ALJDEC - Licensing
2024A-13891-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-19
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
Scott Spata,
COMPLAINANT
v.
T.B. BROWN DEVELOPMENT, LLC
License No. ROC 345716,
RESPONDENT
No. 2024A-13891-CHC-ROC
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION
HEARING: September 4, 2025
APPEARANCES: Complainant Scott Spata appeared via Google Meet. Registrar of Contractors Investigator David Fagerburg appeared via Google Meet.
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone
EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE:
_____________________________________________________________________
FINDINGS OF FACT
T.B. Brown Development. LLC (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 345716 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).
On or about May 21, 2021, Complainant hired Respondent to build a garage addition and ramada at his home in Scottsdale, Arizona.
On or about December 22, 2024, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.
The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator David Fagerburg. The jobsite inspection was performed on January 8, 2025.
Investigator Fagerburg then issued a Written Directive on or about January 21, 2025, 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 Wednesday February 12, 2025.
. . .
DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS
You are directed to remedy the following violations by the appropriate means:
Complaint Item 1: Patio structure not built per plan
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed a patio structure in the backyard of the home. During a previous jobsite inspection conducted on November 14, 2024 at 1:00 pm related to 2024-11511 the complainant’s architect explained that the plans were changed from using steel beams to glue lamb beams and the respondent used solid wood timber beams that appear to be sagging and twisting and there was no structural engineering for what is installed. The patio structure is connected to the main home and the roof line is not uniform with the existing roof line. The complainant pointed out that the fasteners used to secure the patio structure posts to the base plates are undersized and not what is specified on the stamped and approved plans and there are holes in the base plates for additional fasteners that are missing. See P (1), P (3) thru P (11) and P (24). The complainant acknowledged that there was never a final inspection and the permit has expired. After the previous jobsite inspection conducted on November 14, 2024 at 1:00 pm related to 2024-11511 the complainant’s architect provided a copy of the stamped and approved plans. Upon reviewing sheets A6.1 keyed notes 11 and Sheet S002 General Structural Notes I am able to verify glulam beams were specified on the stamped and approved plans for the structure. Prior to continuing the patio structure project the respondent shall ensure the permit is active, comply with all requirements by the local building authority, pass all required inspections and complete the project per the stamped and approved plans by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (2) (A) Departure from or disregard of plans or specifications, ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 2: Displaced gravel and electrical wire for lights along driveway
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me Rip Rap, gravel and low volt outdoor lighting wiring that has been displaced and scattered along the driveway where an a larger water supply line was installed for the RV garage fire sprinklers. During a previous jobsite inspection conducted on November 14, 2024 at 1:00 pm related to 2024-11511 the respondent acknowledged that the Rip Rap has not been restored to its original appearance and condition. See P (12) thru P (17). The respondent shall correct the displaced Rip Rap, gravel and the exposed low volt wiring by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 3: Waterline for sprinklers not at required depth
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation the complainant showed me where the respondent installed a larger water supply line for the property and fire sprinkler system for the new RV garage. The new water supply line is just under the surface at the meter box and continues just below the surface beyond the meter box. See P (18). Industry standard depth of a water line is 12” or below the frost line. The respondent shall ensure the water supply line for the fire sprinkler system is at the required depth per the local building official.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 4: Garage HVAC disconnects when turning on
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation in the RV garage I observed and am able to verify when 1 of the HVAC units is turned on the breaker trips. This was observed on 3 separate occasions. See P (19) thru P (21). The thermostat for the other HVAC unit appears to be on but does not appear to function properly. See P (22). The respondent shall determine cause and correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 5: Wires underneath sink in garage bathroom exposed
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed and am able to verify there are exposed wires underneath the sink in the garage bathroom. See P (23) and P (24). The respondent shall correct by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 6: Patio outdoor heaters incorrectly powered and tied into lighting circuit
Investigator’s Observation: At this jobsite investigation I observed 2 outdoor ceiling mounted gas heaters installed at the patio structure that are tied to the lighting circuit. The lighting circuit also includes a flood light at the southeast corner of the patio structure. The gas supply line coming from underground is standard black iron pipe and is corroding and rusted. There is no evidence the piping is coated. See P (5), P (6), P (9) and P (24). Upon reviewing the 2018 IRC code chapter 24 Fuel Gas G2414.8 Protective coating where in contact with material or atmosphere exerting a corrosive action metallic piping and fittings coated with a corrosion-resistant material shall be used. Prior to continuing the patio structure project the respondent shall ensure the permit is active, comply with all requirements by the local building authority, pass all required inspections and complete the project per the stamped and approved plans by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (2) (B) Departure from or disregard of a building code, ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
Complaint Item 7: Fire sprinklers in garage did not pass inspection
Investigator’s Observation: During a previous jobsite inspection conducted on November 14, 2024 at 1:00 pm related to 2024-11511 the 2 parties could not agree as to whether or not the fire sprinkler system final inspection passed. Upon reviewing the City of Scottsdale Planning and Development Department website the status for permit #268839 detached garage it appears there has been no final inspection for the fire sprinkler system. The respondent shall ensure the fire sprinkler system passes final inspection by the local building authority by appropriate means.
Governing Rule: ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.. . .
A compliance jobsite inspection was performed on April 25, 2025. In his notes regarding the same Investigator Fagerburg found the following in pertinent part:
. . .
Compliance Findings:
Complaint Item 1: Patio structure not built per plan . . .
Compliance Observation: There has been no corrective work performed on the patio structure and the permit remains on hold with the local building official. See P (3) thru P (10).
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (2) (A) Departure from or disregard of plans or specifications, ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4- 9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item 2: Displaced gravel and electrical wire for lights along driveway . . .
Compliance Observation: The gravel and electrical wiring remains displaced along the driveway where a water line was upgraded and installed for fire sprinklers required in the RV garage. See P (11) thru P (14).
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item 3: Waterline for sprinklers not at required depth . . .
Compliance Observation: The upgraded waterline for the RV garage fire sprinklers remains at near grounds level after the water meter. See P (11) and P (12).
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item 4: Garage HVAC disconnects when turning on . . .
Compliance Observation: The complainant and the complainant’s HVAC contractor acknowledged that the wiring for the smaller 3 ton HVAC unit was replaced with larger gauge wire and a larger circuit breaker has been installed. However, the complainant’s HVAC contractor explained that the temperature split on the 3 ton unit is only 8-10 degrees when there is a demand for heat. Industry standard is a 16-22 degree temperature split. The complainant acknowledged that the larger 5 ton HVAC unit is working properly and both units no longer trip the HVAC disconnects when turned on. See (15) thru P (18). The problem remains with the 3 ton HVAC unit not producing a temperature split of 16-22 degrees when there is a demand for heat. After this compliance jobsite inspection the complainant sent an email and provided a photo explaining that there was a ground wire that came in contact with a screw that shorted out the circuit and tripped a breaker that apparently was tied into 2 garage door openers along with a screen shot of the 3 ton unit temperature split of delta 10 meaning a 10 degree split.
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item 5: Wires underneath sink in garage bathroom exposed. . .
Compliance Observation: The complainant acknowledged the wiring and electrical outlet under the RV garage sink for the hot water heater has been connected and showed me that the cover plate does not cover the entire hole for the J-box and outlet. See P (21). Industry standard requires cut outs for electrical J-boxes be adequately covered.
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item 6: Patio outdoor heaters incorrectly powered and tied into lighting circuit . . .
Compliance Observation: There has been no corrective work performed at the patio outdoor heaters. See P (22) thru P (26).
Governing Rule: The respondent is not in compliance with the directive. ARS §32-1154 (A) (2) (B) Departure from or disregard of a building code, ARS §32-1154 (A) (3) namely R4-9-108, Poor work not performed in accordance with professional industry standards.
☐ CORRECTED ☒ NOT CORRECTED
Complaint Item 7: Fire sprinklers in garage did not pass inspection . . .
Compliance Observation: The fire sprinklers for the RV garage passed final inspection. See P (19).
Governing Rule: The respondent is in compliance with the directive.
☒ CORRECTED ☐ NOT CORRECTED. . .
On May 9, 2025, 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)(12) – A.R.S. § 32-1158; and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).
On or about May 23, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.
On or about July 2, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on July 25, 2025, at the Office of Administrative Hearings, an independent state agency. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Respondent’s mailing and e-mail address of record. Further, the Office of Administrative Hearings issued an Order setting the matter for Google Meet on July 3, 2025 and sent it to the parties’ email mail addresses of record. In addition, the Order Granting Continuance was sent on July 23, 2025 and likewise was sent to the parties’ email addresses of record. Respondent is deemed to have received notice of the hearing. A.R.S. §§ 41-1092.04 and 41-1092.05(D).
After a continuance, the hearing was held on September 4, 2025.
Respondent did not request to appear telephonically and did not request that the hearing be continued. Although the start of the hearing was delayed 15 minutes, Respondent did not appear through an authorized member, employee, or attorney. Consequently, Respondent did not present any evidence to defend its license.
At hearing, Investigator Fagerburg testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.
Investigator Fagerburg testified that Respondent failed to appear at the Compliance Jobsite Inspection, and the last time he had any contact from Respondent was on April 25, 2025.
Too, Investigator Fagerburg testified that Complainant offered two extensions, the last being until March 28, 2025, and even offered to waive his complaint on the patio structure so long as the items in the garage were remedied.
In addition, Investigator Fagerburg testified that the citation for A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(12) – A.R.S. § 32-1158, was in error as no Warning Letter was issued nor was in part of the Directive.
Complainant testified that he and his wife went above and beyond in granting Respondent the multiple extensions to make the project “right”.
Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 19, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 345716 was first issued on June 20, 2023 and reflected that there was were one open case, namely the present case, and 3 “Resolved/Settled Cases”. The License record further reflected that Respondent’s license was suspended as of June 17, 2025 due to non-renewal.
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 patio structure was not built to plan in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(a).
The preponderance of the evidence established that there was a violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A), as there the patio structure was not built to plan, there was displaced gravel and electrical wire along the driveway, the waterline for the sprinklers were not at the required depth, the garage HVAC unit disconnected when activated, there were exposed wires underneath the sink in the garage bathroom, and the patio heaters were incorrected powered.
Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established all items, but for item 7, the fire sprinklers not permitted, many items remained 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 revoke Respondent’s License No. 345716.
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, September 19, 2025.
/s/ Adam D. Stone
Administrative Law Judge
Transmitted by either mail, e-mail, or facsimile to:
Tom Cole, Director
Registrar of Contractors
T.B. BROWN DEVELOPMENT, LLC
[email redacted]
Scott Spata
[email redacted]
By: OAH Staff