This summary details the administrative hearing proceedings, key arguments, and final decision in the matter of *Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller v. Tara Condominiums Association*. The hearing was held before Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella of the Office of Administrative Hearings on August 4, 2022.

Key Facts and Issues

Petitioners' Claim: Dennis Anderson and Mary Scheller (Petitioners) filed a Petition alleging that the Tara Condominiums Association (Respondent) violated Section 11 of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by "unfairly, arbitrarily, and capriciously" rejecting their Architectural Change Form (ACF) for the construction of a storage shed. The Petitioners asserted the rejection was based on a "non-existent rule" that the shed must not be higher than the patio wall.

Construction Timeline: Mr. Anderson constructed the shed on January 3, 2022. He subsequently submitted the ACF for approval on or about February 2, 2022, after the Respondent became aware of the structure during a walk-through and issued a violation letter on January 29, 2022. The Board denied the request on February 6, 2022.

CC&R Section 11: Section 11 of the CC&Rs explicitly states that no exterior additions or alterations "shall be commenced, erected or maintained until the plans and specifications…shall have been submitted to and approved in writing" by the architectural committee.

Key Arguments

Petitioners' Argument: Petitioners argued that the Board's denial was arbitrary because the rule requiring the shed to be unattached and three inches below the wall height was not contained within the written CC&Rs. They presented photographs showing other structures, including sheds and sun shades, that were built above the wall height in the community, suggesting unequal application of standards. Mr. Anderson admitted, however, that constructing the shed prior to obtaining approval was his mistake and a violation of CC&R Section 11.

Respondent's Argument: The Respondent's Board members maintained that their authority is limited to complying with the governing documents. They argued that the fundamental violation was the Petitioners' failure to obtain prior written approval as required by CC&R Section 11 before commencing construction. While acknowledging the "three inches below the wall" requirement was not in writing, the Board asserted it was an unwritten "standard in Sun City" that had been communicated by the previous Board President (Ms. Scheller).

Legal Outcome and Decision

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted that the Petitioners bore the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the CC&Rs.

The ALJ found that while Petitioners have the right to enforce the CC&Rs, they were also required to abide by the same provisions. Since Mr. Anderson constructed the shed prior to submitting an Architectural Change Form and obtaining approval, the Petitioners were held to have violated Section 11 themselves.

The ALJ decision concluded that Petitioners failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent violated the provisions of Section 11 of the CC&Rs.

Final Order: The Petition was dismissed, and no action was required of the Respondent in this matter.