ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-01182-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-09-03

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Andrea Seratte,

COMPLAINANT

Bart Lee Hirschberg

DBA: My Remodel Guy!,

License No. ROC 299140,

RESPONDENT

No. 2025A-01182-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: August 21, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Andrea Seratte appeared on her own behalf. Respondent Bart Lee Hirschberg appeared on his own behalf via Google Meet. Registrar of Contractors Investigator Jim Dimond appeared via Google Meet.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Adam D. Stone

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Respondent’s Exhibits A-B.

_____________________________________________________________________

FINDINGS OF FACT

Bart Lee Hirschberg (Respondent) is the holder of License No. 299140 issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (Registrar).

On or about January 16, 2023, Complainant hired Respondent to replace and build a deck at her vacation home in Prescott, Arizona.

On or about February 4, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to project.

The Registrar assigned the complaint to Investigator Jim Dimond. The jobsite inspection was performed on March 4, 2025.

Investigator Dimond then issued a Written Directive on or about April 14, 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 Friday, May 2, 2025.

. . .

DIRECTIVE REQUIREMENTS

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

Complaint Item: 2 - Stringer is not aligned at base and overhangs the cement walkway, inconsistent distance between stringer and railings

Investigator’s Observation: This is at the east stairs of the entry of the home.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner. A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3) - R4-9-108(A) Workmanship

Complaint Item: 3 - Stair railings are loose/leaning

Investigator’s Observation: While the stair railings themselves were not contracted for replacement, they were left in an unsafe condition as they wobble.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

Complaint Item: 5 - The footing post supporting the left staircase is rotting at the base

Investigator’s Observation: This is at the east stairs. The bottom wood post of the north handrail assembly is rotted. This condition is unsafe.

The respondent poured the mis-angled landing to this post.

No waiver has been presented notifying the complainant's that the wood post was not sufficient to leave in place.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Complaint Item: 6 - The paint on the upper exterior wall where the railing meets the wall is scratched and should have been painted

Investigator’s Observation: This is at the eastern most post up against the house and the paint scrape was consistent with work being performed in the area.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

Complaint Item: 8 - Loose Trex board at front door

Investigator’s Observation: This item was added at the inspection and the respondent was not present to object-

The 4th trex board from the front door is loose.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

A compliance jobsite inspection was performed on May 30, 2025. Investigator Dimond’s notes indicated as follows:

NOTE: My review of the railing/cable manufacturer website supports that the installation of the railing meets the manufacturer requirements.

The sections that have 2 vertical members are appropriate as the particular sections are over 6’.

Manufacturer specs specifically point out that the mid span vertical posts cannot be more than 3’ from another post. The sections with 2 vertical members versus 1 are appropriate and do not need corrected.

The manufacturer also specifies that the cables may run to 100’. This is not a requirement or mandate.

The deck dimensions are as follows: North run by front stairs- 20’, East run above garage door- 47’, South run- 59’, return run at west end-7’. The total run is 133’.

There is a spot where 2 posts are within inches of each other. This is at a point that the deck framing and boards change direction and are 90 degrees to each other.

I have referred to this as an ‘expansion joint’. This is an appropriate point to have the cable terminate and start another run.

The complainant disputes that the condition should be there.

Per manufacturer specs, if the cable were to run as the complainant believes, the total run would be 126’. This is well outside manufacturer parameters of the 100’ max run.

Compliance Findings:

Complaint Item: 2 - Stringer is not aligned at base and overhangs the cement walkway, inconsistent distance between stringer and railings

Investigator’s Initial Observation: This is at the east stairs of the entry of the home.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

Compliance Observation: The respondent has performed the work but I have discovered that the project needs permitting, including the stairs.

As to the gap at the stringer, it is less than 4” and is not in violation.

Absent a drawing indicating that the banister was intended to be fastened to the stringer, a violation cannot be supported at this time.

The work is not in compliance until it is accepted by Yavapai County

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

CORRECTED X NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 3 - Stair railings are loose/leaning

Investigator’s Initial Observation: While the stair railings themselves were not contracted for replacement, they were left in an unsafe condition as they wobble.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

Compliance Observation: This item is considered not corrected at this time until it is accepted by Yavapai County

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

CORRECTED X NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 5 - The footing post supporting the left staircase is rotting at the base

Investigator’s Initial Observation: This is at the east stairs. The bottom wood post of the north handrail assembly is rotted. This condition is unsafe.

The respondent poured the mis-angled landing to this post.

No waiver has been presented notifying the complainant's that the wood post was not sufficient to leave in place.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner.

Compliance Observation: The respondent has cut the bottom of the post off.

This condition is considered not corrected until it has been accepted by Yavapai County.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

CORRECTED X NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 6 - The paint on the upper exterior wall where the railing meets the wall is scratched and should have been painted

Investigator’s Initial Observation: This is at the eastern most post up against the house and the paint scrape was consistent with work being performed in the area.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

Compliance Observation: The respondent has been unable to correct this issue as there has been no access. This is up on the 2nd floor deck.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4- 9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

X CORRECTED NOT CORRECTED

Complaint Item: 8 - Loose Trex board at front door

Investigator’s Initial Observation: This item was added at the inspection and the respondent was not present to object-

The 4th trex board from the front door is loose.

The respondent is to correct the condition in an appropriate manner

Compliance Observation: This condition has been corrected.

Governing Rule: Violation of any rule adopted by the Registrar; Namely A.A.C. R4- 9-108(a): A contractor shall perform all work in a professional and workmanlike manner.

X CORRECTED NOT CORRECTED. . .

On June 17, 2025, the Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent, charging possible violations of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b); A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A) and (B); and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(22).

On or about June 23, 2025, Respondent submitted an Answer to the Registrar.

On or about July 3, 2025, a Notice of Hearing was issued setting a hearing on August 21, 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.

At hearing, Investigator Dimond testified as to the Registrar’s involvement and the above timeline and findings.

Investigator Dimond testified that there were no permits pulled on the project and while it was the homeowner’s responsibility to do the same, the contractor should not have performed the work without proper permits.

Further, Investigator Dimond testified that the paint in item #6 was deemed corrected, as there was a denial of access by Complainant.

Complainant testified that she was advised by Respondent that a permit was not needed.

Also, Complainant disagreed that there was a denial of access as Respondent never informed her as to when he would be performing the corrective work, thus she did not know when he would be there to complete the same.

Complainant testified that her husband replaced a loose screw by one of the posts, but that was all that was repaired prior to the complaint process.

Respondent testified that he should have been given an opportunity to correct the project prior to Complainant filing with the Registrar and that Complainant had another contractor perform repairs before the complaint was filed.

In addition, Respondent testified that he did everything in a workmanlike manner and all of his work was up to code regardless of whether there was a permit, and it was Complainant who refused to obtain a permit.

Administrative notice was taken of Respondent’s prior License record on September 3, 2025. Such prior License record reflected that Respondent’s License No. 299140 was first issued on June 9, 2015, and reflected that there were two open cases, including the present 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 Respondent commenced and performed the work without a permit. While the homeowner should generally obtain the permit, the contractor should not perform work without ensuring there was a permit. Further, while the work may have been completed in a workmanlike manner, clearly it was not workmanlike to commence a job without the requisite permit. Thus, Complainant has proved by a preponderance of the evidence Respondent was in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(2)(b),, and A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(A) and (B).

Finally, the preponderance of the evidence established while corrective work may have been completed, the project still does not have a permit. Further, the tribunal does not find that Complainant denied Respondent access, and the paint should have been corrected and it 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 suspend Respondent’s License No. 299140 for a period of two business days.

It is further recommended that the Registrar require Respondent to pay the sum of $400.00 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 3, 2025.

/s/ Adam D. Stone

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Bart Lee Hirschberg

B L H CONSTRUCTION

[email redacted]

Andrea Seratte

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff