing.
. . . .
Complaint Item 9: “Sunken area near the AC unit”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed a sunken / dip in the roof between the AC unit and the front edge of the roof above the front entry.
. . . .
Complaint Item 10: “All fascia Wood is crooked/cracked”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The fascia was observed to be twisted, warped and cracked. These conditions were noted around the entire residence.
. . . .
Complaint Item 11: “Parts of the roof is missing facia Wood -Not complete”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The complainant pointed out and showed several locations located at the back of the residence that did not receive the fascia or the 1x4 material.
The written directive gave Respondent until August 4, 2023, to perform the corrective work.
On or about August 25, 2023, Investigator Johndrow issued an amended written directive that extended the deadline for compliance to August 28, 2023.
On or about September 5, 2023, Investigator Johndrow conducted a compliance jobsite inspection. At that inspection, Investigator Johndrow noted that some work had been done regarding Complaint Item 7, but the conditions did not meet the Registrar’s workmanship standards. All other complaint items were corrected.
On or about September 8, 2023, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
A hearing in the matter was scheduled for October 31, 2023, but was continued multiple times.
On or about March 2, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to the project. That complaint was designated by the Registrar as Case No. 2024-02529.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Johndrow.
On or about May 16, 2024, Investigator Johndrow conducted a jobsite inspection. David Barajas; Lyanne Lira; and Jerry Bustamante, an “unlicensed person who performed this work”, were present on behalf of Respondent.
After a jobsite inspection, Investigator Johndrow issued a written directive to Respondent that provided as follows:
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: “Torch down roofing material was cut out about 4 to 5 inches all around the roof of the house.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The newer roofing system has been cut back approximately 5 inches, at the edge of the roof, around the entire perimeter. The material removed was substituted with a different roofing material.
. . . .
Complaint Item 2: “The metal drip edge is exposed without roofing material on top. Torch down roll up does not meet the edge of the roof.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Due to the roofing system being cut back, the substituted method does not fully cover up to the metal drip edge.
. . . .
Complaint Item 3: “Puddles of water marks around the edge of the roof where the roofing material was cut off. messy/sloppy work done.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Due to the roofing system being cut back the substituted method has created ponding along the edge of the roof line.
. . . .
Complaint Item 6: “Torch down roofing where the low roof meets the high roof wasn’t installed properly its loose bedroom roof area.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The vertically applied roofing, at the transition from the upper to lower section on the north side of the residence, is not properly adhered.
. . . .
Complaint Item 9: “On the corner of the bedroom same poorly installed fascia material 1x4 roofing material filled with unknown sealant.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. An excessive amount of roof patching material was applied onto the fascia and 1x material located on the north side of the residence.
. . . .
Complaint Item 10: “4- piece of wood was installed on the corner instead of a complete piece of wood dimensional difference on fascia.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. A small piece of 1x4 material was installed on the corner of the upper section of the roof edge, above the front entry on the north side. The material has cracked and is broken, the material has a dimensional difference than the 1x material next to it.
. . . .
Complaint Item 11: “On the front of the house Poor roofing material above the drip edge was done”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. This is a duplicate item in reference to complaint item number 3 for the ponding along the drip edge.
. . . .
Complaint Item 12: “45-degree angles were not done on the corners of the fascia, dimensional differences on fascia material.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Miter cuts at the corners were not performed. The fascia installed around the residence varies with dimensional differences of the fascia widths.
. . . .
Complaint Item 13: “Poorly installed fascia, exposed nails. Fascial incorrectly nail to r some with no nail or only one or two nails.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The fascia was observed to have improper nailing into the rafters. The condition was observed in multiple locations around the residence.
. . . .
Complaint Item 14: “All around the house fascia nailed improperly.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. This is a duplicate to complaint item 13.
. . . .
Complaint Item 15: “Fascia starting to twist, curl out and its loose”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Conditions described were observed in multiple locations as pointed out by the complainant.
. . . .
Complaint Item 16: “on the front of the house fascia was installed with the crown downwards and there’s a gap where the roof meets fascia”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Conditions described were observed as pointed out by the complainant.
. . . .
Complaint Item 17: “nails used to attach fascia missed the rafters fascia not properly attached all around the house.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The nails used to attach the fascia have missed the intended rafters in multiple locations. One area observed on the south side of the residence has no rafter at the location where the fascia was nailed at the splice joint, the nails go through the fascia and into nothing on the back side.
. . . .
Complaint Item 18: “gaps of 1/2 to 1/8 of an inch opening between rafters and fascia”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Conditions described were observed in multiple locations as pointed out by the complainant.
. . . .
Complaint Item 19: “Fascia not secured properly - fascia on both sides of the house does not have blocking and it’s only nailed at corners”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Several large spans of the installed fascia have inadequate support to the structure. The locations were noted on the north and south sides in the back of the residence.
. . . .
Complaint Item 20: “Fascia side incorrect”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The south side of the residence has a difference in the dimension of the fascia material and the lumber used is a different material that does not match.
. . . .
Complaint Item 21: “Rafters do not align with fascia gaps there’s gaps between them and not nailed.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The south side of the residence has no rafter near the location where the fascia was nailed at the splice joint, the nails go through the fascia and into nothing on the back side.
. . . .
Complaint Item 22: “1/6 Trim overlaps at the corners 3/4-inch gap between 1x6 and the drip edge fascia curling out.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Conditions described were observed at the southwest corner of the fascia above the driveway.
. . . .
Complaint Item 23: “There’s some crack on fascia that was installed.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Conditions described were observed at the front entry.
. . . .
Complaint Item 25: “Poorly installed fascia doesn’t meet faming on the roof.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Sections of the installed fascia do not meet the top of the rafter or the bottom of the roof deck. The condition has left gaps observed in multiple locations.
. . . .
Complaint Item 26: “Splinters on the rafters because of incorrect nailing”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Nails used to attach the fascia missed the intended rafters and has caused the rafter to splinter. The condition was observed in multiple locations.
. . . .
Complaint Item 27: “Incorrect angle nailing on fascia boards all around the house”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. This is a duplicate of complaint item 26.
. . . .
Complaint Item 28: “Differences between new and existing fascia.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. This is a duplicate of complaint item 20 and was also observed in other locations.
. . . .
Complaint Item 29: “Poorly installed blocking to hold up fascia on sides of the house and dimensional differences - nails missed rafters.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. This is a duplicate to previously addressed complaint items.
. . . .
Complaint Item 31: “Dimensional differences in the size of fascia boards.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The width of the installed fascia varies in size around the entire residence.
The written directive gave Respondent until June 12, 2024, to perform the corrective work.
On or about June 12, 2024, Complainant notified Investigator Johndrow that the only message she had received from Respondent was a text message offering a monetary settlement.
On or about June 13, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a); and Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(22).
The matter was set for hearing on August 30, 2024.
Ultimately, the two complaints were consolidated and a hearing was held on October 29, 2024.
Investigator Johndrow testified as to his observations of the project during the jobsite inspections.
Complainant testified that the project had significant issues and Respondent did not complete any corrective work after the written directive was issued in Case Number 2024-02529. Complainant stated she did not want to enter into a financial settlement because she did not know how much it would cost to fix her roof.
Mr. Barajas did not deny that workmanship issues existed on the project or that Mr. Bustamante was unlicensed.
Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 18, 2024. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License No. 295244 was first issued on December 12, 2014, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there were three open complaints and one prior complaint resulting in discipline against Respondent’s license.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence.
“A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.”
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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely Ariz. Admin. Code R4-9-108(A).
The evidence established that Respondent hired an unlicensed individual to perform work on Complainant’s project. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent aided and abetted an unlicensed person in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-1154(A)(9)(a).
The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the corrective work following the directives being issued. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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. 295244 for a period of five days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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 Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 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, November 18, 2024.
/s/ Tammy L. Eigenheer
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Gregory Johndrow
[email redacted]
Atlas Construction Group LLC
[email redacted]
Maria Fajardo
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff