**Case Summary: *Satterlee v. Green Valley Country Club Vistas II Property Owners’ Association***
**Case Numbers:** 17F-H1716018-REL-RHG / 17F-H1716022-REL-RHG
**Forum:** Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)
**Date of Decision:** March 15, 2018

**Procedural Context: Rehearing**
This administrative decision is explicitly a **rehearing** of consolidated matters previously decided in 2017. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) addressed a renewed challenge regarding whether the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) and OAH possessed subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute,.

**I. Original Proceedings (2017)**
* **Procedural History:** In the original proceeding, the Respondent (Green Valley Country Club Vistas II) filed a Motion to Dismiss, arguing it did not meet the statutory definition of a "planned community" under A.R.S. § 33-1802(4) because it did not own real estate or possess roadway easements,.
* **Original Outcome:** On July 7, 2017, the Commissioner accepted the ALJ’s recommendation to dismiss the case. The ALJ found that the Respondent was not a "planned community," and therefore, the administrative bodies lacked jurisdiction to hear the petitions,.
* **Transition to Rehearing:** The Petitioner (Thomas Satterlee) filed a notice of rehearing in September 2017, which the Commissioner granted,.

**II. Rehearing Proceedings (2018)**
* **Main Issue:** The central legal issue remained whether the Respondent qualified as a "planned community," which determines whether the OAH has subject matter jurisdiction. The specific dispute focused on statutory interpretation regarding the maintenance of community entrances,.
* **Key Arguments:**
* **Petitioner’s Argument:** The Petitioner argued that because the developer built walls and a sign at the community entrance, and the Respondent maintained the landscaping around them, the Association held a "covenant to maintain roadways." The Petitioner urged the ALJ to interpret "roadway" broadly to include "roadway systems," encompassing the land and improvements at the entrance.
* **Respondent’s Argument:** The Respondent renewed its Motion to Dismiss, asserting that landscaping around a sign does not constitute a "roadway." Consequently, the Association still lacked the necessary covenant to maintain roadways required by A.R.S. § 33-1802(4) to qualify as a planned community,.

**III. Legal Analysis and Final Decision**
The ALJ ruled in favor of the Respondent, dismissing the petitions with prejudice. The decision rested on the following legal points:

1. **Subject Matter Jurisdiction:** The ALJ emphasized that administrative jurisdiction is strictly defined by statute. Jurisdiction cannot be waived, nor can it be conferred by the agreement or estoppel of the parties, [