ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-12350-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-05-27
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Samuel Sternberg
COMPLAINANT,
v.
Sherwood Landscape Construction LLC
DBA: Sherwood Outdoors,
License No. ROC 186690, 307659, 326263
RESPONDENT.
No. 2024A-12350-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: May 5, 2025
APPEARANCES: Samuel Stenberg (hereinafter “Complainant”) appeared on behalf of himself. Erika Denton appeared on behalf of Sherwood Landscape Construction, LLC DBA: Sherwood Outdoors (hereinafter “Respondent”).
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Velva Moses-Thompson
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
On March 19, 2025, the Registrar of Contractors, (hereinafter
“Registrar” or “ROC”), issued a Notice of Hearing setting the above-captioned matter for hearing on May 5, 2025, by the Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.
2. The Notice of Hearing shows that the hearing was set to consider the
charges made in the Citation and Complaint. Through the Citation, the ROC alleges that Respondent may have violated Arizona Revised Statutes (hereinafter “A.R.S.”) §§ 32- 1154(A)(3) and (22); Arizona Administrative Code (hereinafter “A.A.C.”) R4-9-108(A).
3. On or about February 21, 2023, Complainant and Respondent entered into a pool and landscaping for the amount of $196,104.17. Complainant paid Respondent in full for the project.
4. On or about June 5, 2023, Respondent started work.
5. On or about August 5, 2023, Respondent stopped work.
6. On November 5, 2024, Complainant filed a complaint with the ROC alleging poor work on the part of Respondent.
7. Complainant later filed an addendum to the complaint.
8. On or about January 2, 2025, ROC Investigator Mark Nipp conducted a job-site inspection.
9. On January 27, 2025, the Registrar issued a Directive directing Respondent that provided, in relevant 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, February 14, 2025.
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 reasons1, 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
The complaint items annotated as “Verified” require corrective work. You are directed to remedy the violations by the appropriate means.
1 Verified Complaint Item:
(a) Grass sinking and uneven – (b) summer grass won’t grow due to dirt being
dumped on it.
Investigator’s Initial Observations:
The Complainant explained that the new lawn area was previously a swimming
pool. The hired the Respondent to fill in the old pool to create a lawn and then build a new pool.
(a). I saw that there were multiple low spots in the lawn that were readily
visible without the need for measuring. The largest depression was 2-3
inches lower than the baseline (P2). Correction Required.
ROC Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors (March 2024)
states, low spots in landscaping are not acceptable and the contractor
should ensure the area is fine graded and properly compacted.
(b). The grass appeared to be growing fine. The current lawn is over seeded
winter grass and there was Insufficient Evidence to determine if the
summer grass does not grow. No Further Action Required.
Required Actions:
The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract,
applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.
Reference Picture(s):
2-4
Governing Rule:
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3); 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.
Compliance Observations:
☐ Corrected ☐ Not Corrected
2 Verified Complaint Item:
(a) Pavers poorly installed, (b) large gaps, (c) poor slope for water movement
and (d) sinking in patio and next to pool (e) [Pavers] Chipping everywhere
(from Complaint Item #4).
Investigator’s Initial Observations:
The Complainant pointed out several areas of concern and I noted the following.
(a). Overall, the pavers appear to be installed well with some exceptions that
are typical punch list items. The overall installation is far too broad to
compel correction and individual issues are covered in the following items.
(b). I noted multiple areas in the back yard (pool deck) and front porch that had
inconsistent gaps between pavers with some gaps being as large as 7/16
inch and others at zero inches. Correction Required.
Inconsistent gaps between pavers is not acceptable.
(c). The Complainant conducted a water test and, for the most part, water
drained away from the house and towards the drain. However, the pavers
that abut the house (under water spigot) have negative slope and are
draining into the paver joints and at the stem wall. These pavers have a
hollow sound. Correction of Pavers with Negative Slope Required.
Pavers may not interfere with drainage.
(d). There are 5-6 loose tiles adjacent to the pool coping that are loose. I also
measured several pavers for lippage and found that all were within
acceptable minimum workmanship standards. Correction of Loose
Pavers Required.
Loose pavers are not acceptable.
(e). I noted there were pavers throughout the project (front and back) that had
chips in the corner, some as large as 1⁄2 inch. Correction Required.
Chipped pavers are not acceptable.
Required Actions:
The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract,
applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.
Reference Picture(s):
5-23, 28-30
Governing Rule:
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3); 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.
Compliance Observations:
☐ Corrected ☐ Not Corrected
6 Verified Complaint Item:
Driveway pavers are sinking and have excessive lippage.
Investigator’s Initial Observations:
The Complainant pointed out several areas in the driveway that he felt had low
spots. I inspected the areas, pointed out by the Complainant and noted that following. I saw multiple low spots and measured them using a level and a taper gauge (note: taper gauge is marked in millimeters and results were converted to fractions for ease of use). I noted that the four (4) low spots were between 3/16 – 5/16 inch. I also measured several locations for excessive lippage and found that they were within acceptable minimum workmanship standards. Correction of the Low Spots is Required.
ROC Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors (March 2024) states,
Excessive deviations, dips, or sags over short distances are unacceptable.
Required Actions:
The respondent should correct by appropriate means, pursuant to the contract,
applicable building codes, and within the scope of their license.
Reference Picture(s):
31-40
Governing Rule:
A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3); 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.
Compliance Observations:
☐ Corrected ☐ Not Corrected
..........................................................
10. On January 28, 2025, the Investigator Nipp conducted a compliance job-
site inspection. Investigator Nipp observed that Respondent corrected Complaint Item 6. However, Respondent failed to correct Complaint Items 1 and 2. Inspector Nipp’s findings regarding Complaint Item 1 were as follows:
................................
I saw that there were two large sections of lawn that had been completely
covered with sand in order to level the low spots in the lawn. While sand
may be used to level sod installation, it is typically mixed with topsoil in
order to provide the appropriate nutrients to the grass. The corrective
work completed by the Respondent does not meet the minimum
workmanship standards.
Reference CJSI Picture(s): 2
11. Inspector Nipp’s findings regarding Complaint Item 2 were as follows:
Compliance Observations: Corrective Work Unsatisfactory
I noted that some corrective work had been completed by the Respondent;
however, there were still issues with all areas of concern.
I noted that there were still loose pavers, inconsistent gaps, chipped
pavers, and improperly sloped pavers.
Reference CJSI Picture(s): 3-14
12. On March 12, 2025, the ROC issued a Citation against Respondent’s license for alleged violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154 (A)(3) and (22); A.A.C. R4-9-108(A).
13. Respondent filed a timely answer to the Citation.
14. The matter was referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings for an evidentiary hearing.
15. At hearing, Complainant testified on behalf of himself. Respondent presented the testimony of Erika Denton and Yanitsa Mendivil.
16. Complainant explained that Respondent failed to correct its poor work despite having multiple opportunities to repair its mistakes.
17. Ms. Denton explained expressed that she “hated” to hear that Complainant is unsatisfied. Ms. Denton stated that Respondent began going back to the property about a year after the job was completed to make corrections.
18. Ms. Mendivil was the manager for the pool remodeling and landscaping project. Ms. Mendividl asserted that Respondent did its best to make Complainant happy. Ms. Mendividl stated that she understands Complainant’s concern about the decking. Ms. Mendivil stated that she told Complainant that he would need to fertilize the area and ensure that it did not have too much water.
19. Administrative notice is taken of the Registrar’s public website. According to the information available on the website on May 27, 2025, license numbers 186690, 307659, and 326263 held by Respondent are active. Such prior License record also shows that one complaint filed against license 186690 was settled, resolved, or withdrawn by the complainant after the issuance of a corrective work order. Such prior License record further shows that the Registrar has never disciplined license numbers 186690, 307659, and 326263 that are held by Respondent. The lack of disciplinary history is considered a mitigating factor in the imposition of discipline.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter lies within the ROC’s jurisdiction. See A.R.S. § 32-1101 et seq.
The burden of proof at an administrative hearing falls to the party asserting a claim, right, or entitlement and the standard of proof on all issues in these matters is by a preponderance of the evidence. See A.A.C. R2-19-119.
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).
4. The Administrative Law Judge may consider the ROC’s administrative record. See Ariz. Admin. Code § R4-9-118.
5. The preponderance of the evidence shows that Respondent did not perform the work in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), and thereby of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3).
6. The preponderance of evidence shows that Respondent failed to comply with the Directive without valid justification, which is a 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 license numbers 186690, 307659, and 326263, held by Sherwood Landscape Construction LLC DBA: Sherwood Outdoors for two days. It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $250.00 as a civil penalty pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. section 32-1154(E).
It is further recommended that if Respondent fails to pay the entire amount of the civil penalty on or before thirty days following the effective date of the Registrar’s final order, the Registrar revoke Respondent’s license, effective on such deadline date. No future license shall be issued to any entity consisting of persons associated with Respondent, as defined in Ariz. Rev. Stat. sections 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, May 27, 2025.
/s/ Velva Moses-Thompson
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
By: OAH Staff
Samuel Sternberg
[email redacted]
Sherwood Landscape Construction LLC
DBA: Sherwood Outdoors,
[email redacted]