**Case Summary: Gainey Ranch Community Association v. MS Pavillions 35 LLC**
**Case No.** 15F-H1516009-BFS
**Date of Decision:** March 11, 2016

**Overview and Proceedings**
This hearing before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings addressed a dispute between Gainey Ranch Community Association and Pavilions Council of Co-Owners (Petitioners) and MS Pavillions 35 LLC (Respondent). The hearing was conducted by Administrative Law Judge M. Douglas on February 26, 2016. The central issue was whether the Respondent violated the community's Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by making unapproved exterior changes.

**Key Facts and Allegations**
The Petitioners alleged that the Respondent violated Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the CC&Rs by failing to obtain approval from the Architectural Committee prior to removing a deck railing. This section of the CC&Rs mandates prior written approval for any exterior changes, alterations, or repairs.

On January 15, 2015, the Master Architectural Committee (MAC) granted the Respondent approval to install "New metal flashing at patio". The Respondent subsequently removed the deck railing while performing this work.

**Main Arguments**
* **Petitioners' Argument:** The Association argued that the MAC approved only the metal flashing, not the railing removal. Witnesses testified that exterior changes require specific approval and that the removal of the railing was never discussed or approved during the January 15 meeting.
* **Respondent's Argument:** The Respondent contended that approval to remove the railing was a necessary element of the approved fascia installation. Michael Shotay, the managing member for the Respondent, testified that the railing was attached to the old wood flashing and had to be removed to replace the flashing. He argued that the MAC knew or should have known that installing the new fascia was impossible without removing the railing.

**Legal Analysis and Findings**
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) applied the "preponderance of the evidence" standard. The ALJ acknowledged the Respondent's testimony that the railing was attached to the wood flashing due to a previous remodel.

However, the ALJ found that because the Respondent had relocated the railing during that previous remodel, the Architectural Committee would not have known that it was impossible to install the new fascia without removing the railing. Consequently, the MAC's approval for the flashing did not implicitly include approval to remove the railing.

**Outcome and Order**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Petitioners, concluding that the Respondent failed to obtain the required approval prior to removing the deck railing. The Decision ordered the following:
1. **Compliance:** The Respondent must fully comply with Article VIII, Section 5(a) of the CC&Rs.
2. **Fees:** The Respondent must pay the Petitioners' filing fee of $550.00 within 30 days.
3. **Penalties:** No civil penalty was found to be appropriate.