ALJDEC - Licensing

2025A-05678-CHC-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 2025-11-12

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

Michelle Flaro,

COMPLAINANT,

v.

Cornerstone Outdoor Living, LLC,

License No. ROC 350366,

RESPONDENT.

No. 2025A-05678-CHC-ROC

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE DECISION

HEARING: October 29, 2025

APPEARANCES: Complainant Michelle Flaro appeared on her own behalf with her husband, Jeff Flaro. Mark Winiker appeared on behalf of Respondent Cornerstone Outdoor Living, LLC. Arizona Registrar of Contractors Investigator James Dimond appeared as a witness.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Sondra J. Vanella

EXHIBITS ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE: Complainant Michelle Flaro’s Exhibit 3; Administrative Notice taken of Agency Record

FINDINGS OF FACT

Cornerstone Outdoor Living, LLC (“Respondent”) is the holder of License Number 350366, a CR-9 Concrete License, issued by the Arizona Registrar of Contractors (“Registrar”). Mark Winiker is Respondent’s qualifying party and sole member.

In or about December 2024, Michelle Flaro (“Complainant”) contracted with Respondent to install 1,225 linear feet of no climb top rail fencing, with three gates, one of which was a rolling gate with motor. The contract price was $10,500.00. Complainant has paid Respondent in full.

On or about June 11, 2025, the Registrar received a Complaint against Respondent from Complainant alleging poor work with respect to Respondent’s scope of work.

The Registrar assigned the Complaint to Investigator James Dimond. After a July 9, 2025 Jobsite Inspection, Investigator Dimond issued a Written Directive to Respondent dated July 31, 2025, 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 Saturday, August 16, 2025.

RESTRICTIONS

You may not perform or hire other contractors to perform work that is outside the scope of your license.

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

Complaint Item: 1 - No rail was installed along concrete pad for gate

Investigator’s Observation: There is no guide present that is typical for this style of rolling gate.

Complaint Item: 2 - No climb fencing not secured properly and has weak spots

Investigator’s Observation: This is as stated throughout the project. Some sections have sufficient securing of the fencing however most of it does not and there are several areas that are vulnerable to small animals getting in or pets getting out. The pipes, along with the hinges and latches are poorly welded. It is clear that the welder lacked the proper experience complete the welds properly. The respondent cannot be directed to the correct this as his license is only valid for concrete.

The respondent contracted this project outside the scope of his license.

Complaint Item: 3 - sharp points left exposed

Investigator’s Observation: Throughout the project at the wire ties, sharp, hazardous ends are present.

Complaint Item: 4 - One gate missing a latch, other gate has wrong latch welded incorrectly and on outside of fence

Investigator’s Observation: The latches used are poorly installed and are not the type of latch used on this type of fencing. Some of the latches are more appropriate for a pool fence.

Complaint Item: 5 - concrete for gate was poured without rebar and crumbled within a week

Investigator’s Observation: This is the only item within the scope of the

respondent's license. The concrete for the gate wheels to run on has completely cracked rendering the gate unusable.

It does not appear that rebar was used.

Complaint Item: 6 - motorized gate remains unoperational

Investigator’s Observation: The rolling gate cannot be used due to the faulty concrete work.

Complaint Item: 7 - All 3 gates were built incorrectly

Investigator’s Observation: The gates are uneven, too tight for the opening or just do not function as intended.

Complaint Item: 9 - parts of the no climb are mangled and broken

Investigator’s Observation: Several portions of the no climb has the wire openings all bent up.

Complaint Item: 10 - parts of the no climb fencing were not attached to the corner posts correctly

Investigator’s Observation: At the corners, the fencing isn't secured properly or is not tied off properly and is just consistent with the poor work over the course of the entire project.

Complaint Item: 13 - used wrong kind of wire to secure no climb to oil pipe in several areas

Investigator’s Observation: Cheap ty-wire was used namely at the north west section of the fencing

Complaint Item: 14 - there are areas where the no climb is not attached to the oil pipe at all because he cut it too short

Investigator’s Observation: This is as stated.

ITEMS NOT REQUIRING CORRECTION:

Complaint Item: 8 - Wrong wheels were used on the motorized gate and leaving a large gap under the gate

Investigator’s Observation: The contract is silent on the type of wheels to be used and a violation cannot be supported

Complaint Item: 11 - hit our water tank with his skid steer and did damage

Investigator’s Observation: The complainant pointed out the damage on the tank however I cannot confirm it was done by the respondent as I was not present when the damage was done.

Complaint Item: 12 - left a significant amount of trash and debris on site, forcing me to pay someone to have it removed

Investigator’s Observation: The trash was removed and the ROC lacks the authority to direct reimbursements.

After the expiration of the deadline specified in the Written Directive, Investigator Dimond ascertained that Respondent had not performed any of the corrective work and did not otherwise resolve the matter with Complainant. Thereafter, Investigator Dimond forwarded the matter to the Registrar’s Legal Department. The Registrar issued a Citation against Respondent charging possible violations of 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).

Investigator Dimond testified consistently with his findings contained in the Written Directive. Investigator Dimond inspected the entire fence and testified that the welds were very poor, the no-climb fencing was improperly fastened, there were voids in the fencing, the main gate did not function, the concrete was cracked, there was no track installed in the concrete, and that overall, the workmanship was poor and it “looked like a third grader did it.” Investigator Dimond further testified that there were “sharp points” on the outside of the fence that could injure an animal or a person.

Investigator Dimond testified that Respondent had contacted him during the period of the Written Directive and Investigator Dimond advised that Respondent could only perform corrective work to one item in the Written Directive related to concrete work because all of the other items were outside the scope of Respondent’s license. Investigator Dimond urged the parties to attempt to resolve the Complaint.

Complainant agreed with Investigator Dimond’s testimony. Complainant testified that when she hired Respondent for the project, Respondent purported to be a general contractor. Complainant believed Respondent was a general contractor because she had received an estimate dated July 30, 2024, for “New Home Construction” from Respondent for a total amount of between $142,500.00-153,500.00, that included in the scope of work: i) Install septic tank system as outlined in septic authorization; ii) Stem wall construction for modular home base; iii) Garage foundation construction; and iv) 30x30 garage construction with enclosed breezeway to house, among other items. Complainant credibly testified that she first discovered that Respondent was contracting beyond the scope of its license at the Jobsite Inspection.

Mark Winiker testified that he never presented himself as a general contractor and that Complainant and her husband were aware that Respondent was a concrete contractor. Mr. Winiker testified that he told Complainant and her husband that he was interested in “practicing” work such as welding and fencing because he was moving to a state that did not require contractors to be licensed, he was planning on contracting in that state beyond concrete work, and that he would perform the work at a reduced price because he did not have the experience in fencing and welding. Mr. Winiker testified that he only “promised to build a fence that stands.” Mr. Winiker acknowledged that the work he performed was “not up to par because [he is] not a fencer.” Mr. Winker did not dispute the allegation concerning poor workmanship nor the allegation that he contracted beyond the scope of his license.

Mr. Winiker testified that he did not live in Arizona at the time the Written Directive was issued, and therefore, could not perform the corrective work.

Administrative notice is taken of Respondent’s prior License record on November 7, 2025. Such prior License record reflects that Respondent’s License Number 350366 was first issued on February 16, 2024, and is active. Such prior License record also reflects that there is only the instant open Complaint, no 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.”

In this case, Investigator Dimond found that Respondent’s work was not in conformity with the Registrar’s standards. Investigator Dimond determined the existence of workmanship issues concerning the work that was performed by Respondent and Respondent did not dispute those workmanship deficiencies. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent did not complete the project in a professional and workmanlike manner in violation of A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(3), namely A.A.C. R4-9-108(a).

The evidence, including Respondent’s admission, established that Respondent knowingly contracted beyond the scope of its license. Respondent’s assertion that Complainant was aware of such is not credible given the previous construction estimate provided by Respondent to Complainant, and moreover, would not excuse Respondent’s violation because, as a licensed contractor, Respondent had the responsibility to know and should have known that contracting beyond the scope of its license was a violation of this State’s contracting laws. Therefore, Complainant established that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 32-1154(A)(16).

The evidence established that Respondent did not complete the required corrective work following the Written Directive being issued. The Administrative Law Judge concludes, based on the evidence of record, that valid justification did not exist for Respondent’s failure to comply with the Written Directive. 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 Number 350366 for a period of fifteen (15) 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 (30) 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, November 12, 2025.

/s/ Sondra J. Vanella

Administrative Law Judge

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

Tom Cole, Director

Registrar of Contractors

Michelle Flaro

[email redacted]

Cornerstone Outdoor Living, LLC

[email redacted]

Jim Dimond

[email redacted]

By: OAH Staff