ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-05891-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-01-29
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Graciela Lira Arroyo,
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Atlas Construction Group LLC
DBA: Camelback Roofing
License No. ROC 295244,
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-05891-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: January 13, 2025
APPEARANCES: Graciela Lira Arroyo appeared on her own behalf via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant’s Exhibits 1-27 were admitted into evidence.
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Atlas Construction Group LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 295244 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about April 21, 203, Complainant hired Respondent to replace a roof at her home in Tucson, Arizona.
On or about May 21, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Gregory Johndrow. The jobsite inspection was performed on July 17, 2024.
Investigator Johndrow then issued a Written Directive on or about July 24, 2024, which provided in pertinent part 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 Friday, August 9, 2024.
...
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 2: “Faulty workmanship with torn and unbonded shingles.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Several loose shingle were observed on the ridges of the roof.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 4: “Areas of missing flashing, gaps and holes in the roofing material.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The conditions described were observed on the flat portion of the roof above the back patio.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 5: “reuse of soft metal roofing accessories.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. Some of the roof flashings were reused. Not replaced as specified.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...
Complaint Item 6: “improper installation of rain cap on the furnace vent.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The storm collar has not been properly installed on the furnace vent.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 7: “over the area of the interior leaks, documented exposed roofing underlayment, missing flashing, gap and fully missing roofing materials”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The conditions described were observed in the back of the residence where the rake side of the pitched roof, above the bedroom, transitions to the flat roof of the patio.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) - R4-9-108(a): Violation of any rule adopted by the registrar; Namely R 4-9-108(a) A contractor shall perform work in a professional and workmanlike manner.
Complaint Item 8: “Documented reuse of gutters and downspouts.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The gutters and downspouts have not been replaced.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...
Complaint Item 9: “gutters, downspouts, and drip edges, not painted.”
Investigator’s Observations: Verified. The described areas were not painted.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a): Departure from or disregard of: (a) Plans or specifications...
(All errors contained in the original).
On September 18, 2024, Investigator Johndrow conducted a Compliance Jobsite Inspection and noted the following in pertinent part:
Compliance Jobsite Inspection General Notes:
The site inspection was performed on this date and time. The respondent was not present for this inspection.
This Compliance Inspection was to evaluate the current conditions of items requiring corrective action as stated on the Directive. Those items are listed below.
Compliance Findings: The respondent has not taken appropriate corrective action to comply with the Directive.
Governing Rule: A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22): Failure to take appropriate corrective action to comply with this chapter or with the rules adopted pursuant to this chapter...
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 2: “Faulty workmanship with torn and unbonded shingles.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. Several loose shingle were observed on the ridges of the roof.
Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. Some work has been done, however; the current conditions do not meet ROC Workmanship Standards.
Several areas of the ridges have shingles which are still loose and not bonded.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 4: “Areas of missing flashing, gaps and holes in the roofing material.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. The conditions described were observed on the flat portion of the roof above the back patio.
Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. Some work has been done, however; the current conditions do not meet ROC Workmanship Standards.
Flashing was not installed for the electrical conduit penetration.
The roofing material is not properly trimmed along the roof edge. There are visible gaps between the roofing material and the edge.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 5: “reuse of soft metal roofing accessories.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. Some of the roof flashings were reused. Not replaced as specified.
Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has been corrected.
☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 6: “improper installation of rain cap on the furnace vent.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. The storm collar has not been properly installed on the furnace vent.
Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has been corrected.
☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 7: “over the area of the interior leaks, documented exposed roofing underlayment, missing flashing, gap and fully missing roofing materials”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. The conditions described were observed in the back of the residence where the rake side of the pitched roof, above the bedroom, transitions to the flat roof of the patio.
Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. Some work has been done, however; the current conditions do not meet ROC Workmanship Standards.
The missing flashing was not replaced, paint was used to cover the area. A piece of the shingle material was used to cover a gap/missing section in the rolled roofing material.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 8: “Documented reuse of gutters and downspouts.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. The gutters and downspouts have not been replaced.
Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
As stated on Directive: Complaint Item 9: “gutters, downspouts, and drip edges, not painted.”
Investigator’s Observation from initial inspection: Verified. The described areas were not painted.
Compliance Inspection Findings for this item: This has NOT been corrected. No corrective work has been done.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED. . .
On September 25, 2024, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about September 30, 2024, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about October 16, 2024, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on December 2, 2024, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. A copy of the Notice of Hearing was mailed and e-mailed to Respondent’s addresses of record.
After a continuance, the hearing was held on January 13, 2025. A copy of the Order setting the hearing was sent to Respondent’s e-mail address of record
At hearing, Complainant testified as to the accuracy of the Written Directive as well as the notes Investigator Johndrow compiled from his Compliance Jobsite Inspection in September 2024.
Although the start of the hearing was delayed approximately 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Further, Respondent did not request that the hearing be continued. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on January 29, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 295244 was first issued on December 12, 2014, and reflected that there were four open cases, one of which was the present case, and one “Disciplined” case.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the Registrar’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
Complainant bears the burden of proof to establish Respondent’s statutory violations by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2); A.A.C. R2-19-119(A) and A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1); see also Vazzano v. Superior Court, 74 Ariz. 369, 372, 249 P.2d 837 (1952). “A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” Morris K. Udall, Arizona Law of Evidence § 5 (1960).
The preponderance of the evidence established that the parties contract was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a) as the work did not meet the plans or specifications.
The preponderance of the evidence established that Respondent’s work was not within workmanship standards in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as Respondent was found to have multiple issues with the work performed on the roof.
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established Respondent completed work on two of the seven Directive items, the remainder of the Directive was incomplete. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent failed to take appropriate corrective action following a written directive from the Registrar in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
RECOMMENDED ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that on the effective date of the Order, the Registrar shall suspend Respondent’s License No. 295244 for a period of four days.
It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $500.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to A.R.S. § 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in A.R.S. § 32-1101(A)(7), unless Respondent tenders payment of any outstanding prior civil penalty.
Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(I), the licensee may accept the Administrative Law Judge Decision by advising the Office of Administrative Hearings in writing not more than ten (10) days after receiving the decision. If the licensee accepts the Administrative Law Judge Decision, the decision shall be certified as the final decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings.
In the event of certification of the Administrative Law Judge Decision by the Director of the Office of Administrative Hearings, the effective date of the Order will be forty (40) days from the date of that certification.
Done this day, January 29, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
Graciela Lira Arroyo
[email redacted]
Atlas Construction Group LLC
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff