ALJDEC

99F-H0242-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-11-11

IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

|HUMMINGBIRD BUILDERS, |§|CASE NOS.: H99-0242 | | |§|H99-0243 | |Complainant, |§| | | |§|DOCKET NOS.: 99F-H0242-ROC | |-v- |§|99F-H0243-ROC | | |§| | |License No. 103117, Class C-36 of|§|RECOMMENDED | |John Charles Stallings and |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |Nancy Kay Stallings d.b.a. |§| | |J AND N (PTR), |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| |

HEARING: October 28, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainant appeared through its owner, Tom Swanson. The Respondent appeared through John Stallings. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas

These matters came on for consolidated hearing on October, 28, 1999. The Complainant appeared through its owner, Tom Swanson, and the Respondent appeared through John Stallings. 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. These matters were consolidated for the purposes of hearing since both of the matters involved the same basic issues of fact and entailed the use of the same witnesses and evidence.

2. Respondent is the holder of a Class C-36 License issued by the Registrar of Contractors.

3. The Respondent performed construction work as an exterior plastering subcontractor for the Complainant, which was functioning as a general contractor, for the construction of a new residence at 5548 S. Tonto Rd. (Case No. H99-0242) and a new residence at 5592 S. Tonto Rd. (Case No. H99-0243).

4. The two residences were completed and sold to the current owners of the two residences. Both homeowners were dissatisfied with the exterior plastering on their residences and complained to their general contractor which then conducted on-site inspections for both residences.

5. The Complainant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s plastering work and requested the Respondent to properly repair the exterior plastering on both residences. When the Respondent declined to perform the requested corrective work on the exterior plastering of the two residences, the Complainant filed the complaints at issue, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.

6. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaints, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted on-site inspections at both residences and issued two separate written corrective work orders directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the two residences.

7. There was no dispute that both residences display unacceptable stucco cracking and that both residences require appropriate corrective action to the exterior stucco cracks and to have the exterior stucco properly touched up or re-colored after the exterior stucco repairs are performed.

8. The parties were in sharp dispute as to the cause of the exterior stucco cracking. The Respondent asserts that the cause of the exterior stucco cracking on both residences is the Complainant’s failure to require the installation of expansion joints in the exterior stucco for the two residences.

9. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that expansion joints are not required by either applicable industry standards or by applicable code requirements for the installation of exterior stucco on residences.

10. The Minimum Workmanship Standards for Licensed Contractors (page 40) states that “if (exterior stucco) crack exceeds 1/16”, it is unacceptable and should be repaired.”

11. The Respondent shall properly repair the exterior stucco plastering on both residences and shall cause the exterior stucco repairs to be properly touched-up.

12. Credible evidence, presented at hearing, established that the Respondent’s prior exterior stucco repairs do not match the surrounding stucco in either texture or color. The Respondent shall properly touch-up the prior exterior stucco repairs ensuring that all such repairs match the exterior of the residences in texture and color.

13. The weep screed for the residence at 5592 S. Tonto was shown to be improperly installed. The Respondent shall cause the weep screed on the residence at 5592 S. Tonto to be properly repaired or replaced.

14. 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) (23) and (3); namely, Rule R4-9-108.

RECOMMENDED ORDERS

In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class C-36 License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly caused the proper accomplishment of the corrective actions set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos. 11, 12 and 13.

It is further recommended that if the Respondent properly accomplishes the above described corrective actions, on or before the effective date of this Order, then the above provided License suspension shall not take place and Citation Nos. H99-0242 and H99-0243 shall be closed.

Dated this 16th day of November, 1999.

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge

Original mailed this day of November, 1999, to:

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

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