Cyndie Shaffstall v. Pinetop Lakes Association

Cyndie Shaffstall, a homeowner in the Pinetop Lakes residential development in Arizona, installed a physical barrier on her property without seeking architectural approval from the Pinetop Lakes Association [1-4]. The installation consisted of stacked, unmortared cinder blocks and wood 4×4 planks spanning roughly 35 to 40 sections, with a total material weight of approximately 600 pounds [5-7]. Shaffstall designed the installation to protect her corner yard and landscaping from vehicles trying to bypass a nearby school bus stop, to delineate her driveway, and to serve as a supportive backdrop for potted plants [4, 8, 9].

The Pinetop Lakes Association classified the installation as an unauthorized fence or structure and issued a violation notice [4, 10, 11]. Shaffstall contested this classification, arguing that because the materials were unmortared, unglued, and entirely movable, the installation was exempt "non-permanent landscaping" under the community's rules [12-14]. After the Association’s Board of Directors rejected her appeal during an October 2025 executive session and ordered her to remove the installation within 15 days, Shaffstall filed a formal petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate [2, 15, 16]. The dispute was subsequently referred to the Office of Administrative Hearings [17].

The primary issue before Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson was whether Shaffstall's installation constituted a "fence" or "structure" requiring prior architectural approval under Article A, Section 7 of the Pinetop Lakes CC&Rs and Section 3.7 of the community's Rules & Regulations, or whether it qualified as exempt "non-permanent landscaping" [17-20]. While Shaffstall also alleged that the Association violated due process and open meeting laws by deciding her appeal in executive session and denying her the opportunity to speak, the judge excluded these administrative claims from the hearing due to jurisdictional and notice limits, narrowing the scope solely to the physical classification of the installation [17, 18, 21].

During the evidentiary hearing on June 29, 2026, the Association argued that under standard dictionary definitions and expert testimony from its General Manager, Dawn Yarosh, the installation served as a boundary barrier and functioned as a fence [11, 22-24]. They noted that Shaffstall had not submitted plans or obtained a permit as required for all fencing and permanent landscape structures [4, 10]. Shaffstall maintained that the installation's defining characteristic was its physical temporariness, as it could be disassembled within a few hours [6, 7, 12].

In the final decision, Administrative Law Judge Nicole Robinson denied Shaffstall’s petition [25]. The judge concluded that Shaffstall bore the burden of proof and failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association’s classification was incorrect [26, 27]. While the CC&Rs did not define the word "fence," the judge applied the standard dictionary definition of a "structure"—defined as an organized or connected arrangement of parts—and determined that Shaffstall’s 600-pound assembly of cinder blocks and wood planks met this definition [7, 24, 27, 28]. Because the CC&Rs explicitly require prior Association approval before any "structure" is commenced or erected, and Shaffstall had failed to submit plans or obtain a permit, the judge ruled that she had violated the community guidelines [4, 19, 28]. Shaffstall’s request to withdraw the violation was denied, she was ordered to comply with the Association's requirements, and she was denied reimbursement for her filing fee [25, 28].

⚖️ I can compile these details into a formal administrative case brief or a timeline of events if you would like to have a structured document for reference.