ALJDEC

96F-2618-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1997-11-20

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

COMPLIANCE HEARING: November 5, 1997. APPEARANCES: Complainants were represented by their attorney, Paul Harter. Respondent was represented by its attorney, John Kelly. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: Brian Brendan Tully _____________________________________________________________________

This matter came on for hearing to determine whether Respondent has properly complied with the prior Order issued by the Registrar of Contractors in this matter. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Facts, Conclusion of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is found to have removed all pencil marks appearing on all cabinets and hardware, as well as having restored the finish to all areas affected by the removal.

2. Respondent is deemed to have properly applied sufficient roof coating on Complainants' garage and at the West end of two walkways off the main walkway to allow for proper drainage. Respondent's remedial repairs involved cleaning and coating those areas with three coats of elastomeric in colors matching the original work. It is also determined that the drainage of these areas was properly repaired per manufacturer and subcontractor recommendations. 3. Respondent cannot collaterally attack in this Compliance Hearing the prior Finding that the decks outside the living room, dining room and entry glass doors do not have positive slope away from the doors, resulting in water penetration under the doors into the interior of the house. 4. The weight of credible and reliable evidence of record supports a finding that Respondent properly performed remedial repairs to the areas described in Finding No. 3. above which provide positive drainage away from the doors to prevent interior water infiltration. Although Respondent did not remove the affected decks, it did install door sweeps, which were approved by Complainants' new architect, and a deco drain system in front of the doors which diverts water away from the doors. A compliance inspection was performed by the Registrar of Contractors' assigned agency inspector. The inspector offered to perform a standard standing water test at the affected areas to determine if ponding or water infiltration would occur with the remedial repairs. Complainants' refused the testing offer. 5. Respondent is found to have properly performed remedial repairs to provide for positive drainage away from the garage door. 6. The prior Order required to repair a pod that experienced water infiltration into flashing resulting in saturation of the interior sheetrock. Respondent subsequently added a drip lip to the pod fascia to deter water from running back onto the drywall ceiling of the pod.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

1. The evidence of record presented at the Compliance Hearing is adequate to establish that Respondent has properly complied with that portion of the Registrar's prior Order requiring Respondent to perform remedial repairs to the areas described in the above Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Registrar of Contractors determine that Respondent has complied with that portion of the Registrar's prior Order in this matter requiring Respondent to perform remedial repairs to the areas more fully described in the above Findings. Done this day, November 20, 1997.

______________________________________ BRIAN BRENDAN TULLY Administrative Law Judge

Original transmitted by mail this ____ day of ____________, 1997, to:

Mr. Michael P. Goldwater, Director Registrar of Contractors 800 West Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

ATTN: Joyce Armijo

By ___________________________ -----------------------

Office of Administrative Hearings 1700 West Washington, Suite 602 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 (602) 542-9826