Kenneth Christopher Honerkamp V. Golden Hills Homeowners Association

Briefing Document: Kenneth Christopher Honerkamp v. Golden Hills Homeowners Association

1. Executive Summary

This briefing document summarizes the administrative hearing and subsequent judicial decision in Kenneth Christopher Honerkamp v. Golden Hills Homeowners Association (Docket No. 26F-H129-REL), heard before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Velva Moses-Thompson at the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings in Phoenix, Arizona.

The dispute centers on a petition filed by homeowner Kenneth Christopher Honerkamp against the Golden Hills Homeowners Association (GHHA). Mr. Honerkamp sought architectural approval to construct a 6-foot solid masonry safety wall on his golf-course-adjacent lot to anchor an already approved 16-foot safety net and prevent trespassing. GHHA denied the wall request, citing a strict 4-foot height limitation on solid masonry walls under Section 13 of the Unit One Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs).

Following a hearing on September 10, 2026, and an evidentiary submission period held open until September 21, 2026, the Administrative Law Judge issued an Order on October 9, 2026, dismissing Mr. Honerkamp's petition. The ALJ concluded that GHHA was legally obligated under its CC&Rs to deny the 6-foot solid wall and that Mr. Honerkamp failed to establish that GHHA engaged in selective enforcement or violated Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §§ 33-1802 or 33-1817.

Case Overview & Metadata

2. Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

Theme 1: Safety Risks, Property Damage, and Trespassing Issues

Mr. Honerkamp presented evidence regarding physical safety risks and property damage caused by high-velocity golf ball strikes coming from the adjacent fairway of the golf course (Apache Country Club Estates).

• Property Damage and Physical Threats: Mr. Honerkamp purchased his home in 2025. Between January 2025 and May 2026, his property sustained structural damage, including broken windows, damaged window screens, and roof damage. Mr. Honerkamp demonstrated that golf ball impacts occurred daily, presenting photos of a massive accumulation of golf balls, including a 5-gallon bucket filled between May and September 2026. He expressed fear for the physical safety of his wife and two young children.
• Trespassing Concerns: Security camera logs and photographic evidence (Tab 5 / Exhibit E) demonstrated that golfers routinely crossed over Mr. Honerkamp’s existing 2.5-foot low fence onto his private lawn to retrieve stray balls, ignoring visible "No Trespassing" signs.
• Safety Net Anchor Requirement: To resolve the projectile issue, GHHA previously approved a 16-foot-high, 64-foot-long safety net (consisting of two 36-foot sections). However, Mr. Honerkamp argued that anchoring a net of this scale requires a solid 6-foot masonry base to provide structural integrity against monsoon winds. He contended that a 4-foot base is structurally and functionally insufficient, creating a hazard where wind loads could knock the structure down. Additionally, the installation required a 30-day masonry cure period before the netting could be anchored.

Theme 2: Architectural Restrictions vs. Structural Necessity

The central conflict evolved around the tension between strict CC&R height limits and structural requirements for safety installations.

• The 4-Foot Height Limitation: GHHA Section 13 (Unit One CC&Rs) explicitly mandates that no solid masonry or wood perimeter wall facing the golf course shall exceed 4 feet in height.
• HOA Proposed Alternatives: GHHA Management (Heywood Community Management / Carmel Chandel) and Board members proposed two alternatives:

1. Constructing a 4-foot solid concrete wall topped with 2 feet of see-through wrought iron or slat material (or decorative 2×2 columns to anchor the net).
2. Petitioning the homeowners of Unit One to formally amend the CC&Rs to allow 6-foot solid walls.

• Petitioner’s Objections to Alternatives: Using AI-generated visual models (Tab 9 / Exhibits H & I), Mr. Honerkamp argued that a 4-foot wall topped with 2 feet of wrought iron would remain easily climbable for trespassing golfers and would fail to keep small children inside the yard. He asserted that a 6-foot solid masonry wall was the only solution providing structural stability for the net while preventing intrusion and visual access.

“ [Proposed 6-Foot Netting System] | | <-- 16-Foot Approved Safety Netting (Two 36-ft Sections) | ======================= <-- Anchor Line (Requires 30-Day Masonry Cure) | | | 6-Ft Solid Wall | <-- DENIED BY HOA (Section 13 CC&R 4-Ft Limit) | (Requested Base) | <-- Petitioner argued 4-ft wall is structurally unsafe in monsoons | | ======================= “

Theme 3: Claims of Selective Enforcement and Neighborhood Precedents

To overcome the clear 4-foot restriction in Section 13, Mr. Honerkamp asserted that GHHA selectively enforced the height limit, violating A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3) (which prohibits unreasonably withholding architectural approvals) and general Arizona contract law principles regarding arbitrary enforcement.

• Evidence Submitted by Petitioner: Mr. Honerkamp submitted photographic evidence (Tab 10 / Exhibit J) of nearby properties within the community possessing perimeter structures exceeding 4 feet:
• 832 South Revolta Circle: Solid block wall measured at 65 inches (5.5 feet) with no wrought iron.
• 706 South Saranac: Solid wall measured between 6 and 7 feet high.
• Commercial Perimeter Wall: An 8-foot wall adjacent to Serranos Mexican Restaurant on Power Road.
• Respondent’s Defense and ALJ Findings:
• Commercial Boundary: GHHA established that the 8-foot wall near Serranos Mexican Restaurant was outside GHHA jurisdiction, sitting on the boundary between the resort and the commercial property owner.
• Lack of Board Records / Knowledge: Board President Osborne testified that the current board (in office for 4–5 years) had no record or knowledge of prior board approvals for the non-conforming walls at Revolta Circle or Saranac. The existence of non-conforming structures built under prior boards or without authorization ("stealth installations") did not constitute intentional selective enforcement by the current board.
• Judicial Determination: The ALJ found Board President Osborne’s testimony credible. The decision held that Mr. Honerkamp failed to present evidence that the Board knew of the non-conforming walls when constructed, approved them, targeted Mr. Honerkamp, or acted in bad faith.

Theme 4: Governance Structure and Statutory Compliance of Golden Hills HOA

The proceedings highlighted the unique organizational and legal framework of the Golden Hills Homeowners Association.

• Subdivision Breakdown: GHHA encompasses approximately 780 homes built starting in 1960. The community is divided into six distinct units, each constructed by different developers and governed by its own separate set of CC&Rs (there are no blanket community-wide CC&Rs). Approximately 340 homes are situated on golf course lots.
• Financial and Membership Structure: GHHA is non-traditional: it owns no common real property and charges no recurring monthly assessments. Homeowners pay a one-time fee upon title transfer/purchase to opt in as members. Non-members (those who opt out) remain deed-restricted by the CC&Rs tied to their lot plot under Arizona property law, though they are restricted from voting or attending HOA business meetings.
• Difficulty of CC&R Amendments: GHHA leadership noted that passing a CC&R amendment to raise wall heights across Unit One is exceedingly difficult due to statutory voting thresholds across separate sub-entities, rendering homeowner-led amendments practically infeasible within a short timeframe.
• Statutory Rulings (Planned Communities Act):
• A.R.S. § 33-1802: Defined planned communities and community documents. The ALJ ruled Mr. Honerkamp provided no evidence showing GHHA violated this section.
• A.R.S. § 33-1817: Mandates that architectural design approvals shall not be unreasonably withheld. The ALJ determined that denying an application that directly violates an explicit, un-amended CC&R height limitation is reasonable and legally required.

3. Important Quotes with Context

Quote 1: Petitioner on Safety Risks and Family Crisis

Kenneth Christopher Honerkamp: "We faced a constant dual threat, high velocity golf ball strikes and damage to property, and then unauthorized golfers constantly trespassing directly onto our private lawn to retrieve balls, creating an active safety and privacy crisis for my family. The conflict here is that the HOA acknowledged the safety risk and approved a 16 ft net. However, it denied the necessary 6ft masonry wall base required to structurally anchor that net and keep trespassers off our property citing a strict 4ft height limit in their own CCNRs."

• Context: Spoken during Mr. Honerkamp’s opening statement. It summarizes his core factual argument: that approving the 16-foot safety net while denying the 6-foot solid base renders the net structurally unviable and leaves his family exposed to safety hazards and physical intrusion.

Quote 2: HOA President on Legal Duty to Enforce CC&Rs

William Osborne: "Our entire position on this is the fact that as a board we are charged with maintaining and administering our CCNRs. They're very plain. They've been in place for about 65 years… our position is that a 4ft wall would not be any less effective at intrusion than a 6ft wall and we cannot by law violate our own CCNRs."

• Context: Spoken during Mr. Osborne’s opening response. It establishes GHHA’s legal defense: the Board lacks discretionary authority to grant architectural variances that explicitly violate unambiguous CC&R text limits (Section 13) that have run with the land for decades.

Quote 3: Petitioner on Selective Enforcement Evidence

Kenneth Christopher Honerkamp: "When I looked over and I saw my neighbor and they had a 5 and 1/2 ft wall, I said, 'Something's not right here.' … I went around the community and I'm finding multiple homes where it's well above their stated means. We're talking six feet. This one was seven… Denying my request while allowing similar perimeter structures throughout the neighborhood constitute impermissible selective enforcement."

• Context: Presented during Mr. Honerkamp’s direct testimony regarding Tab 10 (Exhibit J). Honerkamp argued that the physical existence of 5.5-foot and 7-foot solid block walls elsewhere in the community proved that the 4-foot height rule was arbitrarily enforced.

Quote 4: HOA Vice President on Openness along Golf Course Lots

Derek Platt: "I live on the 15th hole… I do have a net so it helps a little bit, but I have gone through the same thing you have… but I also know that the walls can be to the side. It's just facing the golf course that is prohibited… historically we've been aligned with the resort… to do our best to maintain backyards that face the golf course in a neat and orderly fashion."

• Context: Testimony provided by Board Vice President Derek Platt. He explained the underlying aesthetic intent behind Section 13: maintaining an open view and uniform appearance along the fairway perimeter across all 340 golf course lots, while allowing higher walls on side lot lines.

Quote 5: HOA President on Board Discretion and Rule of Law

William Osborne: "Quite simply, we're not owners. We're not jackbooted stormtroopers. We're required by law to adjudicate what we have in front of us which are the CCNRs."

• Context: Delivered during Mr. Osborne’s closing argument. He re-emphasized that the Board’s denial was not personal or malicious, but a mandatory legal duty imposed by governing community documents.

Quote 6: ALJ Final Conclusion of Law

ALJ Velva Moses-Thompson: "The preponderance of the evidence shows that GHHA was required to deny Mr. Honerkamp’s request to build a six-foot-tall-wall on his property, pursuant to Section 13 of the CC&RS. Mr. Honerkamp presented no evidence that the request was denied for any other reason… Mr. Honerkamp failed to establish that the Board selectively enforced Section 13 of its CC&Rs."

• Context: Excerpted from Conclusion of Law Paragraph 8 of the October 9, 2026 Administrative Law Judge Decision. This represents the binding legal finding that resolved the docket in favor of GHHA.

4. Actionable Insights

Based on the evidence presented and the legal rulings in Honerkamp v. Golden Hills Homeowners Association, the following actionable insights apply to homeowners, architectural review committees, and HOA boards:

For Homeowners Seeking Architectural Modifications

1. Strict Adherence to Explicit CC&R Text: Administrative tribunals and courts will enforce plain-language height limits written in CC&Rs (e.g., Section 13's 4-foot limit). Discretionary statutory provisions prohibiting "unreasonably withheld" approvals (A.R.S. § 33-1817) cannot be used to compel an HOA board to grant a variance that directly conflicts with express CC&R prohibitions.
2. Proving Selective Enforcement Requires Knowledge and Intent: To successfully claim "selective enforcement," a homeowner cannot merely present photos of non-conforming structures in the neighborhood. The homeowner must provide concrete proof that:

• The non-conforming structures reside within the exact same governing unit/CC&R jurisdiction.
• The current or prior HOA Board explicitly approved the non-conforming structures, or knew of their construction and knowingly failed to enforce the CC&Rs.
• The Board acted in bad faith or intentionally targeted the applicant.

1. Utilize HOA-Permitted Architectural Alternatives: When full structural requests are prohibited by CC&Rs, applicants should work within permitted guidelines (e.g., combining a solid 4-foot base wall with approved see-through wrought iron extensions or structural support columns) rather than insisting on a non-conforming design.

For HOA Boards and Architectural Committees

1. Maintain Comprehensive Historical Records: Board turnover (e.g., GHHA's board being 4 years old) creates evidentiary gaps regarding whether legacy structures were board-approved or erected without permission. Associations should digitize and archive all architectural approvals, site plans, and variance decisions permanently by lot number.
2. Conduct Prompt Investigations upon Notice of Violations: When a homeowner submits evidence of non-conforming structures during a dispute, the Board should utilize the record-open window (or business days following a hearing) to research property histories, determine if violations exist, and document enforcement actions.
3. Clarify Multi-Unit Governance and Jurisdictions: HOAs comprising multiple distinct sub-units with separate CC&Rs must ensure clear communication to residents regarding which specific unit rules apply to their lot, avoiding confusion drawn from structures located in adjacent units or commercial boundaries.