Case Summary
| Case ID | 12F-H1212010-BFS |
|---|---|
| Agency | Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2012-11-20 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Sondra J. Vanella |
| Outcome | The HOA proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondents violated the CC&Rs and Design Standards by constructing an unapproved shed. The ALJ ordered the Respondents to reimburse the filing fee and to bring the property into compliance. |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $550.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Pecos Ranch Community Association | Counsel | Lydia Peirce Linsmeier |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Randy and Sharon Hoyum | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
Article IV, Section 3(a)
Outcome Summary
The HOA proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondents violated the CC&Rs and Design Standards by constructing an unapproved shed. The ALJ ordered the Respondents to reimburse the filing fee and to bring the property into compliance.
Why this result: The Homeowners constructed a structure without the required Architectural Committee approval. The Committee's refusal to grant retroactive approval was supported by the fact that the structure violated City building codes and HOA size/setback restrictions.
Key Issues & Findings
Unapproved construction of accessory structure (storage shed)
Respondents built a large storage shed without prior approval. The structure violated city setbacks and size restrictions, and the HOA denied retroactive approval.
Orders: Respondents ordered to reimburse $550.00 filing fee and either obtain approval or remove the structure within 90 days.
Filing fee: $550.00, Fee refunded: Yes
Disposition: petitioner_win
- Article IV, Section 3(a)
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
12F-H1212010-BFS Decision – 314478.pdf
12F-H1212010-BFS Decision – 319010.pdf
12F-H1212010-BFS Decision – 314478.pdf
12F-H1212010-BFS Decision – 319010.pdf
Briefing Document: Pecos Ranch Community Association v. Randy and Sharon Hoyum
Executive Summary
This briefing document details the administrative adjudication between the Pecos Ranch Community Association (the Association) and homeowners Randy and Sharon Hoyum (the Respondents) regarding the unauthorized construction of an accessory structure. In Case No. 12F-H1212010-BFS, the Office of Administrative Hearings determined that the Respondents violated the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Design Standards by erecting a 10’ x 24’ structure without prior architectural approval.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Association, ordering the Respondents to reimburse the Association's filing fee and to bring the property into compliance within 90 days of the order. The decision was certified as a final administrative action on December 27, 2012.
Detailed Analysis of Key Themes
1. Compliance with Governing Documents (CC&Rs)
The central legal issue revolves around Article IV, Section 3(a) of the CC&Rs, which mandates that no structure or improvement shall be "commenced, erected, maintained, improved, altered or made" without prior review and approval by the Design Review Committee.
- The Violation: The Respondents constructed an accessory structure in their rear yard between November 2009 and April 2010 without obtaining this approval.
- Discretionary Authority: The CC&Rs grant the Design Review Committee the "sole and absolute discretion" to retroactively approve work done without permission. In this case, the committee elected not to grant retroactive approval.
2. The Intersection of Municipal and HOA Regulation
The dispute highlighted a complex dependency between the City of Chandler’s building codes and the Association’s private regulations.
- Municipal Violations: The City of Chandler issued a "Stop Work Order" and an "Order to Comply" because the structure was built without permits. Mr. Hoyum was eventually fined $320 in Municipal Court for a Uniform Building Code Violation.
- The "Quandary": The Respondents faced a regulatory deadlock. The City of Chandler would not grant a variance for the structure without HOA approval, but the HOA refused approval because the structure did not meet City building codes regarding size and setbacks.
3. Aesthetic Standards and Definitions
The Association maintained that the structure was "aesthetically unappealing" and "out of place." Key physical concerns included:
- Visibility: The structure was visible over the fence line, violating Design Standards.
- Size: Board members researched storage sheds and found most to be approximately 7’6” high. The Association subsequently updated its Design Standards to define a "storage shed" as a structure not exceeding 120 square feet and not exceeding fence height by more than 18 inches. The Respondents' structure (240 square feet) far exceeded these revised standards.
4. Claims of Arbitrary Enforcement
Mr. Hoyum argued that the Board acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner, alleging he was being "picked on" because his area was considered the "poor" section of the community. He provided evidence of other property violations (tents, gazebos, overgrown trees) to support a claim of selective enforcement.
- Legal Determination: The ALJ ruled that the existence of other violations was not a valid defense, stating that the issue was strictly whether the Hoyums specifically violated the CC&Rs.
Key Quotes and Context
| Quote | Source/Context |
|---|---|
| "No building… or other structure… shall be commenced… unless and until the Design Review Committee has… reviewed and approved the nature of the proposed structure." | CC&Rs, Section 3(a). This is the fundamental rule establishing the Association's authority over architectural changes. |
| "The Community is charged with the responsibility of preserving the aesthetic appearance of the Community to help protect the value of the homes." | Notice of Disapproved Request (Dec 10, 2009). The Association's justification for rejecting the architectural submittal. |
| "The Hoyums find themselves in a quandary in that they cannot obtain a permit or variance from the City of Chandler without Architectural Review Committee approval, and they cannot obtain Architectural Review Committee approval without a permit or variance from the City." | Findings of Fact, Para. 15. The ALJ's description of the procedural deadlock facing the homeowners. |
| "The Administrative Law Judge is not unsympathetic to the Hoyums’ situation, it must be concluded… that Pecos Ranch sustained its burden of proving… that the Hoyums violated the CC&Rs." | Conclusions of Law, Para. 5. The ALJ's final determination, weighing the legal requirements against the homeowners' difficulties. |
Actionable Insights and Final Order Requirements
The final agency action mandates specific steps for the Respondents and clarifies the rights of both parties:
- Financial Restitution: The Respondents were ordered to reimburse the Association for the $550.00 filing fee within 60 days of the effective date of the Order.
- Mandatory Compliance: Within 90 days of the Order, the Respondents must choose one of two paths:
- Obtain formal approval from the Design Review Committee (which, per the record, would require matching city codes).
- Alter, modify, move, or remove the structure to achieve full compliance with Pecos Ranch governing documents.
- Right to Appeal: The parties were informed of their right to request a rehearing from the Department of Fire Building and Life Safety or seek review by the Superior Court, provided they act within statutory timeframes.
- Effective Date: The Order became effective five days from the date of certification (December 27, 2012).
Legal Case Study Guide: Pecos Ranch Community Association v. Randy and Sharon Hoyum
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal dispute between the Pecos Ranch Community Association and homeowners Randy and Sharon Hoyum (Case No. 12F-H1212010-BFS). It examines the application of community governing documents, the authority of homeowners' associations, and the legal standards used in administrative hearings.
Core Case Overview
The central issue of this case involves the unauthorized construction of a large accessory structure (storage shed) by the Respondents, Randy and Sharon Hoyum, within the Pecos Ranch planned community. The Petitioner, Pecos Ranch Community Association, alleged that the structure violated the community's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Design Standards because it was built without prior approval from the Design Review Committee.
Key Parties
- Petitioner: Pecos Ranch Community Association.
- Respondents: Randy and Sharon Hoyum, residents of Lot 4029.
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): Sondra J. Vanella.
- Key Witnesses: Leisha Collins (Property Manager), Louis Silvestro (Board President), and Larry Buehler (Board Member/former Architectural Review Committee Chairman).
Fact Summary and Timeline
The dispute began in late 2009 when the Hoyums commenced construction on a 10’ x 24’ free-standing structure in their rear yard.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| November 2009 | Construction of the accessory structure begins. |
| December 1, 2009 | Association sends a "Friendly Reminder" to remove the unapproved shed, noting it is visible over the fence line. |
| December 4, 2009 | Hoyums submit a retroactive Architectural Review Submittal Form. |
| December 4, 2009 | City of Chandler issues an "Order to Comply" for building without permits or zoning approval. |
| December 10, 2009 | Association issues a "Notice of Disapproved Request" citing height issues, lack of site plans, and failure to meet City Building Codes. |
| April 2010 | Construction of the structure is completed. |
| December 16, 2010 | Chandler Municipal Court enters a Judgment and Sentence against Mr. Hoyum for a Building Code Violation (fined $320.00). |
| May 25, 2011 | Pecos Ranch Board formally updates Design Standards to define storage sheds and limit their height and size. |
| May 10, 2012 | Pecos Ranch files a Petition with the Department of Fire, Building & Life Safety. |
| November 5, 2012 | Administrative hearing held. |
Legal Principles and Governing Documents
1. Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs)
Article IV, Section 3(a) of the CC&Rs serves as the primary governing rule. It states that no building or structure may be "commenced, erected, maintained, improved, altered or made" until the Design Review Committee has reviewed and approved the plans. The committee retains "sole and absolute discretion" to grant retroactive approval but is not required to do so.
2. Design Standards
The Association’s standards initially prohibited sheds visible from neighboring property. During the dispute, the Board clarified these standards:
- Size Limit: Maximum roof area of 120 square feet.
- Height Limit: Maximum of 18 inches above the rear yard solid fence height.
- Aesthetics: Must be a "neutral earth tone" or match the home and be screened with vegetation.
3. Burden of Proof
In this administrative proceeding, the Association bore the burden of proving the violation by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the evidence must show that the violation is "more probable than not."
4. The "Quandary" Defense
The Respondents argued they were stuck in a circular bureaucratic loop: the City of Chandler would not grant a permit or variance without HOA approval, and the HOA would not grant approval because the structure lacked a city permit and violated size/setback requirements.
Practice Quiz: Short-Answer Questions
- What was the specific size of the structure built by the Hoyums?
- Why did the City of Chandler issue a "Stop Work Order" to the Hoyums?
- According to the updated May 2011 Design Standards, what is the maximum square footage allowed for a storage shed?
- What was the Association’s reasoning for rejecting the Hoyums' offer to plant trees to screen the shed?
- How much was the filing fee that the Hoyums were ordered to reimburse to the Association?
- Does the Design Review Committee have the authority to approve work that has already been completed?
- Why did the ALJ dismiss the Hoyums' evidence regarding other homes in the community having unapproved structures?
Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration
- Discretionary Authority vs. Arbitrary Enforcement: The Respondents argued that the Board acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner, alleging they were being "picked on" while other violations existed in the community. Analyze the ALJ's conclusion that other homeowners' violations are not a valid defense for a specific respondent's violation.
- The Interplay of Municipal and Private Regulation: Discuss the "quandary" faced by the Hoyums regarding the City of Chandler permits and HOA approval. How should a homeowner navigate conflicting requirements between local government zoning and private CC&Rs?
- Retroactive Approval and Homeowner Risk: Examine the risks homeowners take when commencing construction before receiving written approval. Based on the Pecos Ranch CC&Rs, evaluate the extent of the Design Review Committee's power regarding "sole and absolute discretion" in retroactive cases.
Glossary of Important Terms
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who presides over hearings and adjudicates disputes involving administrative agencies.
- CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions): The governing documents that dictate the rules and limitations for property use within a planned community.
- Design Review Committee (DRC): A specific body within an HOA (sometimes called the Architectural Review Committee) responsible for approving or denying changes to a property's exterior.
- Final Agency Action: The final decision of an administrative body; in this case, the ALJ's decision was certified as final when the Department of Fire, Building & Life Safety took no action to modify it.
- Preponderance of the Evidence: The legal standard of proof in civil and administrative cases, requiring that a fact is more likely to be true than not.
- Setback: The minimum distance a structure must be placed from a property line or other boundary, as defined by city code or HOA standards.
- Variance: An official deviation from or exception to zoning or building codes, typically granted by a city or governing body.
The Cost of Building Without Permission: A Lesson from the Pecos Ranch Shed Dispute
It started with a shed and ended in a courtroom. For Randy and Sharon Hoyum, a 240-square-foot addition became a thousand-dollar lesson in HOA protocol and municipal red tape. This "Shed Saga," which unfolded at 1441 South Cholla Place in the Pecos Ranch community, serves as a cautionary tale for any homeowner who believes it is easier to ask for forgiveness than permission.
The conflict began in November 2009 when the Hoyums commenced construction on a 10’ x 24’ free-standing accessory structure in their rear yard. In a common-interest community, such a project is rarely just a weekend DIY task—it is a legal undertaking governed by a contract.
The Core Conflict: CC&Rs vs. Homeowner Ambition
The primary engine of this dispute was the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). During the eventual administrative hearing, Property Manager Leisha Collins and Board members emphasized that these rules exist to maintain aesthetic commonality and protect property values.
The HOA's authority is rooted in Section 3(a)(ii) of the CC&Rs, which states verbatim:
"…no building, fence, exterior wall, residence, or other structure or grading shall be commenced, erected, maintained, improved, altered or made on any Lot, Parcel or other area at any time, unless and until the Design Review Committee has, in each such case, reviewed and approved the nature of the proposed structure, work, improvement, alteration, or landscaping and the plans and specifications therefore."
Furthermore, the community's Design Standards at the time were clear regarding storage sheds: "In no event shall storage sheds be located so as to be visible from neighboring property." Because the Hoyums' structure stood tall enough to be seen over the fence line, it was in immediate violation of the community’s visual standards.
Timeline of a Disapproved Request
The interaction between the homeowners and the Pecos Ranch Community Association moved quickly, yet the Hoyums continued construction even as the paper trail of warnings grew.
- November 30, 2009: Construction of the structure commences.
- December 1, 2009: The HOA issues a "Friendly Reminder" letter, noting the structure is visible over the fence line and was not approved.
- December 4, 2009: The Hoyums submit a retroactive Architectural Review Submittal Form.
- December 10, 2009: The HOA issues a formal Notice of Disapproved Request, citing height issues, failure to meet city codes, and the lack of a site plan.
- April 2010: Despite the disapproval and municipal intervention, the structure is officially completed.
The Board’s disapproval wasn't arbitrary. Architectural Review Committee Chairman Larry Buehler testified that the committee conducted thorough research, learning that most pre-built sheds have a ridge level of 7’6”. Given that most community walls are 6’ high, the Board felt the Hoyums' structure was "out of place" and overpowering.
The Municipal Complication: City of Chandler Involvement
The homeowners found themselves in "double trouble" as they ignored not just the HOA, but the City of Chandler. On December 4, 2009, the city issued an Order to Comply for building without zoning approval, permits, or inspections.
This municipal defiance led to a December 16, 2010 judgment in Chandler Municipal Court, where Mr. Hoyum was found guilty of a Uniform Building Code Violation and ordered to pay a $320 fine.
The "Catch-22" and the Homeowner’s Defense
The Hoyums eventually found themselves in a classic community-living "Catch-22." The City of Chandler refused to grant a variance without HOA approval, yet the HOA refused to grant approval because the structure lacked city permits and failed to meet setback requirements.
Frustrated, Mr. Hoyum took a defensive stance common in these disputes: he claimed "selective enforcement." He submitted dozens of photographs (Exhibits C through AA) of other community violations—ranging from solar panels and gazebos to frog statues—arguing he was being "picked on" because his home was in a "poor" area. He characterized the Board as an "exclusive group of longtime retired friends miffed because a homeowner would build something without their approval."
As a specialist in this field, I see this defense often. However, homeowners must realize that "everyone else is doing it" is rarely a legal shield. Courts focus on the specific violation at hand, not the perceived shortcomings of the neighbors.
The Legal Verdict: Why the HOA Won
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella ruled that the Pecos Ranch Community Association proved by a "preponderance of the evidence" that the CC&Rs were violated.
The judge clarified that the Association’s refusal to grant retroactive approval was a valid exercise of its "sole and absolute discretion." Because the structure was built without prior approval, lacked city permits, and ignored size and setback restrictions, the HOA was well within its rights to demand compliance. The "selective enforcement" argument was dismissed as irrelevant to whether the Hoyums had breached their specific contractual obligations to the community.
Compelling Conclusion & Key Takeaways
The Recommended Order was a definitive blow to the "build first" strategy. This case demonstrates that the Board's power to maintain aesthetic standards is a potent legal tool when backed by clear CC&R language.
Key Takeaways for Homeowners:
- Prior Approval is Non-Negotiable: Never break ground without written consent. The Committee has the "sole and absolute discretion" to grant or deny retroactive approval, and they are under no obligation to bail out a homeowner who bypassed the rules.
- Check Municipal Codes First: HOA approval and city permits are two separate hurdles. You must clear both; one does not grandfather you into the other.
- Financial Consequences: The Hoyums were ordered to reimburse the $550 filing fee within 60 days. Furthermore, they were given 90 days to either bring the structure into compliance or remove it entirely.
- Design Standards Can Change: In a direct response to this specific dispute, the Board updated its standards in May 2011. They codified a strict definition for storage sheds: a maximum of 120 square feet and a height not exceeding the fence by more than 18 inches. Your dispute today could become the neighborhood's permanent rule tomorrow.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Lydia Peirce Linsmeier (attorney)
Brown/Olcott, PLLC
Represented Petitioner Pecos Ranch Community Association - Louis Silvestro (board member)
Pecos Ranch Community Association Board
Board President; testified at hearing - Larry Buehler (board member)
Pecos Ranch Community Association Board
Board member and former Chairman of Architectural Review Committee; testified at hearing - Leisha Collins (property manager)
Pecos Ranch Community Association
Testified at hearing regarding governing documents and Lot File
Respondent Side
- Randy Hoyum (respondent)
Homeowner
Appeared on own behalf - Sharon Hoyum (respondent)
Homeowner
Appeared on own behalf
Neutral Parties
- Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Administrative Law Judge - Gene Palma (Agency Director)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Director receiving transmitted decision - Cliff J. Vanell (OAH Director)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Certified the ALJ decision - Holly Textor (Agency Staff)
Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety
Recipient of decision copy c/o for Gene Palma