ALJDEC
99F-T0728-ROC · Registrar of Contractors · 1999-10-22
IN THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
|KELLY AND LISA BECKNER, |§|CASE NO.: T99-0728 | | |§| | |Complainants, |§|DOCKET NO.: 99F-T0728-ROC | | |§| | |-v- |§| | | |§|RECOMMENDED | |License No. 099217, Class B- of |§|DECISION AND ORDER | |Rincon Peak Development Inc. |§| | |d.b.a. R P HOMES (CORP), |§| | | |§| | |Respondent. |§| | | |§| |
HEARING: October 6, 1999, at 8:30 a.m. APPEARANCES: The Complainants appeared through Kelly Beckner. The Respondent appeared through its attorney, Brenda Lee. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE: M. Douglas
This matter came on for hearing on October 6, 1999. The Complainants appeared through Kelly Beckner and the Respondent appeared through its attorney, Brenda Lee. 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. This is a residential matter where the Respondent constructed a new residence for the Complainants.
3. The Complainants were dissatisfied with the Respondent’s workmanship and failure to correct its work despite repeated requests that it do so. The Complainants then filed a formal complaint, against the Respondent, with the Registrar of Contractors.
4. Pursuant to the filing of the formal complaint, an assigned Agency Inspector conducted an on-site inspection and issued a written corrective work order directing the Respondent to perform designated corrective work on the Complainants’ residence.
5. The Respondent performed corrective action on selected portions of the corrective work order.
6. The area where the parties are in greatest dispute concerns the grading of the property. There was no dispute that a Pima County Flood Control District site inspection conducted on December 23, 1998, noted that the Complainants’ residence was not elevated to permit requirements and that the southeast corner of the residence is at least six to twelve inches below the natural grade for the property.
7. The Flood Control District found the residence to be unprotected from inundation during a 100 year flood event.
8. Because of the deficient elevation, the County denied the Complainants a permit to enclose their carport and construct an addition to their residence.
9. The parties are in sharp dispute as to who has responsibility for the problem. The Respondent admits that it constructed the residence but asserts that the grading of the property was accomplished by a subcontractor which was working directly for the developer.
10. Credible evidence established that the lot for the residence was owned directly by the developer and that the lot was graded by a subcontractor that worked for, and was paid by, the Developer rather than the Respondent. However, credible evidence also established that the Complainants’ residence was moved from its original permit location to a different location further back from the street. The Respondent agreed to the construction of the residence in the changed location and the residence was constructed, by the Respondent, on the new location.
11. Credible evidence established that the Respondent accepted the grading as being adequate for the construction of the Complainants’ residence and accepted the subcontractor’s work as being acceptable.
12. Credible evidence established that the residence does not comply with flood control requirements as a result of the deviation from permit requirements.
13. There was no dispute that the Flood Control District has requested that the property be provided with some type of flood-proofing to protect the residence from a 100 year flood event.
14. The Respondent shall provide the Complainants’ residence with some type of flood-proofing that is acceptable to the Flood Control District.
15. The toe-kick under the kitchen sink area is loose. The Respondent shall properly repair or replace the toe-kick.
16. The utility trench has been back-filled but the repair now creates an unacceptable swell. The Respondent shall properly correct the filled utility trench and eliminate the unacceptable swell.
17. There are three exposed trusses in the carport which have been repaired but display marks from the corrective work. The Respondent shall produce evidence from a structural engineer that the three trusses are structurally sound.
18. Credible evidence, produced at hearing, established that prior exterior stucco repairs doe not match the surrounding exterior stucco in texture. The Respondent shall properly correct the texture of the exterior stucco repairs to obtain a proper match with the surrounding texture and then properly re-paint the re-textured areas.
19. There was insufficient credible evidence presented to establish that the construction of the parapets failed to comply with minimum applicable industry standards.
20. The remaining enumerated items of the complaint, and the corrective work order, were shown to have been corrected to within applicable industry tolerances.
21. 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 ORDER
In view of the foregoing, it is recommended that the Respondent’s Class B- License shall be suspended until the Registrar of Contractors receives proof that the Respondent has properly accomplished the corrective action set forth above in Finding of Fact Nos.15 through 20, inclusive.
It is further recommended that if the Respondent properly accomplishes the above described corrective action, on or before the effective date of this Order, then the above provided License suspension shall not take place and Citation No. T99-0728 shall be closed.
Dated this 22nd day of October, 1999.
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
_________________________________ M. DOUGLAS Administrative Law Judge
Original mailed this day of October, 1999 to:
Michael P. Goldwater, Director Attn: Joyce Armijo Registrar of Contractors 800 W. Washington, 6th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007
Transmitted by:
-----------------------