HomeMy WebLinkAbout BBRS Docket # C21-00056 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
SUFFOLK, ss. Board of Building Regulations and Standards
Docket No. C21-00056
RECEIVED
In re: Adam Dizdari )
(CSL#CS-088714) ) NOV 17 2021
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
By
DECISION
This matter is before the Board of Building Regulations and Standards("Board" or
"BBRS") because a complaint was filed on July 26, 2021 by Tim Sears, Local Inspector for
the Town of Yarmouth, with respect to renovation of an existing building located at 4
Glenwood Street,Yarmouth, Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that Adam Dizdari
(Construction Supervisor License ("CSL") #CS-088714("Dizdari")failed to ensure
compliance with 780 CMR (or the "State Building Code" or"Code") as required by 780
CMR 110.R5 because work regulated by 780 CMR: did not comply with 780 CMR 51.00,
110 inspection requirements; and people were allowed to occupy the building before
completion of required inspections and issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
("Complaint").1
In accordance with 780 CMR, notice of the Complaint, along with copies of the
documents that were submitted with the Complaint,were mailed to Dizdari's known
address on record with the Board (780 CMR 110.R5.2.9.1.2, 110.R5.2.11) on July 21, 2021.
Dizdari filed a response on September 20, 2021. A hearing was deemed necessary in
accordance with 780 CMR 110.R5.2.9.1.2 and 110.R5.2.9.3.
Notices of the hearing, scheduled for October 26, 2021, were issued via email and
copies of the email were also mailed via U.S. Postal Service on or about October 4, 2021 to
Dizdari's address on record with the Board. On the morning of October 26, 2021, I placed
calls to Dizdari's telephone numbers and left voice mail messages. There is no evidence
that Dizdari made any effort to attend the hearing. See 780 CMR 110.R5.2.9.4 (hearing
1 Although"any person...may file a complaint"(780 CMR 110.R5.2.9.1),the filing of a complaint does not
confer standing on the person,or make the person "aggrieved by a decision." 780 CMR 110.R5.2.10.
The complainant may serve as a witness in the CSL complaint hearing,but the hearing process can
determine only whether the evidence warrants some type of penalty against the CSL holder. The hearing
process cannot,for example,resolve all contractual disputes,determine monetary damages,order specific
performance,or award monetary damages to anyone. The relevance,admissibility,or any preclusive effect
this decision might have in another forum may be decided by only that forum. The Board does not have the
legal authority to adjudicate contractual matters which are within the purview of,for example,the
Commonwealth's Trial Court system. See G.L.c.268A,s.23(b)(2).
may be conducted in the absence of the CSL holder or their representative after finding
that the CSL holder was provided sufficient notice of the hearing).
To help ensure safety during the COVID-19 pandemic,the hearing was held via
remote means (pursuant to the Governor's Executive Order of March 10, 2020, (Exec.
Order No. 591) as amended), a telephone conference call. The following individuals
attended the hearing to provide testimony under oath and argument: Mark Grylls
("Grylls"); Brad Inkley("Inkley").
Exhibits
The following Exhibits were entered in evidence:
1. Complaint application (2 pages);
1-A. Letter by Tim Sears re: CSL#088714 (1 page);
1-B. October 22, 2020 violation notice letter from Tim Sears to Adam Dizdari,
re:4 Glenwood Street,West Yarmouth (1 page);
1-C. Town of Yarmouth, Building Permit Job Weather Card, re: Permit No. BLD-
19-005721(1 page);
1-D. Emails from July 15 through July 19, 2021 by and among Julie Jason,Tim
Sears, Mark Grylls, Nicholas Fiorillo, and Dizdari (4 pages);
2. Dizdari's written response to the Complaint (11 pages, including copies
Of the documents Dizdari received when served with the Notice of the Complaint)
3. Notice of the Hearing, including Outlook confirmation of delivery
of the emailed Notice of the Hearing(4 pages).
Findings
The following findings of fact and conclusions of law and regulation are supported
by testimony, documents in evidence, administrative records of the Board, and relevant
public information. G. L. c. 30A, §11(2), (3), (4), (5), (8), § 14(7);801 CMR 1.02(10).
1. On February 20, 2019,the Town of Yarmouth Building Department issued
Building Permit BLD-19-004715. This Permit authorized replacement of
roofing, siding, six windows, and three doors on the single-family building
at 4 Glenwood Street. (The Permit was issued on the same day the
application was filed.). There is not sufficient evidence that Dizdari was
involved in obtaining BLD-19-004715. There is a letter from Sears stating
that "the CSL holder[with CSL#088714, issued to Dizdari] was issued a
permit for major renovations on 4/29/19" (Exhibit 1-A), but it was not clear
what permit number was associated with an issue date of April 29, 2019.
Dizdari claimed that the property owner first contacted him in August
2019. (Exhibit 2).
2
2. Meanwhile, also on February 20, 2019, Inkley was inspecting work across
the street from 4 Glenwood Street and observed that the dumpster at 4
Glenwood contained construction debris such as sheet rock and lumber.
Inkley concluded that the debris he observed did not reflect the type of
debris one would expect from the scope of the work authorized by BLD-19-
004715.
3. As a result of his observations of the work taking place at 4 Glenwood,
Inkley issued a Stop Work Order.
4. On April 12, 2019,the property owner of 4 Glenwood applied for another
building permit. The Building Department did not approve the application
because the property is located in a Flood Velocity Zone and the
application required more information applicable to Code requirements for
work in that Zone.
5. On July 1, 2019,the Building Department issued Building Permit BLD-19-
005721. This Permit authorized work that had already commenced.This
Permit identified Dizdari as the CSL holder on record with the Building
Department. (Exhibit 1-D). (Based on this evidence and what was alleged
in the Complaint, I can infer that there was not sufficient information to
hold Dizdari responsible for, for example,the work that was taking place
on February 20, 2019 which, apparently, exceeded the scope of what BLD-
19-004715 authorized.)
6. Permit BLD-19-005721 shows that Dizdari was the only CSL holder of
record with the Building Department.
7. As noted above, Dizdari recalled that the property owner first contacted
him in August 2019. Regardless of Dizdari's recollection about when the
owner first contacted him, the owner must have had Dizdari's CSL
information as of July 1, 2019, when Permit BLD-19-005721 was issued.
8. Dizdari believed that it was during the process to apply for the building
permit that ultimately was assigned the number"BLD-19-005721"when
he first learned that work on the house had already commenced. But
Dizdari believed that the prior work had not been permitted. Dizdari
believed that he "submitted professional plans and obtained the permit . . .
. And was paid a very modest fee for [his] time" for BLD-19-005721.
(Exhibit 2).
9. Based on Dizdari's statement about his fee for obtaining the Building
Permit quoted above, I infer that he may have intended only to assist the
property owner in obtaining the Building Permit.
10. Regardless of what Dizdari's intent may have been when he first became
involved, if his statement that the owner proceeded to commence
construction work"outside [his] supervision" (Exhibit 2) is accurate, then I
find that Dizdari did not take reasonable steps to monitor the property
and/or stay in contact with the owner after Dizdari clearly became the only
CSL holder involved in the work authorized by Permit BLD-19-0005721.
(See discussion below).
3
11. On August 2, 2019,the Building Department received a request for
inspection of the rough framing and foundation work. Dizdari believed
that the owner called for this inspection without consulting him.
12. Inspector Sears approved the deck work and foundation forms for LVL
footings. But Sears did not approve the rough-frame work because it was
still underway/not completed. Thus the work was not ready for an official
rough-frame inspection. Also, no electrical permit had been applied for,
and another four months passed before anyone applied for an electrical
permit. Further, plumbing and gas permits had not been applied for;they
were issued approximately one year later. On January 22, 2020, an
electrical permit was issued. On April 21, 2020,the rough electrical work
passed inspection. (To date,there has not been a final inspection of the
electrical work, and Grylls believed that the electrical permit may have
expired.)
13. In October 2020, rental certificates (required by the Town's by-laws) had
been applied for and the Town's Health Department notified the Building
Department that there were occupants in the building.
14. But, as of that time, a rough frame and other inspections had not been
completed.
15. As of October 22, 2020,the Building Department confirmed that people
were occupying the building. As a result,the Building Department issued a
violation notice to the CSL holder on record for Permit BLD-19-005721,
Dizdari. (Exhibit 1-B).
16. Soon after Dizdari received the violation notice, he called the Building
Department to remove his name as the CSL holder on record. The Building
Department informed Dizdari that he was responsible for the work
associated with BLD-19-005721 up to that point and directed him to follow
up about the work completed to that date. (See 780 CMR 110.R5.2.16(if
the CSL holder is no longer supervising, the work must cease "until a
successor license holder is substituted on the records of the building
department.")
17. Notwithstanding Dizdari's attempt to extricate himself from the project in
October 2020, he remained involved, as described below.
18. On January 22, 2021,the Building Department issued a notice of violation
to the property owner.
19. On January 28, 2021, Dizdari, the property owner, Sears, and Grylls met at
the Building Department to discuss issues. The next day, Dizdari,the
property owner, Sears, and Inkley met on site to further discuss issues.
The issues included areas that still required official inspections before work
would typically be allowed to proceed. Sears and Inkley identified areas
where minimal destructive investigation could occur, as opposed to
extensive removal of finishes,to perform official inspections.
4
20. On March 18, 2021,the Town issued a plumbing permit for the work that
had been completed to that date without a plumbing permit. On March
29, 2021, inspections for the plumbing permit were completed.
21. On March 30, 2021,the Building Department requested that openings be
made so connections, such as connections between LVL's and other
members, could be verified.
22. Inkley identified places where footings should have been poured to
support LVL's but the footings had not been installed. Also,tempered glass
had not been installed where required.
23. On May 27, 2021, Inkley returned to the site to inspect foundation
elements that had been missing during his prior site visit. He approved
those foundation elements.
24. On July 19, 2021, a gas permit was issued to address what had been an
illegally installed gas-powered furnace. The initial inspection for this work
was failed, but the work was approved in a subsequent inspection. (Also,
electrical work associated with this installation was ultimately approved.)
25. By email dated July 19, 2021, 3:18 p.m.,the property owner(or someone
on behalf of the owner) issued a "formal notice that [Dizdari's] services
[were] no longer needed . . . and . . .formally terminated [him], effective
immediately." (Exhibit 1-D).
26. The property owner is not both the owner and occupier of the property.
The property was being renovated to be rented out to others. The
evidence shows that the property owner resides in Swampscott (Exhibit 1-
C) and that the work and occupancy of 4 Glenwood was being handled
primarily by Waterfront Rentals, on behalf of the owner. (See Exhibit 1-D).
27. Public information on the BuildZoom website in October 2021 identified
"Dizdarson Construction" and lists 4 Glenwood Street, BLD-19-005721 as
one of its projects. (See www.buildzoom.com/contractor/dizdarson-
construction). This information on BuildZoom may have been collected by
BuildZoom via various public means and without Dizdari's knowledge. But
its existence indicates more involvement in the project than what Dizdari
indicated in his written response to the Complaint. (For example,this
information could suggest that Dizdari's business was the general
contractor.)
28. There is no evidence that another CSL holder was involved in the work
authorized by BLD-19-005721.
Discussion and Conclusions
The main issue before the Board is whether there is sufficient evidence that
Dizdari failed to ensure compliance with 780 CMR as alleged in the Complaint and as
required by 780 CMR 110.R5; and if so, whether the evidence warrants a penalty against
his CSL or against him. See also e.g., G. L. c. 22, Section 22;501 CMR 1.02(2)(d)2, a;
5
G. L. c. 112, s. 61. The 9th Edition of 780 CMR (or the "Code") applied to the work.2
Basic CSL Holder Requirements in any Work the Code Regulates
There are general requirements that apply to a CSL holder's responsibilities in all
work the Code regulates. The Code requires the CSL holder "to be fully and completely
responsible for all the work" being supervised and to "be responsible for seeing that all
work is done pursuant to 780 CMR and the drawings as approved by the building
official." 780 CMR 110.R5.2.15.1. The CSL holder has primary responsibility during
construction to ensure Code compliance. 780 CMR 110.R5.2.15.
The CSL holder must supervise the work. This requires, among many things, to
visit the site and ascertain the scope of proposed work before completing and
submitting a building permit application. To properly supervise, the CSL holder must,
among other things, be on site; be sufficiently engaged in the construction activities as
they take place, identify Code errors as they arise, and ensure that those errors are
timely corrected.
They should do all that before calling for a municipal inspection, which is
required as part of the permitting and completion processes. See 780 CMR 110.R5.2.12
and 110.R5.2.15. Another requirement,which some CSL holders overlook but further
mandates their responsibility to identify and correct Code errors, is the requirement of
"Notifications of Violations" specified in 780 CMR 110.R5.2.15.3. "The license holder
shall immediately notify the building official in writing of the discovery of any violations
which are covered by the building permit." 780 CMR 110.R5.2.15.3. Note also that the
Code expressly allows a CSL holder to have a "licensed designee" be on site to supervise.
780 CMR 110.R5.1.2;110.R5.2.12.
Although Dizdari did not attend the hearing to provide testimony, he provided
the following in his written response to the Complaint (to which the findings above also
refer):
After the permit [BLD-19-005721] was obtained the property
owner proceeded with his own contractors/laborers outside of
[Dizdari's] supervision. [He] had no key to the property and had a
difficult time reaching [the property owner] on multiple occasions . . . .
[Dizdari] later discovered that the property owner had called for a
2 The Board adopted,incorporated,and amended as part of promulgating the 9th Edition of 780 CMR,the
2015 International Building Code("IRC"),published by the International Code Council("ICC"). 780 CMR
101.1(effective as of October 20,2017).The Board also adopted,incorporated,and amended as part of
promulgating the 9th Edition of 780 CMR,the 2015 International Residential Code("IRC"),published by the
International Code Council("ICC"). 780 CMR 51.00,R101.1 (effective as of October 20,2017). See also
changes the Board adopted in 2020.
6
rough inspection without [Dizdari's] knowledge and without [the]
plumbing and electrical being signed off and completed. [Dizdari] spoke
with the property owner after this and was told the rough inspection
had passed. The property owner then proceeded to install wallboard
and enclose the walls without a passed rough inspection. When
[Dizdari] was made aware of these facts, [he] was extremely frustrated
and asked to have [his] name removed from the permit . . . but was told
by the town official that [he] was unable to do so. [Dizdari] was present
at one meeting on the jobsite after walls had been closed and partially
reopened but the property owner did nothing to comply with [his]
direction or the town official's instruction and has not done so since, to
the best of [Dizdari's] knowledge. (Exhibit 2).
Dizdari's written response is quoted at length to provide to him the "benefit of doubt"
that, if he had decided to take part in the remote hearing, he likely would have asserted
essentially the same in his testimony.
However, the responsibilities set forth in 780 CMR 110.R5.2.12 and R5.2.15
cannot be met by some type of passive involvement during which the CSL holder simply
waits for the client, or a building official, or someone else to alert him that work has
commenced. Dizdari's account of what happened shows passive involvement that could
have and should have been avoided.
To be blunt, no later than when the CSL holder's identifying information appears
on a building permit application, the CSL holder is "on the hook." Before the submission
of a building permit application a CSL may bear responsibility. For example, where on-
site work regulated by 780 CMR commences before a building permit application is
submitted, a CSL holder may be held responsible. If the CSL holder who was supposed
to be supervising on-site work knew or should have known about the work commencing
before the issuance, then the CSL would be implicated.
Grylls noted that, in other projects the same property owner has controlled in
Town, similar things had occurred, involving CSL holders other than Dizdari. Thus, based
on what Grylls observed in the events described in the Complaint and his knowledge of
other events, Grylls believed that what Dizdari wrote his written response was plausible.
But if all of that is assumed to be accurate, what happened with Dizdari did not
excuse his lack of supervision after the issuance of Building Permit BLD-19-0005721 on
July 1, 2019. There was sufficient evidence that did not supervise the work as required
by 780 CMR 110.R5. As noted below, however,there was some evidence that he
became engaged in on-site supervision• There was no ery lion. See G. L. c. 112, s.ence 65A (t a resunlc unlicensed
who held a valid CSL did any on-site p
practice) and G. L. c. 22, s. 22/520 CMR 1.02(2)(d)2, a, b, d, h.
7
Inspections
Ensuring that timely official inspections take place is an essential part of ensuring
Code compliance. 780 CMR 51.00, R110.1, R110.6. Work must not be done beyond the
point in each successive inspection without first obtaining approval of the building
official. 780 CMR 51.00, R110.6.
Note there is a presumption that, when a CSL holder calls for an official
inspection, the CSL holder has already ensured Code compliance; that the work has
been completed in compliance with the Code up to that point. See 780 CMR 110. Thus,
if the CSL holder has ensured Code compliance (has met supervisory responsibilities),
the building official inspecting the work should not find Code errors and, therefore,
should not have to point out errors to the CSL holder, especially those that could have
easily been prevented or corrected as work was taking place.3
Assuming Dizdari's written response to be accurate and considering the other
evidence, others attempted to take control of requesting and obtaining official
inspections. But the evidence showed that those others did not, at a minimum,
appropriately time those requests and inspections. Dizdari was not involved in
inspections until the Town alerted him.
Certificate of Occupancy
The Complaint accurately quoted the following:
No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and no change in
the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or
portion thereof shall be made until the building commissioner, or
inspector of buildings . . . has issued a certificate of occupancy
therefore as provided herein. 780 CMR 51.00, R111.1. (Exhibit 1-B),
The evidence showed that, given the extent of work regulated by 780 CMR (and other
codes) that was taking place in the house, it was not occupied (likely not habitable)
during construction.
3 Although it is a building official's responsibility to identify Code errors,it is not her/his role to become,
effectively,a Construction Supervisor to ensure that the work has been completed in compliance with 780
CMR through that phase of inspection. See 780 CMR 51.00.R110. Among other things,a building official
cannot possibly know everything about the work that has taken place up to the time when the inspection
occurs. One of the goals of Construction Supervisor Licensing requirements is to assure property owners
and building officials that the CSL holder has professional knowledge of all applicable Code requirements for
a given project,and that people can rely on a CSL holder's experience,knowledge,and actual supervision of
the work. See e.g., 780 CMR 110.R5.1.2;110.R5.2.1;110.R5.4.1;110.R5.4.2;110.R5.4.3.
8
Note also that 780 CMR 51.00, R111.2 requires that a Certificate of Occupancy
may be issued only after the building official has inspected the building and found no
violations of 780 CMR. Further note that a building official may issue a temporary
Certificate of Occupancy before completion all the work provided that the building
official finds that the building can be safely occupied. 780 CMR 51.00, R111.3.
There is no evidence that anyone, including Dizdari, raised the issue of the
existence or lack of existence of an existing Certificate of Occupancy for this dwelling.
There is no evidence that, because of the work,the Use and Occupancy of the dwelling
changed from being a single-family dwelling, as it had been before the work. See 780
CMR 51.00, R111.1.1. Further,there is no evidence that anyone challenged the Building
Department's determinations about applicable requirements for a Certificate of
Occupancy for this dwelling. See G. L. c. 143, s. 100, 780 CMR 51.00, R113.
The requirements in R111 must be read in conjunction with those in R110. To
help meet the life safety requirements that the Code intends (see 780 CMR 51.00,
R101.3), it is reasonable and well within a building official's discretion not to allow
anyone to occupy a building before a sufficient work is completed. With that in mind,
the CSL holder must also help ensure that the work he is supposed to be supervising
does not put others at risk. Thus,the CSL holder bears some responsibility in ensuring
that no one moves in until work has been sufficiently completed. (See also the
"workmanlike and acceptable" requirements of 780 CMR 51.00, R110.1, discussed
below.)
Supervision with Respect to Other Codes
It should be obvious to any CSL holder that the CSL does not authorize its holder
to perform and/or supervise others to perform work regulated by other codes, such as
the State's Plumbing Code or Electrical Code. Typically work regulated by those other
codes requires involvement by applicable license holders, obtaining applicable permits
and ensuing inspections upon completion of work conducted pursuant to those permits.
But to help ensure that other codes, which typically are implicated by work such
what took place at 4 Glenwood Street, 780 CMR provides ample notice to and assigns
responsibility to CSL holders. The Code provides several explicit references to other
requirements. See e.g., 780 CMR 51.00, R101.4 (and several subsections therein);
R102.2, R102.4. Further, 780 CMR 110.R5.2.15.2 also states that the CSL holder is
responsible for "any activity regulated by any provision of 780 CMR and all other
applicable Laws of the Commonwealth." 780 CMR 110.R5.2.15.2 (emphasis added).
Thus,the CSL holder on record must be sufficiently involved---sufficiently
supervise---to ensure that, for example, a qualified licensed plumber and a qualified
licensed electrician meet their responsibilities for their work taking place in conjunction
with a building permit. That means that the CSL holder, like anyone else, can rely,to a
9
certain extent, on the expertise of those other license holders. But, for example, the
CSL holder must ensure that electrical and/or plumbing work does not adversely affect
work the Code regulates, such as structural integrity. Also, the CSL holder must ensure
that the work being supervised does not hide electrical and/or plumbing work before
those types of work obtain their official inspections and approvals. To that end, as
described above, 780 CMR 51.00, R110 applies.
Here, there was evidence that work by and among the regulated activities---
building, electrical, plumbing---was not well coordinated. Thus, as the evidence
showed, a certain amount of destructive investigation was needed to help verify
compliance with applicable codes.
Quality of Work
The CSL holder must ensure "all work shall be conducted, installed, protected and
completed in a workmanlike and acceptable manner so as to secure the results intended
by"the Code. 780 CMR 51.00, R110.1. Again, to be "workmanlike and acceptable,"the
intent of the Code, as expressed in 780 CMR 51.00, R101.3, quoted above, must be kept in
mind by the CSL holder.
The requirement to be "workmanlike and acceptable" necessarily overlaps with
and reinforces other prescriptive requirements in 780 CMR. Thus,for example, if a rough-
frame inspection cannot be approved because the work failed to meet prescriptive
requirements for foundation,flooring, walls, or roof systems,then the work cannot be
"workmanlike and acceptable." This overlap, while it may be somewhat redundant, is
something the Board has included in prior editions of 780 CMR as well as the 9th Edition,
in addition to what is specified in the model building codes the Board has adopted,
incorporated, and amended as part of promulgating several editions of 780 CMR. This
"overlap" helps to emphasize the Board's intent behind the Code, set forth in 780 CMR
51.00, R101.3, to help better ensure life safety.
Administrative Penalties
The potential actions the Hearing Officer may impose following completion of the
hearing about a complaint and reaching a finding of a Code failure, in accordance with 780
CMR 110.R5, include: a reprimand against the CSL; a suspension of the CSL fora defined
period; or revocation of the CSL. See 780 CMR 110.R5.2.8; 110.R5.2.9.5. In addition, "the
hearing officer may order the license holder to retake the CSL examination" applicable to
the type of CSL. 780 CMR 110.R5.2.9.5.
The Board considers mitigating and exacerbating facts when determining penalties
against a CSL. Those may include, among other things, credible mitigating circumstances
that may have reasonably impaired the CSL holder's ability to ensure Code compliance or,
by contrast, exacerbating circumstances which should have made it easier for the CSL
10
holder to ensure Code compliance. Further, Code failures that caused harm or have a
greater likelihood to cause harm may be considered exacerbating. The Board also
considers a CSL holder's record of conduct on file with the Board, in that one or more
prior Board penalties against the CSL or the CSL holder are considered negative factors
that may support a suspension (and the length of suspension) or revocation of the CSL.
The Building Department found Dizdari to be cooperative and respectful of Code
requirements when he became involved. As a result of the meetings, Dizdari took steps to
address Code issues. This is the only complaint against him on record with the Board.
Dizdari filed a written response to the Complaint. Further, there is some evidence that
the owner and the owner's rental manager made Dizdari's involvement more difficult
than it should have been. As a result of those considerations, revocation of Dizdari's CSL
is not warranted.
But the lack of supervision by Dizdari cannot be excused or justified. There is no
legal defense for his failure to timely follow up about the project very soon after the
Building Permit,for which he was the CSL holder of record, was issued in July 2019. There
was no good reason for Dizdari not to have kept track of the project to which he provided
his services as the CSL holder of record.
Further, although Dizdari filed a response to the Complaint, he did not attend the
remote hearing. Dizdari stated that he suffers from an auto-immune disorder that has
him at risk during the COVID-19 pandemic. Because of his medical condition, he also
stated that he should not be vaccinated. Assuming all of that to be accurate,those
circumstances would not have affected his ability to participate in the remote hearing
process. If anything, the remote hearing process provided a reasonable accommodation
for Dizdari's health concerns. Failure to fully cooperate with a Board investigation into a
complaint and/or failure to abide by a mandate or order of the Board "shall be grounds
for reprimand, suspension, or revocation of a license." 780 CMR 110.R5.2.8, 5, 7.
Conclusion and Order
Accordingly, CSL Number CS-088714 issued to Adam Dizdari, is hereby
SUSPENDED through January 7, 2022.
Dizdari must immediately forward his CSL card to the Board. 780 CMR
110.R5.2.9.5. If he does not forward his CSL card to the Board,there will be grounds for
further sanction because of a "failure to turn over a suspended or revoked license to the
BBRS." 780 CMR 110.R5.2.8(6). (The Board imposes this requirement because
suspended or revoked CSL's that do not have expired end dates on the cards have been
known to have been used during suspension or revocation periods. Although most
building departments and many customers check online databases to verify whether CSL's
are valid, sometimes those verifications do not timely occur. When that happens, people
rely on only the card, and assume that the CSL holder is qualified to act as a Construction
11
•
Supervisor. For example, building permits might get issued, work might commence, but,
when the CSL is checked and found to be in suspended or revoked status, then, at
minimum, inconvenience follows for both property owner and contractor.)
At the conclusion of Dizdari's suspension period, if he would like to operate again
as a CSL holder, he must submit a written request to the Board. (For example, "The
suspension period for my CSL will conclude next week, I would like to continue to function
as a CSL holder upon completion of the suspension period.")
During his CSL suspension period, Dizdari is not prohibited from performing
construction activities regulated by 780 CMR provided he does not serve as a
Construction Supervisor on the work. He may not be the CSL holder of record on building
permits during suspension of his CSL. He may work under the supervision of another
Construction Supervisor,who holds a valid CSL applicable to the scope of work, or under
the supervision of qualified registered design professionals in projects where a CSL holder
is not required. Dizdari may not act as a Construction Supervisor during the suspension
(even as,for example, the "Licensed Designee." 780 CMR 110.R5.1.2. See also G. L. c.
112, § 65A4 and G. L. c. 22, §22/520 CMR 1.02(2)(d)2, a(which allow for, among other
things, imposing monetary fines against an individual who acts as a Construction
Supervisor without a valid CSL (e.g., a CSL that has been suspended or revoked).
SO ORDERED,
BOARD OF BUILDING REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
By its designee,
//CNP//
Christopher N. Popov
Hearings Officer
DATED: November 10, 2021
"Any person aggrieved by a decision of the hearings officer or the [Board] may
appeal such decision in conformance with M.G.L. c. 30A, § 14." 780 CMR 110.R5.2.10.1.
(emphasis added).
Pursuant to 780 CMR 110.R5.2.10, "Discretionary Appeal," the CSL holder
aggrieved by this decision may, in writing, request the Board to review this decision only
within 30 days of receipt of this decision. Thereafter, a request will not be considered.
4 On March 27,2017,the Board was relocated to be within the Division of Professional Licensure("DPL"). St.
2017,c. 6,§§120-23,now renamed the"Division of Occupational Licensure"("DOL"). St.2021,c.39. By
being within DPL/DOL,the Board also has authority to impose penalties pursuant to G. L.c.112.
12
The filing of a request with the Board shall serve to toll the timing provisions of
G. L. c. 30A, § 14 until such time as a final decision is rendered by the Board. 780 CMR
110.R5.2.10. Thus, if the review request to the Board is not filed within 30 days of receipt
of this decision and an appeal to Superior Court is not filed within the mandatory 30-day
period imposed by G. L. c. 30A, § 14(1), then the decision cannot be changed by the Board
or the Court.
The filing of a written request to the Board or of an appeal to Superior Court shall
not stay any the disciplinary action the Hearings Officer specified. G. L. c. 30A, §14(3). If
a written request is made to the Board,the request must include objection(s)to the
decision and present argument about the decision. G. L. c. 30A, § 11(7).
The Board's review of a written request is an administrative review that shall be
based solely on the administrative record and is not to be construed as a second hearing
about the same complaint. If the Board decides to further review the decision, the Board
will consider any written objection(s) and written argument(s) provided by the CSL holder.
If the Board does not concur with any of the objections or arguments, the Board will not
provide specific answers to the objections or arguments. See Arthurs v. Board of
Registration in Medicine, 383 Mass. 299 (1981) (Chapter 30A does not specifically require
that objections to a recommended decision be answered or be accompanied by a
statement of reasons); Weinberg v. Board of Registration in Medicine,443 Mass. 679, 687
(2005) (board is not required to address each and every legal issue and theory relied upon
by[Respondent]). The Board is not required to provide an opportunity for oral
presentation of objections and/or argument as part of its further review process. G. L.
c. 30A, §11(7).
"After review,the BBRS may deny the petition, [or] grant the petition but affirm
the decision of the hearings officer, or grant the petition and remand the matter to the
hearings officer for further proceedings as directed. An order of remand may include
instructions that the hearing officer's decision imposing a reprimand, period of
suspension, or revocation be increased, decreased, waived, or rescinded, and any other
penalty substituted including, but not limited to, decreasing or increasing a period of
suspension, rescinding a suspension and issuing a reprimand, or rescinding a suspension
and ordering revocation." 780 CMR 110.R5.2.10. (emphasis added). The BBRS shall state
reason(s) for its final decision. G. L. c. 30A, §14(8).
13