ALJDEC

99F-H0013-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-07-29

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|LINN CONSTRUCTION, |§|CASE NOS.: H99-0010 | | |§|H99-0011 | |Complainant, |§|H99-0013 | | |§| | |-v- |§|DOCKET NO.:99F-H0010-ROC | | |§|99F-H0011-ROC | |License No. 110271, Class B- of |§|99F-H0013-ROC | |Jay Allen Bauer d.b.a. |§| | |HIDDEN CANYON CONSTRUCTION |§|RECOMMENDED | |(INDIV), |§|DECISION AND ORDER | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: July 12, 1999, at 3:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through its attorney, Jeff Goldberg. The Respondent appeared on his own behalf. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

These matters came on for consolidated hearing on July 12, 1999. The Complainant appeared through its attorney, Jeff Goldberg, and the Respondent appeared on his own behalf. Evidence and testimony were presented and, based upon the entire record, the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommended Order are made:

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Respondent is the holder of a Class B- License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

2. These are all residential matters where the Respondent performed construction work as a exterior stucco subcontractor on three separate residences constructed by the Complainant.

3. The Homeowners were dissatisfied with the condition of the exterior paint on their residences and complained to their general contractor (the Complainant). The Complainant then inspected the three residences. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct his work despite repeated requests that he do so. The Complainant then filed the formal complaints at issue, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.

4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaints, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted on-site inspection at all three residences and issued three separate written corrective work orders directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the three separate residences.

5. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that the Respondent failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the three separate corrective work orders.

6. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the following items on the residence located at 2615 Triangle S (H99-0010) constitute unacceptable workmanship and require proper corrective action by the Respondent: g) There is still unacceptable stucco cracking by the front entry-way. The Respondent shall properly correct the stucco cracks by the front entry-way. h) The stucco repairs on the garage walk-through door area require proper touch-up. The Respondent shall properly touch-up the stucco repairs in the garage walk-through door area. i) The exterior color coating on the front of the residence was shown to be flaking and falling off the residence. The Respondent shall properly correct the exterior color coating on the front of the residence.

10. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the following items on the residence located at 2150 E. Herman (H99-0011) constitute unacceptable workmanship and require proper corrective action by the Respondent: k) The poly-bond material on the pop-out was not properly applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendations and it has failed. The Respondent shall properly re-coat the pop-out with an appropriate exterior stucco material. l) The color coating on the exterior of the residence is flaking and falling off. The Respondent shall properly correct the color coating on the exterior of the residence. m) The fog-coating that the Respondent applied to the front of the residence does not match the color-coating of the residence. After the color coating is corrected the Respondent shall cause the fog- coating to be properly redone.

14. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the following items at the residence located at 2575 Triangle S constitute unacceptable workmanship and require proper corrective action by the Respondent: o) The poly-bond material and the color coating on the pop-out and the front planter have failed. The Respondent shall properly correct the pop-out and the planter areas and properly color-coat both areas once the exterior stucco corrections are made. p) The repaired areas on the columns at the rear of the residence to not blend in with the rest of the residence. The Respondent shall properly correct the columns and the rear of the residence so that all areas blend-in properly.

17. Notice is taken of the Respondent’s prior License record with the Registrar of Contractors.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The credible evidence of record established violations by the Respondent of the provisions of A.R.S. (32-1154 (A) (7) (Wrongful Act), (23) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDER

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class B- License be revoked.

It is further recommended that if the Respondent properly accomplishes the corrective action set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos. 6(a through c), 7(a through c) and 8 (a through c ), all inclusive, on or before the effective date of this Order, then the above provided License revocation shall not take place and Citation Nos. H99-0010, H99-0011, and H99-0013 shall be closed.

Dated this 30th day of July, 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. Douglas Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of July, 1999 to:

Michael P. Goldwater, Director Attn: Joyce Armijo Registrar of Contractors 800 W. Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007

Transmitted by: -----------------------