2023A-08527-CHC-ROC Notice of Hearing and Packet MAILED

2023A-08527-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2023-10-11

REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA Tina Marie Sloat , Case No. 2023-08527 COMPLAINANT, Docket No. 2023A-08527-CHC-ROC v. NOTICE OF HEARING ON CONTESTED CASE Hansel Construction LLC License No. ROC 322224,

RESPONDENT.

This Notice of Hearing is issued under A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D).

HEARING INFORMATION The hearing is set for:

November 28, 2023 9:00 AM Sondra Vanella Google Meet. A link will be provided directly from The Office of Administrative Hearings. Go to www.azoah.com to request to appear in-person. If you have requested to appear in-person at the hearing, the hearing will

be held at 1740 W Adams Street, Phoenix, AZ 85007.

You must attend this hearing. This is an adversarial hearing before an administrative

law judge, and is conducted in a similar manner as judicial proceedings. Thus, you must be

prepared to present evidence, including witness testimony and documents, in support of your case.

STATEMENT OF LEGAL AUTHORITY AND JURISDICTION The State of Arizona has determined that the licensing and regulation of construction contractors is a proper state function, and has vested authority in the Registrar of Contractors to administer Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. A.R.S. §§ 32-1101 et seq. All hearings for alleged violations of Title 32, Chapter 10 are conducted under Title 41,

Chapter 6, Article 10. A.R.S. § 32-1156.

The statutes and rules governing the hearing can be found at: Arizona Revised

Statutes §§ 41-1092 to -1092.12, and Arizona Administrative Code R2-19-101 to -122.

PARTICULAR ARIZONA STATUTES AND RULES INVOLVED The statutes and rules the Respondent is alleged to have violated are cited in the

complaint and citation, which were served on the Respondent on September 26, 2023. SHORT AND PLAIN STATEMENT OF THE MATTERS ASSERTED The complaint and citation allege that the Respondent committed the following act(s): Charge: 1 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b)

Charge: 2 A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(b)

THE PARTIES TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING

Because Respondent is a licensee and is charged with an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Respondent is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing. Because Complainant alleged Respondent committed an act(s) or omission(s) that is cause for the suspension or revocation of a license, Complainant is a party to this case and will be a party to the hearing.

Respondent and Complainant, as the parties to the hearing, will present evidence and

argument to the administrative law judge.

The Registrar’s assigned investigator will appear as a witness at the hearing.

RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED The parties to the administrative hearing may choose to be represented by an attorney. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(B). If one of the parties is a company, the company may be represented by an officer or employee if that person satisfies the conditions set forth in A.R.S. § 32- 1156(B).

CHANGE OF ADDRESS Each party must inform the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings of any change of address within five (5) days of the change. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

HEARING PROCEDURES AND RULES The administrative hearing will be conducted in accordance with A.R.S. §§ 41-1092 to -1092.12, and A.A.C. R2-19-101 to -122. The parties should review the statutes, rules, and processes governing the administrative hearing. Copies of the statutes, rules, and articles regarding the administrative hearing process can be found at https://www.azoah.com/.

REGISTRAR’S APPEARANCE BY VIDEO CONFERENCE OR TELEPHONE The Registrar’s investigators, employees, and attorneys will appear at the hearing via video conference or telephone unless requested by a party to appear in-person. Requests for the Registrar’s investigators, employees, or attorneys to appear in-person must be filed with the Registrar and the Office of Administrative Hearings no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the hearing date.

HEARING PACKET In the interests of administrative efficiency, the Registrar compiles and discloses

certain documents to the parties and the Office of Administrative Hearings. These documents

are attached to this Notice of Hearing as the “Hearing Packet.” If any party wishes to submit

additional evidence, they must do so during the hearing after completing a disclosure statement. See “Disclosure Statement” section below. SUBPOENAS FOR TESTIMONY FROM A WITNESS OR DOCUMENTS The parties to the hearing must be prepared to present evidence in support of their

case. If a party wants to obtain testimony from a witness or documents not in the party’s

possession, the party must prepare and file a written subpoena for the Administrative Law

Judge to review and sign, if approved. A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(C). Forms for requesting a

subpoena can be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ website at www.azoah.com. The party seeking a subpoena must serve notice on all the parties to the hearing, and on the Registrar. A.R.S. § 41-1092.04.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT At least seven calendar days before the hearing, each party must prepare and serve a

disclosure statement on all other parties, and file it with the Office of Administrative Hearings.

A.A.C. R4-9-118; A.A.C. R2-19-108. The disclosure statement must include any exhibit the

party will use at the hearing. A party’s failure to timely disclose any witness or exhibit, without good cause, may result in the administrative law judge excluding those witnesses or exhibits from being used at the hearing. A.A.C. R4-9-118(C). A sample disclosure form is available on the Registrar’s website at https://roc.az.gov/content/prehearing-disclosure- statement.

CHANGING THE HEARING DATE

The date of the hearing may only be advanced or delayed on the agreement of the parties or on a showing of good cause. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(C). The date of the hearing may be changed by filing a written agreement of the parties to change the date of the hearing. The written agreement must be filed with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmitted to the Registrar and all other parties. The assigned Administrative Law Judge may be found on the Office of Administrative Hearings’ web portal at www.azoah.com If a party would like to move the date of the hearing without agreement of all parties, the party must file a written motion with the Office of Administrative Hearings, directed to the

assigned Administrative Law Judge, and transmit a copy to the Registrar and all other parties.

The motion must state in detail good cause for why the date of the hearing should be advanced

or delayed, and the position of all other parties regarding the advancement or delay.

A party may also file a motion asserting a right to an expedited hearing upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances or the possibility of irreparable harm. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(E).

RESOLUTION SHORT OF ADJUDICATION

In any case which is resolved or settled by the parties, or which is withdrawn by the

Complainant without objection from Respondent after the Notice of Hearing is issued, the parties must notify the Office of Administrative Hearings of the resolution or settlement. Any such cases will be listed on the Registrar’s website and its records under the category: “Closed Complaints – Resolved/Settled/Withdrawn.” Dated October 11, 2023.

By: /s/ Erika Hoskin Erika Hoskin Legal Secretary Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors Copy mailed via USPS First Class mail October 11, 2023 to:

Respondent(s) Hansel Construction LLC 33425 S Ridgeway Rd Black Canyon City, AZ 85324 Complainant(s) Tina Marie Sloat 40726 N Noble Hawk Ct Anthem, AZ 85086

Copy sent electronically this same date to:

Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar

Case No. 2023-08527 /

Douglas A. Ducey, Governor Jeffrey L. Fleetham, Director

Hearing Packet FAQ What is the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet is a packet of certain documents collected or issued by the Registrar over the course of its investigation.

Who gets the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet is assembled and distributed to all parties and to the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) prior to an administrative hearing.

What types of cases does the Registrar prepare a Hearing Packet for?

The Registrar prepares a Hearing Packet for Complainant-Handled Cases and No-Pay Cases. Note: If the Docket Number on the Notice of Hearing contains a “CHC” or “NPC”, your case is a Complainant-Handled Case or a No-Pay Case.

What is in the Hearing Packet?

The Hearing Packet contains essential case-specific documents and at a minimum will include the following documents:

● Original complaint;

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Douglas A. Ducey, Governor Jeffrey L. Fleetham, Director

● Citation; and ● Answer.

The Hearing Packet will also contain the following documents (if applicable):

● Jobsite inspection notices, notes, and photos; ● Written directives; and ● Compliance inspection notices, notes, and photos.

What if there are documents missing from the Hearing Packet?

If there is any evidence you submitted to the Registrar that are not included in the Hearing Packet it is your responsibility to introduce that evidence at the administrative hearing. Note: The administrative law judge assigned to your case does not have access to the entire Registrar record.

If there is additional evidence you submitted to the Registrar during the investigation that you also want to introduce as evidence during your hearing, it is your responsibility to:

● Properly disclose that evidence to the other party; and ● Introduce the evidence during your hearing.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

Douglas A. Ducey, Governor Jeffrey L. Fleetham, Director

How do I disclose evidence I intend to use at a Hearing?

You must properly disclose any and all documents and witnesses you intend to use at your hearing according to the Registrar’s Prehearing Disclosure Rules. See Arizona Administrative Code Section R4-9-118.

A sample prehearing disclosure form and instructions are provided to the parties by the Registrar.

How do I obtain documents I previously submitted to the Registrar?

If you previously submitted documents to the Registrar and need a copy of these documents, please contact the Registrar’s Legal Department or submit a public records request at https://roc.force.com/AZRoc/s/roc-public-request.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812 602.542.1525 · Within AZ 877.692.9762 · Fax 602.542.1599 · roc.az.gov Hearing Packet FAQ

RECEIVED LEGAL 9/27/2023 RECEIVED LEGAL 9/27/2023 RECEIVED LEGAL 9/27/2023

Answers - AZROC <[email redacted]>

WRITTEN ANSWER TO CITATION AND COMPLAINT CASE NO. 2023-08527 message

Hansel Landscape and Construction <[email redacted]> Wed, Sep 27, 2023 at 2:47 PM To: [email redacted]

Good afternoon,

I have attached my Written Answer in reference to Case No. 2023-08527.

Respectfully,

Robert Hansel Hansel Landscape and Construction

WRITTEN ANSWER TO CITATION AND COMPLAINT CASE NO_2023-08527.pdf 1140K Complainant: Tina Marie Sloat 40726 N Noble Hawk Ct Anthem, AZ 85086

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Respondent: Hansel Construction LLC DBA: 33425 S Ridgeway Rd Black Canyon City, AZ 85324

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 August 4, 2023

Jobsite Inspection Notice Re: Complaint Number 2023-08527

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

A formal complaint has been filed with the Arizona Registrar of Contractors.

A jobsite inspection is scheduled for August 16, 2023 at 11:00 AM. The Complainant is required to be present. The Respondent’s attendance is requested and encouraged. The Registrar encourages both parties to make a good faith effort to resolve this complaint prior to the jobsite inspection.

COMPLAINANT: 1. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(1), the Respondent must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen (15) days of receiving this notice. If Respondent is not provided an opportunity to inspect the work within the fifteen (15) day time period, the Registrar may be prohibited from taking further action on this complaint. 2. The Registrar may also be precluded from taking further action on this complaint, if the work that is the subject of the complaint is subject to neglect, modification, or abnormal use. A.R.S. § 32-1155(D)(2) 3. You must provide safe access to any area to be inspected. If access to a roof or other elevated area is required, you must provide a means to safely access the area (ladder or manlift as appropriate). Additionally, please secure any animals.

RESPONDENT: 1. Enclosed is a copy of the complaint. Under A.R.S. § 32-1155(D) you must be allowed, upon request, the opportunity to inspect the work complained of within fifteen days of the date of receipt of this notice. 2. To assist the assigned investigator in evaluating the merits of the complaint, please submit a response to the enclosed complaint to the assigned investigator prior to the scheduled inspection. 3. If you do not attend the jobsite inspection, your absence may negatively impact the investigation, and your interests. 4. If a building permit(s) was required for this project, please have the building permit information available at the jobsite inspection.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 If either party needs to reschedule the jobsite inspection, please notify the assigned investigator at least three business days prior to the inspection date to schedule a new date and time.

If the parties resolve the complaint prior to the inspection, please notify the assigned investigator in writing and by phone as soon as possible.

Sincerely, Joey Chester Joey Chester, Investigator 602 7716737 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 A Guide to Jobsite Inspections

Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license alleging poor workmanship, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

Jobsite Inspection Rights and Responsibilities Access to inspect: The property owner has complete control over who they allow on the property. However, if the Registrar’s investigator or the contractor cannot inspect the work, the Registrar will not move forward with a citation.

Cooperation: Arizona law enables injured parties to seek relief for damages through several paths. When dealing with a licensed contractor, the Registrar of Contractors’ administrative complaint process may serve as one of those possible paths. However, in order to use that path, the Registrar relies on the cooperation of all parties to a complaint.

Minimum workmanship: The Registrar investigates workmanship complaints for compliance with minimum workmanship and professional industry standards. The Registrar does not issue citations for work that meets these standards.

Scope: The scope of the Jobsite Inspection is limited to items listed in the complaint filed with the Registrar’s office. It is the complainant’s responsibility to point out the complaint item(s) and the Investigators role to review the item(s). If the complainant identifies additional workmanship items not listed in the original complaint, they must file an addendum to the complaint. The Registrar’s Investigator may identify additional administrative violations by the contractor (e.g. work performed out of scope of the license and failure to provide a contract that meets requirements set by Arizona law) at the time of the inspection.

The Role of the Investigator At the Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s investigator will: ● Only investigate the items listed on the complaint form filed with the Registrar. ● Will gather evidence to make an informed decision about the complaint items.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will leave the jobsite and review the evidence provided during the inspection. Generally, the investigator does not make any determination at the time of the jobsite inspection regarding whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Questions? If you have already filed a complaint and it was assigned to an investigator, you are encouraged to contact that investigator directly with the information listed in your jobsite inspection letter. If you have not filed a complaint yet or have not been assigned an investigator, you can reach the Registrar’s compliance department at (877) 692-9762. 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 A Guide to Written Directives Purpose of the Jobsite Inspection When the Registrar receives a complaint against a contractor’s license, the Registrar generally schedules a Jobsite Inspection. The Jobsite Inspection serves two purposes: 1. To give the contractor an opportunity to inspect the complaint items; and 2. To give the Registrar an opportunity to determine if the contractor’s work violates Arizona law.

What to expect after a Jobsite Inspection After doing a Jobsite Inspection, the Registrar’s Investigator will determine whether the allegations listed in the complaint are supported. ● If the allegations are confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator may issue a Written Directive telling the contractor to correct the poor or incomplete work. ● If the allegations are not confirmed, the Registrar’s Investigator will close the complaint.

Written Directives Access: In order to use the administrative process offered by the Registrar, a property owner must provide reasonable access to allow the contractor to fix their work as directed by the Registrar in a Written Directive. Complainants may not put any additional, unnecessary restrictions on the Respondent above and beyond the initial contract requirements agreed upon at the beginning of the project. Respondents are required to make repairs on items identified on any Written Directive, not otherwise restricted by local code or HOA limitations. Complainants must make access available to the Respondent to make the required repairs and failure to provide reasonable access may result in the Registrar dismissing the complaint.

Contractor obligations: The Written Directive will set a deadline for compliance. This is the period of time determined by the Investigator as necessary to complete the items listed in the Directive. ● The deadline for compliance assumes the contractor will promptly begin working on the items listed in the Directive. ● Do not wait. Both parties should communicate quickly to schedule the work.

Extensions: If good cause exists to extend this deadline, either party may submit a written request to the Investigator. The Registrar will review requests for extension and determine if the Directive should be extended.

Manner and method of performance: The Registrar does not provide specific instructions for how to correct poor work. A licensed contractor is expected to have the skill and professionalism to complete the work. Moreover, the complainant may not dictate the manner of repair. If the contractor fails to appropriately correct the work according to the contract, the Registrar will issue a citation.

Compliance Inspection: After the Written Directive expires, the Registrar’s Investigator will contact the complainant to determine if the contractor performed any corrective work. ● If the contractor did corrective work, the Investigator may schedule a Compliance Inspection to determine if the poor work is corrected. ● If the contractor did not perform any corrective work, the Registrar’s Investigator will not do a Compliance Inspection and will determine whether to issue a citation based on the administrative record.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Work performed after the directive ends: After the Directive period ends, a property owner may choose to allow the contractor to continue its work. The Registrar encourages parties to work cooperatively, but cannot require a homeowner to continue to allow a contractor access to the property after the Directive period ends in order for the administrative process to continue. Denying access after the Directive ends is not grounds to close or dismiss a complaint.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C008 05/21 Complainant: Tina Marie Sloat 40726 N Noble Hawk Ct Anthem, AZ 85086

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C010 04/21 Respondent: Hansel Construction LLC 33425 S Ridgeway Rd Black Canyon City, AZ 85324

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C010 04/21 August 7, 2023

Re: Complaint Number 2023-08527

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

Due to a conflict in scheduling of one of the parties, the jobsite inspection scheduled for August 16, 2023 at 11:00 AM has been rescheduled for August 23, 2023 at 10:00 AM.

If either party is unable to attend, the Registrar requires 36-hours advance notice for cancellation or continuance.

Complainant: Safe access is required to any area to be inspected.

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Joey Chester Joey Chester, Investigator 602 7716737 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C010 04/21 Jobsite Inspection Notes

Case No.: 2023-08527 Investigator: Joey Chester Inspection Date: August 16, 2023 Inspection Time: 11:00 AM

Complainant: Tina Marie Sloat Respondent: Hansel Construction Not Present: LLC Not Present:

Jobsite General Notes: JSI occurred on Wednesday August 23rd 2023 at 10:00am. Homeowner Doug and Tina Sloat were present along with Bob from Hansel Construction. JSI photos taken with my Google Pixel Phone camera. JSI audio recorded with my Google Pixel Phone camera. JSI photos and audio have been placed into the ROC complaint file

Complaint Item: Work performed by the contractor fails to meet the minimum design requirements specified by the aluminum lattice pergola manufacturer's engineer of record. Also, it does not meet the building code requirements of Maricopa County. Investigator’s Observation: The Respondent will obtain a permit, correct any deficiencies required by the county/city, and pass final permit inspection. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions. Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. R4-9-108 B: A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov RCC100 08/19

Complaint #2023-08527 P 1 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2023-08527 P 2 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2023-08527 P 3 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2023-08527 P 4 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2023-08527 P 5 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2023-08527 P 6 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2023-08527 P 7 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complainant: Tina Marie Sloat 40726 N Noble Hawk Ct Anthem, AZ 85086

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 Respondent: Hansel Construction LLC 33425 S Ridgeway Rd Black Canyon City, AZ 85324

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 August 31, 2023

License No. ROC 322224

Re:Complaint No. 2023-08527

WRITTEN DIRECTIVE FROM THE REGISTRAR

Dear Respondent:

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 September 25, 2023.

RESTRICTIONS • You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license. • If your license is currently suspended for administrative reasons 1, or is inactive, expired, or cancelled, you may not perform any corrective work nor contract in any manner, which includes hiring other contractors to perform work, until the suspension of your license(s) has been lifted or your license(s) has been reactivated.

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

Complaint Item: Work performed by the contractor fails to meet the minimum design requirements specified by the aluminum lattice pergola manufacturer's engineer of record. Also, it does not meet the building code requirements of Maricopa County. Investigator’s Observation: The Respondent will obtain a permit, correct any deficiencies required by the county/city, and pass final permit inspection. Respondent shall complete project per original contract agreement, properly executed change orders, verbal agreements, local building codes and manufacturers installation instructions. Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3), namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards. R4-9-108 B: A contractor shall This means the license is suspended for lack of qualifying party, lack of bond, nonrenewal, Recovery Fund payout, or for any reason listed in A.R.S. § 32-1124(F). 1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent: N/A

Please direct all questions regarding this Directive to the undersigned Investigator.

Sincerely,

Joey Chester Joey Chester, Investigator 602 7716737 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C009 04/21 9/20/23, 9:33 AM State of Arizona Mail - 2023-08527

Donna Lewandowski <[email redacted]>

2023-08527 messages

Donna Lewandowski <[email redacted]> Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 8:17 AM To: John Chester <[email redacted]> Cc: Joe Shikany <[email redacted]>

Good morning. The above case was sent to Legal; however the WD doesn't expire until September 25th. Did you want us to process it early?

Donna Lewandowski Paralegal Manager, Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors 1700 W. Washington St., Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007 [email redacted] 602.771.6713 (Direct Line) 602.568.4477 (Cell Phone) www.roc.az.gov

ROC is now on social media!

Make sure to follow us on: Facebook Twitter Fill out AZ ROC's survey to let us know how we're doing and how we can better serve you! Facebook

John Chester <[email redacted]> Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:30 AM To: Donna Lewandowski <[email redacted]>

I asked Steve Philpott if i needed to wait until the directive was complete and he said no. Yes please go ahead with the citation. Thank you [Quoted text hidden]

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=278fe7c9ff&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r3988885026720588657&simpl=msg-a:r3983927577070536… 1/1 REGISTRAR OF CONTRACTORS OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA

Tina Marie Sloat, Case No. 2023-08527 COMPLAINANT, v. Hansel Construction LLC CITATION License No. ROC 322224, RESPONDENT.

The Registrar issues this Citation to Hansel Construction LLC (“Respondent”) under A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). If Respondent fails to answer this Citation by October 11, 2023, then under A.R.S. § 32-1155(C), Respondent’s failure to answer may be deemed an admission of the act or acts charged in the underlying complaint, and the Registrar may then suspend or revoke Respondent’s license(s). THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT On July 27, 2023, Tina Marie Sloat (“Complainant”) filed a written complaint with the Registrar. A copy of that Complaint is attached to this Citation. A FORMAL STATEMENT OF THE CHARGES AGAINST RESPONDENT The Registrar investigated this matter and finds cause to charge Respondent with violation(s) of Title 32, Chapter 10 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. Respondent is charged with violating: Charge 1: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b) Departure from or disregard of: (b) A building code of this state or any political subdivision of this state in any material respect that is prejudicial to another. of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Charge 2: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(b) Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(b): A contractor shall perform all work in accordance with any applicable building codes and professional industry standards. For work to be performed in accordance with professional industry standards, a contractor shall use such skills, prudence, and diligence in performing and completing tasks undertaken that the completed work meets the standards of a similarly licensed contractor possessing ordinary skill and capacity.

If the matter proceeds to a hearing and the administrative law judge determines that any of the charges listed above are supported by a preponderance of the evidence, then Respondent’s license(s) may be subject to suspension or revocation, and Respondent may be subject to other penalties provided by law, including civil penalties under A.R.S. §§ 32-1154(E) and (F). FILING A WRITTEN ANSWER Respondent must appear by filing with the Registrar a written answer to the citation and complaint showing cause, if any, why Respondent’s license(s) should not be suspended or revoked. A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). Respondent’s written answer should contain the heading “Written Answer to Citation and Complaint” and should include the case number, which is Case No. 2023-08527. How to File a Written Answer: Respondent’s written answer may be submitted in the following ways: In-Person: 1700 W. Washington St., Ste. 105, Phoenix, Arizona, 85007-2812 Mail: P.O. Box 18244, Phoenix, Arizona, 85005-8244 Email: [email redacted] The Registrar’s normal office hours are 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. If Respondent submits a written answer by mail, it is not filed with the Registrar until the Registrar actually receives it. Deadline for Filing a Written Answer: Respondent must file a written answer with the of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Registrar no later than October 11, 2023. This deadline is calculated under A.R.S. §§ 32-1155(A) and (B), which provides a deadline ten days after service of the Citation. Service of the Citation and Complaint is complete five days after the Registrar mails a copy of the Citation and Complaint to Respondent’s latest address of record in the Registrar’s office. Consequences for Failing to File a Written Answer: If Respondent fails to answer, Respondent’s failure may be deemed an admission of the act or acts charged in the written complaint. A.R.S. § 32-1155(C). The Registrar may then suspend or revoke Respondent’s license(s). THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING If Respondent files a timely written answer contesting any charges in the Complaint, then the Registrar will request the Office of Administrative Hearings set a date for an administrative hearing and will notify all the parties at least 30 days before that hearing. A.R.S. § 41-1092.05(D). INVESTIGATOR’S APPEARANCE AS A WITNESS The Registrar’s assigned investigator will appear as a witness at the hearing. If either party demands the attendance at the hearing of any other person, that party must obtain and serve a subpoena in compliance with the rules and processes established by the Office of Administrative Hearings. RESPONDENT’S RIGHT TO REQUEST AN INFORMAL SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE Under A.R.S. § 41-1092.06, if Respondent submits a request to the Registrar for an informal settlement conference, the Registrar must hold a conference within 15 days after receiving the request. Respondent’s request for an informal settlement conference must be in writing and must be filed no later than 20 days before the administrative hearing. A.R.S. § 41- 1092.06(A). of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 The Registrar will not close or settle any case without both parties’ appearance at the Settlement Conference. The parties participating in the settlement conference must have the authority to settle the case and must waive their right to object to the participation of the Registrar’s settlement conference representative in the final administrative decision. A.R.S. § 41-1092.06(B). Any statements, either written or oral, made by the parties at the conference, including a written document, created or expressed solely for the purpose of settlement negotiations, are inadmissible in the administrative hearing. A.R.S. § 41-1092.06(B). RESPONDENT’S PRIOR RECORD Under A.A.C. R4-9-117, in determining the appropriate discipline, the administrative law judge and the Registrar may consider not only facts in the current case, but also facts in prior cases and any documents regarding Respondent on file with the Registrar. Respondent’s prior disciplinary record and current license(s) status may be considered as a mitigating or aggravating factor in determining the appropriate discipline. EVIDENTIARY DISCLAIMER By issuing this Citation, the Registrar is directing Respondent to file a written answer to the Citation and Complaint, showing cause, if any, why Respondent’s license(s) should not be suspended or revoked. A.R.S. § 32-1155(A). This Citation does not constitute proof that any charge or allegation in Complainant’s written complaint is in fact true. This Citation does not constitute proof that Respondent violated any statutory provision or rule adopted by the Registrar. Dated September 26, 2023. By: /s/ Eric Ulinger Eric Ulinger Legal Department Arizona Registrar of Contractors of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 COPY of the foregoing mailed by Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, September 26, 2023 to:

Respondent Certified Mail No: [number redacted]

Hansel Construction LLC 33425 S Ridgeway Rd Black Canyon City, AZ 85324 Copy mailed by USPS First Class mail this same date to: Respondent Hansel Construction LLC 33425 S Ridgeway Rd Black Canyon City, AZ 85324 Complainant Tina Marie Sloat 40726 N Noble Hawk Ct Anthem, AZ 85086

Copy sent electronically this same date to:

Respondent at email address on record with the Registrar Complainant at email address on record with the Registrar

Case No. 2023-08527

of 5

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov Lg101 8/21 Jobsite Inspection Notes

Case No.: 2023-08527 Investigator: Joey Chester Inspection Date: August 16, 2023 Inspection Time: 11:00 AM

Complainant: Tina Marie Sloat Respondent: Hansel Construction Not Present: LLC Not Present:

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov RCC100 08/19

9/20/23, 9:33 AM State of Arizona Mail - 2023-08527

Donna Lewandow ki donna lewandow ki@roc az gov

2023-08527 messages

Donna Lewandow ki donna lewandow ki@roc az gov Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 8 17 AM To: John Chester <[email redacted]> Cc: Joe Shikany <[email redacted]>

Good morning. The above case was sent to Legal; however the WD doesn't expire until September 25th. Did you want u to proce it early?

ROC is now on social media!

Make sure to follow us on: Facebook Twitter Fill out AZ ROC's survey to let us know how we're doing and how we can better serve you! Facebook

John Chester <[email redacted]> Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 9:30 AM To Donna Lewandow ki donna lewandow ki@roc az gov

I asked Steve Philpott if i needed to wait until the directive was complete and he said no. Yes please go ahead with the citation. Thank you [Quoted text hidden]

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/? k=278fe7c9ff&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-a:r3988885026720588657&simpl=msg-a:r3983927577070536… 1/1 9/21/23, 9:10 AM State of Arizona Mail - FW: ROC Case 2023-08527 Referred to Legal

Legal New Mail AZROC legalnewmail@roc az gov

FW: ROC Case 2023-08527 Referred to Legal Tina Sloat <[email redacted]> Wed, Sep 20, 2023 at 4:13 PM To Legal New Mail AZROC legalnewmail@roc az gov

Thanks Mary!

I knew your department had just received the referral and wouldn’t expect to have it updated so quickly. Instead, I under tood (maybe erroneou ly) that it would have been done week ago once the in pection and corrective work order had been issued. That’s just from my interpretation of AROC text on the license status landing page that says “This is the number of complaints against this contractor that are currently open except those in which an agency inspection has not occurred or a violation was not found…”.

Best regards, Tina Marie Sloat

On Sep 20, 2023, at 3:06 PM, Legal New Mail - AZROC <[email redacted]> wrote:

[Quoted text hidden]

https://mail.google.com/mail/b/AEoRXRTY0B3923N4v-8IoUW8g-kunJVnu1rG_xuCxnMJcri9ydWJ/u/0/?ik=d3afebeda9&view=pt&search=all&permms… 1/1 Hansel Construction LLC 33425 S Ridgeway Road Estimate Black Canyon City, AZ 85324 Date Estimate No. Phone 480-225-6006 [email redacted] 11/7/2022 8256

Tina Sloat 40726 N Noble Hawk Court Anthem AZ 85086 480.313.9455

Quantity Description Unit Price Total Pergola 23' wide, 15' projection with 2" lattice and 2" spacing in 8,625.00 8,625.00 Adobe 2-pergola posts and footings with one 16-guage "C" beam 600.00 600.00 Extra pergola header 350.00 350.00 Zone II delivery charge 320.00 320.00

All work is to be performed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practice. A down payment of 50% is required to secure your start date. Pricing reflects a 4% cash/check discount. A $30 fee will be charged for returned checks. The above pricing and specifications along with the attached Terms and Conditions are satisfactory and are hereby Subtotal $9,895.00 accepted. When signed, this document becomes a legal, binding contract.

Type text here Sales Tax (0.0%) $0.00 Signature_____________________________________________________ 11.7.2022 Date_________________________________________________________ Total $9,895.00 Hansel Construction LLC 33425 S Ridgeway Road Estimate Black Canyon City, AZ 85324 Date Estimate No. Phone 480-225-6006 [email redacted] 11/7/2022 8256

Tina Sloat 40726 N Noble Hawk Court Anthem AZ 85086 480.313.9455

Type text here Sales Tax (0.0%) $0.00 Signature_____________________________________________________ 11.7.2022 Date_________________________________________________________ Total $9,895.00 ALUMI-COVER PATIO COVER, CARPORT AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE ENGINEERING (2018 IBC)

PAGES DRAWING SECTION DESCRIPTION

GENERAL NOTES 10 and 20 psf Live Load PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING STAMPS AND TRIBUTARY WIDTH DIAGRAM up to 115 mph Exp C Wind load

SOLID/LATTICE COVER COMPONENTS AND CONNECTION DETAILS

PAGES STRUCTURAL CONFIGURATIONS

PAGES LATTICE 1.0 RAFTER SPANS FOR COMMERCIAL AND PATIO STRUCTURES

PAGES LATTICE 2.0 POST SPACINGS FOR LATTICE PATIO AND COMMERCIAL COVERS USING ALUMINUM AND STEEL HEADERS

PAGES COMPONENTS/CONNECTION DETAILS

PAGES SOLID COVER 4.0 PANEL SPANS FOR COMMERCIAL AND PATIO STRUCTURES

PAGES SOLID COVER 5.0 POST SPACINGS FOR PATIO AND COMMERCIAL COVERS USING ALUMINUM AND STEEL HEADERS

PAGE M1.DWG 7.0 MISC DETAILS

PAGE M3 7.0 POST AND FASTENER REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL STRUCTURES

PAGE M4 7.0 CONCRETE FOOTING OPTIONS

PAGES M5a M5b 7.0 REQUIREMENTS FOR LATTICE STRUCTURES WITH SURFACE MOUNTED POSTS ON CONCRETE SLABS OR FOOTINGS FOR SINGLE SPAN ATTACHED LATTICE STRUCTURES

PAGE M6 7.0 FORCES ON EXISTING STRUCTURES

PAGE M7 7.0 STRUCTURAL PROPERTIES OF BEAMS, FASCIA, PANELS AND RAFTERS FOR USE BY DESIGN PROFESSIONALS December 2, 2019 SECTION 1.0 LATTICE COVER INSTRUCTIONS AND POST TABLES

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THESE TABLES 1. CHOOSE FREESTANDING OR ATTACHED STRUCTURE 2. CHOOSE PROJECTION, WIDTH AND OVERHANG OF UNIT P = 15’-0”, W = 23’-0”, OH = 2’-2” 3. DETERMINE WIND AND LIVE OR SNOW LOAD OF STRUCTURE SITE (PATIO UNITS USE 10 PSF MIN, COMMERCIAL UNITS USE 20 PSF MIN) Provided by Maricopa County B & D. 4. CHOOSE A RAFTER FROM SECTION 1.0 THAT HAS ADEQUATE CLEARSPAN (12’-5 1/2”) FOR YOUR NEEDS. Multispan Table 1.11 (page 6) specifies: 0.040” x 2” x 6.5” Rafter with 12” Rafter Spacing for spans between 11’-5” to 13’-10”. 5. DETERMINE TRIBUTARY WIDTH FROM TABLE 1.1 OR CALCULATE FROM TRIBUTARY DIAGRAM ON GN02 Header #1 trib is 6’-9 & 9/16” so it will use the 7.0’ Tributary Width for Multispan Freestanding Structures. Header #2 trib is 8’-2 & 7/16” so it will use the 8.5’ Tributary Width for Multispan Freestanding Structures. 6. LOCATE HEADER TABLE IN SECTION 2.0 W/ CORRECT PARAMETERS a. GROUND SNOW LOAD, SEE GEN NOTE #3 Does NOT Apply b. LIVE LOAD, SEE #3 ABOVE 20 LBS c. WIND SPEED, SEE GEN NOTE #3 115 MPH d. EXPOSURE, SEE GEN NOTE #3 C e. SEISMIC, SEE GEN NOTE #3 Does NOT Apply f. ATTACHED OR FREESTANDING g. a-e ARE SET BY YOUR LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY Provided by Maricopa County B & D. 7. CHOOSE A HEADER FROM TABLES IN SECTION 2.0 THAT HAS ADEQUATE POST SPACING (for Post Height = 9’-8”, Post Spacing = 20’-10”), Table 2.15b (page 24), Header #1 with a Tributary of 6.8’ will use the table for a tributary = 7.0’, specifies a Header of Double 14GA Steel C to satisfy post spacing within the range from 18’-11” to 21’-9”. Table 2.15b (page 24), Header #2 with a Tributary of 8.2’ will use the table for a tributary = 8.5’, specifying a Double 12GA Steel C Header to satisfy post spacing within the range from 19’-7” to 24’-10”. 8. DETERMINE FOOTING SIZE USE THE UPLIFT FOOTING IF BOTH OF THESE CONDITIONS ARE MET a. STRUCTURE IS ATTACHED TO AN EXISTING STRUCTURE NOT TRUE b. TABLES L1 AND L2 ARE SATISFIED NOT TRUE, this requires beyond Moment frame “D”. c. IF BOTH 8a AND 8b ARE TRUE THEN GO TO 9a NO IF EITHER a OR b ARE NOT TRUE THEN: d. CHOOSE CONSTRAINED FOOTING SIZE BASED ON THE 3 CHOICES OF POST HEIGHT Two different headers comprise this multispan structure, and both have the same post height that fall within the range from 8’-1” to 12’-0”. For Header #1 with a 7.0’ trib the Table 2.15B (page 24) specifies a 36” Constrained Footing. The same table specifies for Header #2 with a 8.5” trib a 37” Constrained Footing. e. USE THE LARGER OF THE UPLIFT OR CONSTRAINED FOOTING SIZE The Uplift Footings are LARGER. Table 2.15B (page 24) specifies a 37” Uplift Footing for Header #1, then a 41” Uplift Footing for Header #2. f. CONSTRAINED FOOTINGS MUST USE DETAIL C10 N/A g. GO TO 9b Skip over 9b and proceed to 13 since the footings are nonconstrained. 9. DETERMINE POST TYPE a. IF BOTH 8a AND 8b ARE TRUE THEN USE POST SHOWN IN TABLE UNDER "MIN POST TYPE" IN SECTION 2.0. CROSS REFERENCE LETTER CODE W/ TABLE 1.2 NO IF THIS POST'S MAX HEIGHT IS TOO SHORT, UPGRADE THE POST. b. IF EITHER 8a OR 8b ARE NOT TRUE THEN: both are NOT TRUE i. DETERMINE POST TYPE FROM CROSS REFERENCING THE UPLIFT FOOTING AND CONSTRAINED FOOTING ON TABLE 1.3 Applying the largest footing size between the two different headers from 8e into Table 1.3 (Page 5) resulted in identifying Post Type “G”, which is a 0.188” x 4” x 4” Steel Post to a maximum height of 15’-0”. ii. example 1: A 40" UPLIFT FOOTING AND A 20" CONSTRAINED FOOTING iii. ARE REQUIRED. POST TYPE "B2" IS REQUIRED. TABLE 1.2 SHOWS POST TYPE "B2" TO BE A 0.042"X3"X3" STEEL CLOVERPOST WITH A MAX HEIGHT OF 8'. iv. example 2: A 20" UPLIFT FOOTING AND A 40" CONSTRAINED FOOTING ARE REQUIRED. POST TYPE "H" IS REQUIRED. TABLE 1.2 SHOWS POST TYPE "H" TO BE A 0.188"X5"X5" STEEL POST WITH A MAX HEIGHT OF 15'. 10. IF STRUCTURE IS ATTACHED FIND THE O/C SPACING OR # OF FASTENERS FOR ATTACHING TO WALL FROM TABLE 7.6 OR TABLE 7.7 N/A 11. USE THE APPROPRIATE DETAILS (S3, S4, S7 OR S8 AND E1 TO C24) a. S3 (page 3) = PLAN VIEW/FRONT ELEVATION/SIDE ELEVATION – these Multi-Span Freestanding Lattice Awning drawings illustrate the PROJECTION/RAFTER SPAN/OVERHANG/TRIBUTARY WIDTH. b. C7 (page 50) = DOUBLE OR SINGLE STEEL HEADER TO POST CONNECTION – the drawing’s accompanying unlabeled table, when using Table 2.15B (20 psf Live Load, 115 mph, exp C) for a 8.5’ trib and a double 12G steel C header that allows a maximum post

5/4/2023 6:08 PM 20230503_Aluma-Cover Worksheet_40726 N Noble Hawk CT_ Anthem.docx spacing of 24’-10”. From the C7 accompanying table, this is above 18’-7” and will require either 8 (eight) #14 screws OR 4 (four) ¼” bolts. c. C10 (page 51) = POST EMBEDDED IN FOOTING (MOMENT RESISTING) – the drawing specifies that the steel post has a minimum 12” depth footing embedment and a minimum 3/8” D x 9” L rebar or bolt installed through the post perpendicular to its length and 2” from the post bottom. d. E1 (page 46) = 0.040” X 3” X 8” ALUMINUM HEADER e. E2 (page 46) = 3” X 8” ASTM A 653 GRADE 50 STEEL C BEAM f. E3 (page 46) = 2” x 6.5” ALUMINUM RAFTER AND SIDEPLATE g. E5 (page 46) = 2” SQ LATTICE h. E8 (page 46) = ASTM A500 GRADE B STEEL POST, 0.188” X 4” X 4” 12. UPLIFT FOOTING MAY CHANGE SHAPE (ROUND, SET DEPTH) OR REDUCE SIZE USING TABLES 7.8, 7.9, 7.10, 7.11 AND 7.12. 13. CONSTRAINED FOOTINGS MAY CHANGE SHAPE, REDUCE SIZE OR BECOME NONCONSTRAINED USING TABLES 7.8 AND 7.12. All post’s footing are nonconstrained. Therefore, using Table 7.8 specifies that a 37” constrained footing is equivalent to a 47” Nonconstrained Footing. These footings are larger than the Header’s associated Uplift Footing sizes, so these will be the size required installed.

FOR PATIO SLABS FOLLOW 1-7 FROM ABOVE THEN SLAB 7. USE THE SMALLER OF THE POST SPACING ON SLAB OR HEADER POST SPACING SLAB 8. BOTH 8a AND 8b MUST BE TRUE SLAB 9. FOLLOW 9a FROM ABOVE SLAB 10. FOLLOW 10 AND 11 FROM ABOVE SLAB 11. FOR TWO POST STRUCTURES USE TABLE 7.1 ON SHEET Misc3 FOR SLAB REQUIREMENTS INSTEAD OF SECTION 2.0

5/4/2023 6:08 PM 20230503_Aluma-Cover Worksheet_40726 N Noble Hawk CT_ Anthem.docx Pergola components requirements of the Arizona-registered professional engineer

Defined Alumi-Cover Awning Co. Freestanding Lattice Pergola Design Parameters

Attribute Description Value Source Freestanding or attached: Freestanding Homeowner Projection: 15'-0" Homeowner Width: 23'-0" Homeowner Height: 10'-0" Homeowner Single or Double Header: Double Homeowner Lattice: 2" x 2" @ 4" O.C. Homeowner Rafter Free Span: 12'-5 1/2" Contractor Overhang: 2'-2" Contractor Post spacing: 20'-10" Contractor Header Overhang: 1'-1" Contractor Header #1 Tributary Width: 6.8' (6'-9 9/16") Contractor Header #2 Tributary Width: 8.2' (8'-2 7/16") Contractor Wind: 115 mph Maricopa County Building & Development Dept. Live Load: 20 PSF Maricopa County Building & Development Dept. Category: C Maricopa County Building & Development Dept.

Components Specified by the Professional Engineer (Civil), Carl Putnam PE, Reg No. 39702

Component Description Size (min.) Quantity Rafter: 0.040" x 2" x 6.5" x 15'-0' 23 Rafter Spacing: 12" Lattice: 0.018" x 2" x 2" x 23'-0" Alum. 45 Header Beam Skin/Cover: 0.024" x 3" x 8" Alum. 4 Header Beam #1 Insert: Double 3" x 8" 14Ga Steel C 2 Header Beam #2 Insert: Double 3" x 8" 12Ga Steel C 2 Post: 0.188" x 4" x 4" x 15'-0" Steel 4 Nonconstrained Concrete Footing: 47" x 47" x 47" 2 3" X 8" Steel Header to Post Connection: 1/4" Bolts 6 0.040" x 2" x 6.5" Rafter-to-Steel Insert #14 SMS/SDS 2 Connections:

Pergola Components Requirements_R1 xlsx 5/4/2023, 5:49 PM Map O

Maricopa County G IO, Maricopa County Ass essor's O ffice 2/1/2023 5:21:11 PM Friday, August 25, 2023

RE: Complaint Number 2023-08527

Good a ernoon, Joey Chester.

In support of our eﬀort with the AROC to achieve a just resolu on to our complaint against Hansel Construc on LLC, license ROC322224 (CR-21 Hardscaping and Irriga on Systems) it’s incumbent that we only focus a en on on the single point of our complaint # 2023-08527, which is that:  Hansel Construc on LLC unilaterally subs tuted posts, headers, and ra ers with thinner wall thickness, le out reinforcement structural steel within the headers, employed smaller- dimension foo ngs, fewer ra ers and undersized mechanical fasteners, and increased ra er spacing producing a structure whose components and a ributes are all weaker in strength than the minimums required by the manufacturer's engineer of record, Carl Putnam PE, Reg. No. 39702 and resulted in producing a building structure that fails to meet the design criteria provided and enforced by the building oﬃcial, Maricopa County, and is thereby unsafe. o When Hansel performed the above-grade work of the structure and a ached it to the house the structure became in viola on of IRC 2018 R105.1 Required: 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, or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system, the installa on of which is regulated by this code, or to cause any such work to be performed, shall ﬁrst make applica on to the building oﬃcial and obtain the required permit. At that me, a permit had not yet been issued. During the plan review process, the county required that the structure be freestanding and not a ached to the home since its size encroached on the B.S.L. This resulted in a further disparity between what Hansel built and what the county required. o Despite Hansel’s building work preceding the issuance of our building permit, Hansel was not spared the responsibility of construc ng a safe structure that sa sﬁed Maricopa County. Hansel was in possession of the pergola manufacturer’s engineering packet, acquired by his own means, and according to Hansel, used by him to design and build many other pergola structures from this manufacturer. Regarding our project, Hansel stated that he used the engineering packet that produced the structure’s design that he built.

The Maricopa County-issued building permit and the MC-approved building plans which iden fy the pergola structure’s components and a ribute requirements are a ached. These were on site at the me of your job site visit. They are and have been contained within the permit box aﬃxed to the face of the backyard gate and visible from the street since issuance. At the me of our mee ng with you and Hansel, Doug retrieved them and brought them into the mee ng to show all par es the construc on documents suppor ng our complaint. Addi onally, I’ve a ached a table that compares the items subs tuted by Hansel Construc on LLC to those speciﬁed by the engineer of record and approved by the Maricopa County Planning & Development Department. As you’ll see, the diﬀerences between what Hansel built and what the building plans require are quite substan al. Some discrepancy examples from the table are 1) Hansel-installed ra ers are 0.024” wall thickness. The required ra ers are 66.7% thicker and 2 levels above those in strength available from the manufacturer. 2) Hansel-installed posts are the weakest among the 8 steel posts available from the manufacturer. The required posts are the 3rd strongest on the list.

20230825_Complaint No 2023-08527_Le er to Inves gator Joey Chester.docx -1- To repeat a key point made by Doug at our mee ng is the validity of the pergola’s minimum-strength building speciﬁca ons that the building plans call out, and that Hansel’s structure fails to meet. These were deﬁned through the working rigors of the following steps:  1st - We solicited and received an unaltered copy of the Engineering Packet directly from the manufacturer, Alumi-Cover Awning Co, Inc. The packet contains a worksheet to be used by the contractor that walks the contractor/designer through the sequen al steps of iden fying the manufacturer's needed components, their a achments, and the foo ngs required to completely build the pergola pa o cover. All items are solely derived from the load tables and illustra ons contained within the packet.  2nd – Then we solicited and received the assistance of Alumi-Cover Awning Co, Inc. to answer ques ons we had during the use of the engineering packet, who had one of their experienced contractor-assigned employees review our work for its correctness.  3rd – Then we solicited and received the assistance of Alumi-Cover Awning Co, Inc.’s engineer of record, Carl Putnam PE, Reg. No. 39702, to review our work for its correctness.  4th – Finally, we submi ed our building plans, produced through the 3 preceding building design steps to the Maricopa County Planning & Development Department for plan review. The county’s plan review process included a structural review of applying the county-deﬁned loads and conﬁrming the minimum-strength materials and means of construc on iden ﬁed in the building plan set were correct. The county approved the building design as submi ed.

In conclusion, Robert Hansel represented himself as an expert in aluminum la ce pergola builds. However, having exper se in designing and construc ng this building structure would require proﬁciency in u lizing the manufacturer’s engineer of record’s engineering packet as the tool to iden fy each component piece size and material thickness, component spacing, and means of a achments, and foo ngs. His failure to correctly navigate the engineering packet can only be a ributed to one of two possible causes, which are, either 1) He does not possess the skill to use the engineering packet or engage the help of the engineer of record, or 2) He does possess the skill needed to correctly iden fy the structure’s construc on materials and assembly means yet knowingly subs tuted weaker and cheaper components in an a empt to pass them undetected by the owner. Note that all the pergola structural components Hansel incorporated into the build were the weakest and cheapest in their respec ve product category available from the manufacturer.

In the event you need further support or clariﬁca on on any of the informa on that I’ve provided you, then please reach out to me and I will promptly respond.

Kind regards, Tina Sloat 480-313-9455, direct

40726 N Noble Hawk Ct Anthem, AZ 85086

20230825_Complaint No 2023-08527_Le er to Inves gator Joey Chester.docx -2- Complaint #2023-08527 P 1 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2023-08527 P 2 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2023-08527 P 3 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2023-08527 P 4 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2023-08527 P 5 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2023-08527 P 6 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Complaint #2023-08527 P 7 JSI date 8/23/2023 at 10:00 AM JSI PHOTOS Respondent: Hansel Construction LLC DBA: 33425 S Ridgeway Rd Black Canyon City, AZ 85324

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013i 04/21 August 31, 2023

WARNING LETTER

Re: Complaint No. 2023-08527; License No. ROC 322224

Dear Respondent:

It appears that you may have operated beyond the scope of your CR-21 Hardscaping and Irrigation Systems license. I reviewed evidence which suggested that you bid on, contracted for, or performed work that would require a R-3 license.

Knowingly contracting beyond the scope of your license would be a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16). A violation of Section 32-1154(A)(16), if proved, would constitute grounds for the Registrar to suspend or revoke your license.

I recommend that you review the scope of your license. If you have questions about the scope of your license, a description of the scope can be found in rules R4-9-102, R4-9- 103, or R4-9-104 of the Arizona Administrative Code. You can find those rules on the Registrar’s website at roc.az.gov.

The Registrar does not presently intend to pursue disciplinary action for the alleged violations. However, this warning letter does not preclude the Registrar from electing to pursue action against your license for these violations in the future.

If you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Sincerely,

Joey Chester Joey Chester, Investigator 602 7716737 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C013i 04/21 Complainant: Tina Marie Sloat 40726 N Noble Hawk Ct Anthem, AZ 85086

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C010 04/21 Respondent: Hansel Construction LLC 33425 S Ridgeway Rd Black Canyon City, AZ 85324

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C010 04/21 August 7, 2023

Re: Complaint Number 2023-08527

Dear Complainant and Respondent:

Due to a conflict in scheduling of one of the parties, the jobsite inspection scheduled for August 16, 2023 at 11:00 AM has been rescheduled for August 23, 2023 at 10:00 AM.

If either party is unable to attend, the Registrar requires 36-hours advance notice for cancellation or continuance.

Complainant: Safe access is required to any area to be inspected.

Should you have any questions regarding the above, please contact me.

Sincerely,

Joey Chester Joey Chester, Investigator 602 7716737 [email redacted] 1700 W Washington St, Ste 105 Phoenix, AZ 85007

1700 W. Washington Street, Suite 105 · Phoenix AZ 85007-2812

602.542.1525 · Toll Free 877.692.9762 · roc.az.gov C010 04/21 Complainant: Tina Marie Sloat 40726 N Noble Hawk Ct Anthem, AZ 85086