ALJDEC - Licensing

2024A-01575-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2026-07-09

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Michael Kaminski,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

San Tan Construction, LLC

DBA: San Tan Realty,

License No. ROC 261248,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2024A-01575-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: June 22, 2026

APPEARANCES: Complainant Michael Kaminiski appeared on his own behalf, with his wife, Jill Kaminski. Michael Denious, Esq. represented Respondent San Tan Construction, LLC, doing business as San Tan Realty. Doug Adcox appeared on behalf of Respondent San Tan Construction, LLC, doing business as San Tan Realty. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator Patricia Schuette, and Clinton Garner appeared as witnesses.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant Michael Kaminiski’s Exhibit 1; Respondent San Tan Construction, LLC, doing business as San Tan Realty’s Exhibits B, C, E, and M; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

San Tan Construction, LLC, doing business as San Tan Realty (“Respondent”), is the holder of License Number 261248 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). James Douglas Adcox is Respondent’s Qualifying Party and a member of Respondent.

In or about November 2021, Michael Kaminski (“Complainant”) and his wife, Jill Kamimski, purchased a completely constructed home from an individual named Taylor Kottcamp (“Kottcamp”). Mrs. Kaminski is a licensed real estate agent and served as a realtor for the transaction.

Golden Sky Construction, LLC (“Golden Sky”) constructed the home.

Golden Sky applied for and obtained a building permit in 2021, under permit number PER21-04380. Golden Sky is listed on the permit as the property owner and the owner/builder.

A Certificate of Occupancy was issued on April 25, 2024, showing a final inspection date of June 28, 2022.

On or about July 5, 2022, the sale of the home closed and Complainant

took ownership of the home.

On or about February 7, 2024, the Registrar received two complaints from Complainant, the instant Complaint against Respondent, and one against Golden Sky. The instant Complaint against Respondent set forth the following:

Sunset septic previously came out to inspect the septic tanks and found they had installed the filter backwards and tank lids were cracked. Filter was cleaned and reinstalled correctly and tank lids were replaced. Septic smell remained after this visit. Homeowners have photo of contractor vehicle previously parking over the septic tank.

Septic issue - ground caving in at septic main line from house, septic smell from drains continues inside residence

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator Patricia Schuette. On February 14, 2024, Investigator Schuette contacted Complainant seeking clarification as to which contractor Complainant “filed against.” Complainant indicated that he was pursuing all Complaints against Respondent.

On March 22, 2024, Investigator Schuette conducted a Jobsite Inspection, at which both parties were present, and issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated April 10, 2024, 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 April 30, 2024.

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

Compliance Item: 1-Moved Regulated Wash without a permit, requiring

drainage memo and grading & drainage plan, prepared and certified by an

Arizona registered professional engineer.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Renderings provided from Pinal

County show original location of the wash on the East of the property. New location moves the wash further East towards the property line. These changes require proper channels through Pinal County. Respondent to work with Pinal County to make appropriate corrections.

Compliance Item: 3-Home is within the mandatory 50’ erosion hazard

setback for regulatory wash due to builder site plan changed from original

building permit.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The plans submitted to Pinal

County show the orientation of the home facing differently from how it was

constructed. This appears to have caused an encroachment into the 50’ setback for the regulatory wash. Respondent to work with Pinal County for corrections needed.

Compliance Item: 4-Soft grout in tile floors causing cracking again.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are a few locations where

the grout has cracked between tiles. This can be indicative of deflection or

movement. The grout does not appear to be soft. Respondent to identify cause and correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Item: 6-Active termites since purchase of new home, due to

lack of final treatment and ac drain pipe breaking twice inside the exterior wall.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. Evidence of a termite tube located

in the primary bedroom on East exterior wall. Respondent to correct within

appropriate means.

Compliance Item: 7-Hardware on barn door is bronze, we paid for

everything in the house to be matted black.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The respondent mentioned that

there was other mismatched hardware but corrected. This door was missed. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Item: 8-Gaps, and issues with doors, Master, Frond door,

laundry door, Master bedroom exterior door. Daylight comes through the

bottom or side of doors.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The Respondent is required to do

door adjustments one-time and it appears that they have however, the front door strike is not flush to door frame and latch does not appear to catch at the right location on the strike causing operational issues. Laundry door is also ghosting. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Item: 9-Roof, we have several cracked broken mortar packs as well as broken tiles. T-tops are missing the wire mesh screens.

Investigator’s Observation: Partially verified. Tiles that are cracked or

chipped larger than the size of a quarter should be replaced. Mud balls or caps that have cracked should be repaired within appropriate means. The t-tops are not required to have a mesh screen.

Compliance Item: 10-Baseboard missing in jack and jill bathroom.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The return base to tub in the jack

and jill bath is missing. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Item: 11-Attic access cover that has been broken before we

even bought house.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. A new lid was installed but

requires finishing/paint. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Item: 12-Repaint exterior house repairs to stucco.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There were unpainted stucco

repairs on the exterior of the home. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Item: 13-Drainage issue in front of house water sits right up

against the foundation because there is no where for it to go.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. It does not appear that any

drainage sleeves or other means to drain area were installed at the sidewalk from front of home towards the garage trapping the moisture next to the foundation. Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Item: 14-Bathroom tile is cracked again around tub.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. There are two tiles on the top of the primary bathtub deck closer towards the tub spout. There are no apparent

impact marks that would lead me to believe that this was caused by neglect or damage by the complainant. Respondent to identify cause and correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Item: 17-Deco drain grate on driveway has failed and is now a trip hazard.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. The drain is not secure and lifted.

Respondent to correct within appropriate means.

Compliance Item: 18-Mortar needs to be Added to the visible hurricane

straps at stem wall because they are starting to rust out.

Investigator’s Observation: Verified. A couple of hurricane straps

popped the concrete on the stem wall. Respondent to identify locations and correct within appropriate means.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION

The following complaint items require no action by the Respondent:

Compliance Item: 2-Final grading faulty causing water to come to our lot

from all neighboring houses built by San Tan.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. Some modifications have been

made by the complainant and the ROC no longer has jurisdiction.

Compliance Item: 5-Window pain is separating from the frame at the left

side of the north dining room window.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. The manufacturer did the

glazing of the window and therefore not a workmanship issue on behalf of the Respondent.

Compliance Item: 15-Septic clean out holes not cut straight so lids do not

seal allowing air to come in and backflow into house.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. The septic clean out holes were

buried at the time of inspection. The complainant mentioned that the

contractor was able to secure the lids to the clean outs. It is noted that a sewer smell is present in mainly the primary bath at time of inspection. Origination and cause is unknown.

Compliance Item: 16-Plumbing fixtures are flacking the back finished off

and need to be replaced.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. The finish on the fixtures is not

a workmanship issue from the Respondent. The respondent should supply

complainant with manufacturer’s information for warranty submission with

them.

On May 1, 2024, at Respondent’s request, Investigator Schuette issued an Amended Written Directive that extended the deadline for compliance to May 17, 2024.

On June 7, 2024, Investigator Schuette conducted a Compliance Inspection. Because Investigator Schuette ascertained that the parties were “making progress,” Investigator Schuette issued an Amended Written Directive dated June 20, 2024, that extended the deadline for compliance to July 12, 2024.

On July 30, 2024, Investigator Schuette received an email from Complainant requesting a re-inspection of Complaint item number 15.

On September 12, 2024, Investigator Schuette conducted another Jobsite Inspection with regard to Complaint item number 15 and found as follows:

Compliance Item: 15-Septic clean out holes not cut straight so lids do not

seal allowing air to come in and backflow into house.

Investigator’s Observation: Unverified. The septic clean out holes

were buried at the time of inspection. The complainant mentioned that the

contractor was able to secure the lids to the clean outs. It is noted that a sewer smell is present in mainly the primary bath at time of inspection. Origination and cause is unknown. **At time of September 12, 2024 inspection it was noted that there was a possibility that the wind could be causing the sewer vents on the roof to not vent properly and backup into the home. There was not sufficient evidence to support allegation that something was installed incorrectly causing the sewer backup smell in the home.**

At the September 12, 2024 re-inspection, the parties informed Investigator Schuette that a survey was being conducted at Respondent’s request in order to determine an appropriate remedy to the remaining items of Complaint.

On October 18, 2024, Investigator Schuette received an email from Respondent regarding the results of the survey and follow up steps.

On October 22, 2024, Investigator Schuette received an email from Complainant containing a list from the County “as to how to move forward.”

On November 21, 2024, and January 15, 2025, Investigator Schuette received emails from Respondent regarding the status of Complaint item numbers 1 and 3, the only items of Complaint that had not been remedied.

On February 10, 2025, Investigator Schuette received an email from Complainant stating that he had not received any recent updates from Respondent.

On February 10, 2025, Investigator Schuette emailed Respondent requesting an update.

On March 13, 2025, Investigator Schuette received an email from Respondent stating that Complainant had denied access for repair work. It was later ascertained that the contractor sent by Respondent went to the wrong address.

On March 19, 2025, Investigator Schuette received an email exchange between the parties regarding a re-scheduled survey.

Thereafter, Investigator Schuette received an email from Complainant stating that there was “no true progress” by Respondent as to Complaint item numbers 1 and 3. Consequently, Investigator Schuette forwarded the Complaint to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and (b) and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

Respondent timely filed a written Answer to the Citation and the matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent State agency, for an administrative hearing.

The hearing of this matter was continued multiple times at the request of the parties, including at the hearing setting that was scheduled on January 7, 2026, in order to afford the parties the opportunity to resolve the matters in dispute. The parties’ efforts did not result in resolution.

The hearing of this matter ultimately convened and concluded on June 22, 2026.

At the outset of the hearing, the parties stipulated that the only remaining items of Complaint were item numbers 1 and 3.

By the June 22, 2026 hearing date, Respondent had obtained approval from Pinal County Flood Control for plans to correct the violations that would satisfy the requirements of the Written Directive.

Investigator Schuette testified consistently with the findings contained in her Jobsite Inspection notes and the Written Directives. Investigator Schuette testified that she assumed Respondent was the general contractor for the project, however, she did not investigate such. Investigator Schuette testified that if Respondent only subcontracted for specific portions of the work, she would not have issued the Written Directives.

Complainant acknowledged that he purchased the home from Mr. Kottcamp, not Respondent, closed escrow on July 5, 2022, and recorded the deed. Complainant asserted that all of his dealings have been with Respondent.

Approximately one year after purchasing the home, Complainant received notification from Pinal County that a permit was required for any improvements located in the wash on the property. Complainant testified that he was unaware that a regulated wash was located on the property, however, Complainant was aware that a wash was located on the property. Complainant had placed rain water harvesting tanks, a chicken coop, and raised gardening beds in the wash, and had planted fruit trees in the wash.

Complainant testified that the 2025 plan that Respondent submitted and received approval from Pinal County Flood Control calls for a large portion of riprap to be placed in the wash, widening the wash area. The rain water harvesting tanks are specifically located where the County required riprap to be placed.

Complainant testified that the approved plan encroaches on his driveway and septic tank. Complainant asserted that had the County been aware of such, the County would not have approved Respondent’s plan. Complainant contended that the plans currently require the moving of the septic system and driveway. However, Complainant did not provide any documentation from the County confirming his assertion. Complainant essentially wants Pinal County Flood Control to approve the area as it currently stands with the improvements Complainant has added.

Clinton Garner, a licensed professional civil engineer, testified that he was notified by Mr. Adcox in early 2025, regarding the violation cited by Pinal County Flood Control. Mr. Adcox requested that he assist with rectifying the situation.

Mr. Garner began communicating with Brian Fryhover, his point of contact with Pinal County.

Mr. Garner testified that there is no danger to Complainant’s house being flooded in a 100 year event. However, Pinal County Flood Control was concerned that the wash was relocated and pushed east on the property. In order to resolve the County violation, a plan was required to remove the violation. It became apparent to Mr. Garner in his communications with Mr. Fryhover, that the County was “looking for something to protect against erosion.” The solution was the installation of riprap. The process for County approval for the plan was a slow process.

Mr. Garner explained that the plan was to cause the wash to be in the condition it was in prior to the construction of the home, which required widening of the wash in some areas and installing riprap. Mr. Garner testified that the County approved the grading and drainage plan that he prepared and for which Respondent paid. Mr. Garner testified that the installation of riprap is the “only way to mitigate the velocity” of water. Mr. Garner testified that if the approved plan is implemented, Complainant would still be able to utilize his driveway. Regarding the septic system, Mr. Garner was not able to testify whether or not the approved plan would impact it because Pinal County does not require septic plans to be included on grading and drainage plans. However, Mr. Garner clarified that riprap can either be installed around a septic tank or over it, as riprap is simply rock and can be walked upon and driven on.

Mr. Garner testified that Certificates of Occupancy are not normally issued unless the municipality is willing to close out the permits, and this would include a wash. In this case, Pinal County issued the permit and Certificate of Occupancy with the wash running through the property and without engineer involvement.

Mr. Garner testified that the solution to the issue and obtaining approval from the County for such solution “took a lot of work.”

Doug Adcox, Respondent’s Qualifying Party, testified that he also owns Sunset Septic, and that he had initially been hired to install the septic system for the home, and that is how he became involved in the project. Mr. Adcox testified that Respondent did not move the wash. Mr. Adcox credibly testified that the installation of riprap would not cause an issue for the septic system.

Mr. Adcox testified that Respondent did not apply for the building permit and the Certificate of Occupancy lists the owner’s name and general contractor for the project as Golden Sky. Mr. Adcox was friendly with the principals of Golden Sky and “offered to help them out.” Mr. Adcox contended that at that time, he “did not understand the responsibility,” was “not acknowledging any liability,” and was “just offering to help out another contractor.” Mr. Adcox explained that he offered to assist because he knew Mr. Garner and his capabilities and offered to involve Mr. Garner due to his expertise. Mr. Adcox believed that Mr. Garner “would get the matter resolved.”

Mr. Adcox testified that he has never heard of a situation in which a county flood control district issues a violation subsequent to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. However, after multiple submissions and revisions over the course of many months and Mr. Garner’s expertise, the County approved the plans. After the plans were approved, Mr. Adcox met with Complainant to show him the approved plans, at which time, Complainant expressed dissatisfaction with the approved plans due to the location of the required riprap, as the chicken coop, raised planter, and rainwater tanks would need to be moved from the wash.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on June 30, 2026. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 261248 was first issued on December 11, 2009, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there are two open complaints, including the instant Complaint, three resolved/settled complaints, and no complaints 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 with regard to Complaint item numbers 1 and 3, the only items that remained in dispute at the time of the hearing, that the wash was moved without approval from the County and the orientation of the home was changed without County approval, causing an encroachment into the setback

for the regulatory wash. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent departed from or disregarded plans and specifications and a building code in a material respect that was prejudicial and without consent, in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and (b).

The evidence established that Respondent completed the corrective work required by the Written Directive. Respondent timely completely all items required to be corrected with the exception of items 1 and 3. However, the credible evidence presented established that Respondent diligently pursued a remedy and such took additional time due to the retaining of an engineer and working with the County for approval. Notwithstanding Complainant’s dissatisfaction with the County approved plan, Respondent achieved compliance. Therefore, although not timely, valid justification for the untimely compliance was demonstrated. Consequently, Complainant did not establish 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).

Although violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) and (b) were established, the evidence demonstrated that the violations have been rectified due to Respondent’s diligence in pursuing a remedy that resulted in County approval. As such, discipline in this matter is not warranted.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall dismiss the Complaint in this matter.

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, July 9, 2026.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Patricia Schuette

[email redacted]

San Tan Construction, LLC

DBA: San Tan Realty

[email redacted]

[email redacted]

Michael Kaminski

[email redacted]

Michael T. Denious, Esq.

Stoops, Denious, Wilson & Murray, PLC

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff