Case Summary
| Case ID | 25F-H128-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | — |
| Tribunal | — |
| Decision Date | 2026-07-20 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Nicole Robinson |
| Outcome | — |
| Filing Fee Reimbursement | — |
| Civil Penalties | — |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Cyndie Shaffstall | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Pinetop Lakes Association | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
No violations listed
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Case Documents
25F-H128-REL Case document – 1447407.pdf
Briefing Document: Cyndie Shaffstall v. Pinetop Lakes Association
Executive Summary
This briefing document analyzes the administrative hearing and subsequent decision regarding a dispute between homeowner Cyndie Shaffstall ("Petitioner") and the Pinetop Lakes Association ("Respondent"). The central conflict involved the classification of a structure erected by Shaffstall—composed of stacked cinder blocks and wooden rails—which she described as a "movable decorative plant backdrop" and the Association classified as an unapproved "fence."
Following an evidentiary hearing held on June 29, 2026, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Nicole Robinson ruled in favor of the Association. The decision concluded that the installation constituted a "structure" under the community’s Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), thereby requiring prior architectural approval, which the Petitioner failed to obtain. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the Association was not required to reimburse the filing fee.
Case Overview and Procedural History
- Docket Number: 25F-H128-REL
- Petitioner: Cyndie Shaffstall
- Respondent: Pinetop Lakes Association
- Key Issue: Whether the Petitioner’s installation was a "fence" or "structure" requiring architectural approval or "non-permanent landscaping" exempt from such requirements.
The dispute began in August 2025 when the Association identified cinder blocks on Shaffstall's property. After the structure was erected, the Association issued a violation notice, asserting it was an unapproved fence. Shaffstall appealed to the Board of Directors, which upheld the classification in October 2025 and ordered the structure's removal within 15 days. Shaffstall then filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (AZDRE).
Procedural Narrowing of Issues
While the Petitioner’s original complaint alleged both the misclassification of the structure and violations of Arizona’s Open Meeting Law and due process, the ALJ restricted the hearing to the classification issue. This was because the Petitioner had only paid the filing fee for a single-issue matter ($500 rather than $1,000). The ALJ advised that the procedural/due process claims would require a separate petition.
Detailed Analysis of Key Themes
1. Definition and Classification of "Fence" vs. "Structure"
The core of the dispute rested on semantics and the interpretation of the Association's governing documents.
- Petitioner’s Stance: Shaffstall argued the installation was "non-permanent landscaping" because it was not mortared, glued, or attached to the ground. She testified that the entire 600-plus pound structure could be disassembled in approximately 2.5 hours and served as a support for potted plants.
- Respondent’s Stance: The Association contended that the installation's physical characteristics—74 cinder blocks and approximately 50 wood planks—constituted a fence or structure. They argued that because it delineated a boundary and protected landscaping from traffic near a school bus stop, it met the functional definition of a fence.
- ALJ Finding: The ALJ bypassed the narrow "fence" definition by focusing on the broader term "structure" found in Article A, Section 7 of the CC&Rs. Using the Oxford Learners Dictionary, the ALJ defined a structure as "a particular arrangement of parts," concluding that Shaffstall's installation met this threshold.
2. Architectural Approval Requirements
The Association’s CC&Rs (Article A, Section 7) and Rules & Regulations (Section 3.7 and 3.22) were the primary legal instruments.
- CC&Rs Article A, Section 7: Prohibits the commencement or maintenance of any "building, fence, wall… or other structure" without prior submission and approval of plans by the Association.
- Rules & Regulations 3.22: Specifically requires permits for "permanent landscape structures," including "decorative borders."
- Violation: It was undisputed that Shaffstall did not submit plans or receive approval before building the installation.
3. Functionality and Intent
The Petitioner’s testimony regarding the purpose of the structure inadvertently supported the Association’s classification:
- Delineation: Shaffstall testified the structure was intended to "delineate my driveway" and show where the "yard begins."
- Barrier: She stated the structure was designed to "deter" and "protect" her landscaping from cars driving over the corner of her property near a school bus stop.
- Permanent Nature: Despite claims of "movability," the Association noted the structure had remained in place since August 2025, and Shaffstall testified she did not intend to move it.
4. Association Discretion and Case Law
The Respondent’s counsel, Augustus Shaw, argued that in the absence of a specific definition in the CC&Rs, the Association has the discretion to apply ordinary definitions. Shaffstall attempted to cite Pinetop Lakes Association v. Hatch (1983), arguing that the Association cannot expand undefined terms to create violations. However, the ALJ found the preponderance of evidence supported the Association's interpretation that the arrangement was, at minimum, a "structure."
Important Quotes with Context
On the Nature of the Structure
Cyndie Shaffstall: "If you took my property and turned it upside down and shook it, this fence would be the first thing to hit the ground or this decorative border."
- Context: Shaffstall used this analogy to argue that the lack of mortar or physical attachment to the ground proved the structure was non-permanent landscaping rather than a regulated fence.
On Association Authority
Augustus Shaw: "Under relevant Arizona case law, if there is a term in a contract that is not otherwise defined, that term is defined by its ordinary definition… it will also be clear that the association has the discretion… to define a term that is not clearly defined in the declaration."
- Context: This formed the basis of the Association's legal defense, justifying their use of dictionary definitions (Cambridge, Merriam-Webster) to classify the installation as a fence.
On Functional Intent
Dawn Yarosh: "First of all, I don't think it's that easy to move… second of all, it is a structure that delineates a border on her property which is a fence."
- Context: The General Manager of the Association testified as an expert in the community's governing documents, emphasizing that the structure's role as a boundary marker is what classified it as a fence.
The Judicial Conclusion
ALJ Nicole Robinson: "The preponderance of the evidence establishes that the installation constructed by Petitioner constitutes a 'structure,' at the least… the CC&Rs and the Rules & Regulations clearly express that this 'structure' needed to receive approval… Petitioner did not submit plans or receive approval."
- Context: This is the pivotal legal conclusion of the decision, moving the focus from the "fence" vs. "landscaping" debate to the broader "structure" requirement which Shaffstall had bypassed.
Actionable Insights
For Planned Community Homeowners
- Prioritize Broad Interpretations: Assume that any physical arrangement of materials (cinder blocks, wood, etc.) may be classified as a "structure" regardless of whether it is mortared or "permanent."
- Verify Permit Requirements: Even if an item is labeled "decorative" or "landscaping," check specific community rules. In this case, Section 3.22 of the Rules & Regulations explicitly required a permit for "decorative borders."
- Formalize Communications: Written inquiries to the Architectural Committee prior to construction can prevent costly litigation, even if a homeowner believes the project falls under an exception.
For Community Associations
- Consistency in Enforcement: The Association successfully argued that the structure's weight (600+ lbs) and function as a boundary marker made it more than "temporary." Consistent application of these criteria is essential.
- Standardized Definitions: While the Association won this case using dictionary definitions, the hearing highlighted that the CC&Rs did not explicitly define "fence." Formalizing definitions in the Rules & Regulations can reduce ambiguity.
- Procedural Awareness: The case highlights the importance of keeping detailed minutes of Board meetings and executive sessions, as these were used as primary business records to refute the Petitioner's claims of being unheard.
For Legal and Administrative Filings
- Fee Compliance: Petitioners must ensure that filing fees cover all issues they wish to have adjudicated. As demonstrated here, the ALJ will strictly limit testimony to the issues for which a fee has been paid.
- Burden of Proof: The homeowner carries the burden in these matters. Success requires more than a personal opinion or a different interpretation of a word; it requires evidence that the Association violated a "clear published standard."
Study Guide: Shaffstall v. Pinetop Lakes Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing and subsequent legal decision regarding the dispute between Cyndie Shaffstall and the Pinetop Lakes Association. It explores the interpretation of community governing documents, the classification of property improvements, and the procedural requirements for homeowners' association (HOA) disputes in Arizona.
I. Case Overview and Context
The matter of Cyndie Shaffstall v. Pinetop Lakes Association (Docket No. 25F-H128-REL) was heard by the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) on June 29, 2026. The central conflict involved whether a structure erected by the Petitioner, Cyndie Shaffstall, was a "fence" requiring prior architectural approval or "non-permanent landscaping" exempt from such requirements.
Key Entities
- Petitioner: Cyndie Shaffstall, a homeowner in the Pinetop Lakes residential development.
- Respondent: Pinetop Lakes Association, a planned community association.
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): Nicole Robinson.
- Key Witnesses: Dawn Yarosh (General Manager of the Association) and Cyndie Shaffstall.
II. Governing Documents and Legal Framework
The dispute centered on the interpretation of the Association’s "Declaration of Establishment of Conditions, Reservations, and Restrictions and Mutual and Reciprocal Covenants and Liens" (CC&Rs) and its "Rules & Regulations."
1. CC&Rs Article A, Section 7
This section stipulates that no building, fence, wall, or "other structure" shall be commenced or maintained until plans and specifications have been submitted to and approved by the Association. Approval is based on the Association's "reasonable judgment" regarding the effect on the subdivision's aesthetics and harmony.
2. Rules & Regulations Section 3.7 (Fences)
Requires Association approval prior to erecting any fencing. Plans must show building materials and the location on the lot.
3. Rules & Regulations Section 3.22 (Permanent Landscape Structures)
Requires permits for structures such as fire-pits, gazebos, and "decorative borders." These must be constructed of natural materials.
4. The "Non-Permanent" Exception
Petitioner relied on Section 2.1 of the Rules and Regulations, which states that architectural approval is required for improvements "with the exception of non-permanent landscaping."
III. Summary of Arguments
| Feature | Petitioner’s Position (Shaffstall) | Respondent’s Position (The Association) |
|---|---|---|
| Classification | "Movable decorative plant backdrop" or "non-permanent decorative border." | A "fence" or "structure" requiring architectural approval. |
| Permanence | Non-permanent; not mortared, glued, or attached to the ground or home. Can be moved in 2.5 hours. | Permanent; comprised of over 600 lbs of material (cinder blocks and wood). Not easily moved. |
| Function | Delineates the driveway and protects plants from cars/school bus traffic. | Acts as a boundary/barrier; fits the dictionary definition of a fence. |
| Materials | Stacked cinder blocks and 8-foot wood 4×4 planks. | Raw cinder blocks; generally not approved for fencing without decorative veneer. |
IV. Short-Answer Practice Questions
1. What was the primary legal issue the ALJ had jurisdiction to decide in this hearing? The ALJ only had jurisdiction to decide the "fence" issue—whether the Association improperly classified the structure as a fence requiring approval. A second issue regarding open meeting laws and due process was excluded because the Petitioner only paid the filing fee for a one-issue petition.
2. Describe the physical composition of the structure in question. The structure consisted of approximately 74 to 100 concrete cinder blocks (each weighing 14 lbs) stacked without mortar. These blocks served as supports for approximately 50 wood 4×4 planks, each 8 feet long.
3. What reason did the Petitioner give for building the structure? The Petitioner aimed to delineate her driveway and create a decorative border for her landscaping to prevent cars and school bus traffic from driving over her plants on her corner lot.
4. How did the Association define a "fence" in the absence of a definition within the CC&Rs? Since the CC&Rs did not define "fence," the Association and the ALJ looked to ordinary definitions from sources like Dictionary.com, Wikipedia, and Brittanica, which describe a fence as a barrier used to enclose, mark a boundary, or decorate.
5. Why did the Petitioner stop adding plants to the structure? She stopped "beautifying" the installation with flowers because she received a violation notice and did not want to spend more money on plants that might die or be wasted while the legal dispute was pending.
6. What was the Association General Manager’s expert opinion on the structure's movability? Dawn Yarosh testified that the structure was not easy to move, estimating it would take a "strong guy" at least eight hours to move the entirety of the 600+ pounds of material.
V. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration
- The Concept of Permanence: Analyze the conflicting definitions of "permanent" versus "non-permanent" presented in the hearing. Petitioner argued that the lack of physical attachment (mortar/glue) defined the structure as non-permanent. The Respondent argued that the sheer weight and intended duration of the structure created permanence. Which standard is more appropriate for a planned community?
- Discretionary Authority in HOAs: CC&R Article A, Section 7 grants the Association the right to refuse plans for "aesthetic or any other reasons." Discuss the limits of this "reasonable judgment" as outlined in the Pinetop Lakes Association v. Hatch (1983) case cited by the Petitioner. How does this precedent affect the Association's ability to interpret undefined terms?
- The "Structure" Catch-all: In her final decision, Judge Robinson noted that the installation constituted a "structure" regardless of whether it was a fence or a decorative border. Explore the legal implications of broad terms like "other structure" in governing documents. Does this language effectively eliminate the "non-permanent landscaping" exception?
VI. Glossary of Important Terms
- Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who overrules over trials and adjudicates disputes involving administrative agencies (in this case, the Office of Administrative Hearings).
- CC&Rs: Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules for a planned community or condominium.
- Delineate: To describe or portray something precisely; in this context, marking the boundary of a property or driveway.
- Executive Session: A portion of an HOA board meeting that is closed to homeowners, typically used to discuss legal or personnel matters.
- Mortar: A workable paste used to bind building blocks such as stones, bricks, and concrete masonry units together.
- OAH: Office of Administrative Hearings; the independent state agency in Arizona that conducts hearings for contested matters arising from state regulation.
- Preponderance of the Evidence: The burden of proof in civil and administrative cases; it means that the existence of a fact is more probable than its nonexistence (more likely than not).
- Pro Per (or Pro Se): A person who represents themselves in a legal proceeding without the assistance of an attorney.
- Structure: Per the Oxford Learners Dictionary used in the ALJ decision: "the way in which the parts of something are connected together, arranged or organized; a particular arrangement of parts."
The Cinder Block Stand-off: Lessons from a "Non-Permanent" Landscaping Dispute
1. Introduction: The High Stakes of Homeowner Improvements
For many residents in planned communities, the boundary between creative landscaping and a regulatory violation is often as thin as a property line. What a homeowner envisions as a flexible, aesthetic enhancement, an Association may view as a permanent, unauthorized structure that flouts community standards.
This tension was recently adjudicated before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in the matter of Shaffstall v. Pinetop Lakes Association. The dispute centered on a fundamental clash of classifications: the homeowner, Cyndie Shaffstall, argued that her un-mortared installation was merely "non-permanent landscaping"—specifically a movable decorative plant backdrop. The Association, conversely, argued the installation was a "fence" or "structure" erected without the requisite architectural approval. As we analyze the legal definitions and administrative findings of this case, it becomes clear that in the world of community governance, the "catch-all" definition of a structure is often the deciding factor in neighborhood disputes.
2. The Structure in Question: Plant Backdrop or Property Barrier?
The installation at the center of this dispute was no mere garden trellis. Located on a corner lot, the installation was significant in both scale and intent. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the physical components included:
- Materials Used: Un-mortared cinder blocks (approximately 14 lbs each) serving as base supports, bridged by 4×4 wood planks roughly 8 feet in length.
- The Scale: The structure involved between 74 and 100 cinder blocks and approximately 50 wood planks.
- The Weight Discrepancy: While the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted a total material weight of approximately 600 lbs, the Petitioner’s own testimony suggested a far more massive installation. Shaffstall described 35 to 40 sections weighing 70 lbs each—a calculation that puts the actual weight between 2,450 and 2,800 lbs.
- Homeowner’s Intent: The Petitioner testified the structure was designed to support potted plants, delineate her driveway, and create a visual "height" to deter school buses and cars from driving over her landscaping.
Shaffstall maintained the installation was "movable" and "non-permanent," claiming she could disassemble the entire structure in two and a half hours. However, as the Association would later argue, the physical reality of over a ton of concrete and timber suggested a level of permanence that went beyond simple garden decor.
3. Battle of the Definitions: What Constitutes a "Fence"?
The legal conflict rested on how the structure should be defined under the community's governing documents. Because the CC&Rs did not explicitly define "fence," the OAH looked to a combination of dictionary definitions and HOA rules.
Differing Interpretations: Fence vs. Decorative Border
| Source | Definition/Argument | Key Characteristics |
|---|---|---|
| Petitioner | Argues it is a "movable decorative plant backdrop" and "non-permanent landscaping." | Un-affixed, non-mortared, and intended to support plant growth. |
| Dictionary.com / Britannica | A barrier enclosing or bordering a yard, used to prevent entrance, mark a boundary, or decorate. | Often made of vertical posts and horizontal sections of wood, stone, or metal. |
| HOA Rules (3.7 & 3.22) | Classifies "decorative borders" and "fences" as structures requiring prior architectural approval. | Rule 3.22 specifically requires "natural materials" (e.g., decorative stone veneer rather than bare industrial cinder blocks). |
4. The Hearing: Arguments from the "Hot Seat"
On June 29, 2026, the matter was adjudicated before the OAH. The Association presented testimony from General Manager Dawn Yarosh, who was deemed an expert in Pinetop Community Association governing documents.
The Respondent's (HOA) Expert Testimony: Expert witness Dawn Yarosh emphasized several critical points:
- Lack of Precedent: The term "movable decorative plant backdrop" does not exist in the community’s CC&Rs or Rules & Regulations.
- Winter Sturdiness: Yarosh noted that the structure remained unmoved despite heavy wind events. Ironically, while the winter was described as "very light," the HOA argued the structure’s absolute stability during these events proved it was not a "temporary" fixture.
- Permit Requirements: Under Rule 3.22, "decorative borders" require a permit and must be constructed of natural materials. Bare concrete blocks would generally require a decorative stone veneer to meet community standards—a requirement Shaffstall bypassed by not submitting plans.
The Petitioner’s Rebuttal: Shaffstall argued that her installation fell under the "non-permanent landscaping" exception in Rule 2.1. She relied heavily on Pinetop Lakes Association v. Hatch, 137 Ariz. 390 (1983), a case involving the same association where the court ruled that undefined terms in CC&Rs cannot be broadly expanded by an HOA to create violations. She maintained that because the blocks were not mortared or bolted, they did not reach the legal threshold of a "structure."
5. The Final Verdict: Why the Homeowner Lost
Despite the homeowner's arguments regarding the beauty and movability of the installation, the ALJ denied the petition. In a move that created a "legal trap" for the Petitioner, the ALJ effectively rendered the "is it a fence?" debate moot by pivoting to the definition of a "structure."
The ALJ utilized the Oxford Learners Dictionary definition of "structure": "the way in which the parts of something are connected together, arranged or organized; a particular arrangement of parts." Under this broad definition, the ALJ's core conclusion was clear: the installation constitutes a "structure" regardless of its aesthetic beauty or the lack of mortar.
Because the installation was classified as a "structure," it fell under the absolute authority of Article A, Section 7 of the CC&Rs. This provision mandates that no structure shall be commenced or maintained until plans and specifications have been submitted to and approved by the Association. Shaffstall’s failure to seek this prior approval was the fatal blow to her case.
Notably, Shaffstall’s allegations regarding "due process" and "open meeting" violations were not decided. Because the OAH is a "one-issue-per-fee" jurisdiction, the Petitioner’s single filing fee covered only the classification of the structure, leaving the procedural complaints outside the court’s jurisdiction for this specific hearing.
6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and HOAs
This case highlights the broad reach of architectural control and the importance of procedural compliance.
Pro-Tips for Homeowners:
- Prior Approval is Non-Negotiable: Always submit plans before beginning construction. Even items you consider "removable" or "non-permanent" can be legally classified as a "structure" once they reach a certain scale and weight.
- The "Structure" Catch-All: Understand that ALJs often use broad dictionary definitions. If an object is an "arrangement of parts" (like a ton of cinder blocks and wood), it is likely a structure requiring a permit.
- Aesthetics Do Not Equal Compliance: A "pretty border" can still be a violation if it uses prohibited materials (like bare concrete) or lacks the required veneer.
Pro-Tips for Associations:
- Expert Designation: During hearings, ensure your community managers are qualified and designated as experts in your governing documents to provide their testimony maximum weight.
- Mind the Irony of Sturdiness: Evidence that an installation survived even a "light" winter without moving can be used effectively to prove permanence, even in the absence of mortar or bolts.
- Consistency and Clarity: To minimize the impact of the Hatch precedent, associations should continuously update their Rules & Regulations to define modern landscape features that fall outside traditional "fence" descriptions.
7. Conclusion: Clarity Over Conflict
The "Cinder Block Stand-off" serves as a cautionary tale: in an HOA, it is significantly easier to ask for permission than to defend an un-permitted structure in court. The OAH's ruling affirmed the Association’s right to regulate any "arrangement of parts" on a property under the broad umbrella of a structure.
The outcome of Shaffstall v. Pinetop Lakes Association resulted in the denial of the petition and a requirement that the homeowner follow the Association’s order to remove the structure. Furthermore, the Petitioner was not reimbursed for her filing fee. For homeowners looking to innovate, the safest path forward is always through the architectural committee, rather than the courtroom.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Cyndie Shaffstall (Petitioner)
Homeowner in Pinetop Lakes who challenged the association's classification of her decorative plant backdrop as a fence. - Patricia Love (Observer)
Neighbor and resident of Pinetop Lakes who accompanied the Petitioner as an observer.
Respondent Side
- Augustus H. Shaw, IV (Attorney)
Shaw & Lines, LLC
Legal counsel representing the Pinetop Lakes Association. - Dawn Yarosh (Witness)
Pinetop Lakes Association
General Manager of Pinetop Lakes Association who testified as an expert witness on the governing documents. - Sylvia Sander (Observer)
Pinetop Lakes Association
Community Preservation and Licensing (CPL) Director for the Pinetop Lakes Association who attended as an observer.
Neutral Parties
- Nicole Robinson (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding Administrative Law Judge who conducted the hearing and issued the decision. - Karen Kansfield (Observer)
Independent observer who attended the hearing to prepare for her own upcoming HOA hearing.