Scott D Haferkamp v Artisan Parkview Condominium Association, INC. - Arizona HOA Transparency ProjectArizona HOA Transparency Project

Case Summary

Case ID	25F-H047-REL
Agency	—
Tribunal	Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings
Decision Date	12/6/2025
Administrative Law Judge	KAA
Outcome	complete
Filing Fees Refunded	—
Civil Penalties	—

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Scott D. Haferkamp	Counsel	Pro Se
Respondent	Artisan Parkview Condominium Association, Inc.	Counsel	Daniel S. Francom

Alleged Violations

No violations listed

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

25F-H047-REL Decision – 1341015.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:45:54 (41.8 KB)

25F-H047-REL Decision – 1346232.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:46:00 (48.2 KB)

25F-H047-REL Decision – 1375556.pdf

Uploaded 2026-04-24T12:46:18 (130.9 KB)

Briefing Document: Scott D. Haferkamp v. Artisan Parkview Condominium Association, Inc.

# Briefing Document: Scott D. Haferkamp v. Artisan Parkview Condominium Association, Inc.

## Executive Summary

This document summarizes the administrative proceedings and final decision in Case No. 25F-H047-REL, heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). The dispute involved Scott D. Haferkamp (Petitioner) and the Artisan Parkview Condominium Association, Inc. (Respondent or HOA).

The core of the conflict centered on the Petitioner's attempts to install solar panels and battery backup systems at his condominium unit, which the HOA repeatedly denied. The Petitioner sought relief through a formal petition filed with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), alleging that the HOA failed to act on a homeowner petition from 2015 and failed to provide specific guidelines for solar technology, thereby creating a de facto ban on state-protected technology (A.R.S. § 33-439).

On December 6, 2025, Administrative Law Judge Kay A. Abramsohn issued a decision in favor of the HOA. The Tribunal concluded that the Petitioner failed to prove that the HOA violated its governing documents. The Judge ruled that the HOA board has the discretion to call special meetings and that the board's decision to address solar issues at a regular meeting rather than calling a special membership meeting did not constitute a violation of the Bylaws.

---

## Detailed Analysis of Key Themes

### 1. Interpretation of HOA Bylaws and Board Discretion
A primary point of contention was the interpretation of **Bylaws Section 2.2**, which governs the calling of special membership meetings.

* **Petitioner's Argument:** The Petitioner collected signatures from 25% of the homeowners, believing this mandated a special meeting to vote on solar guidelines. He argued that the HOA’s failure to hold such a meeting was a procedural violation.
* **Respondent's Argument:** The HOA argued that the language of Section 2.2 ("Special meetings... may be called") is discretionary, not mandatory. They further contended that rule-making regarding solar guidelines is a Board function under Section 3.10, not a membership function.
* **Tribunal Finding:** The Judge agreed with the Respondent, noting that the Bylaws grant the HOA discretion. By placing the solar issue on a regular board meeting agenda in September 2015, the HOA "implicitly declined" to call a special meeting.

### 2. Common Elements and Architectural Control
The HOA consistently justified its denials of solar applications by citing the preservation of "common elements."

* **Roof and Exterior Walls:** The HOA asserted that the roofs and exterior walls are common elements collectively owned by the association.
* **Structural Integrity:** The Board President, Tim Pollock, testified that solar installations would involve puncturing the common roof, potentially voiding warranties and creating maintenance complications.
* **Uniformity and Character:** The HOA argued that its duty includes protecting the uniform appearance and character of the community, which consists of 35 units in separate buildings.

### 3. State Law and "De Facto" Bans
The Petitioner alleged a violation of **A.R.S. § 33-439**, which protects the right of homeowners to use solar energy devices.

* **Petitioner Position:** He claimed the HOA had enacted a "de facto ban" by denying three separate applications over 11 years without providing alternative solutions or clear guidelines.
* **HOA Position:** The Board stated their decisions were not an "absolute ban" but were based on the unique constraints of a condominium where the infrastructure is shared. They claimed they remained open to alternative designs that did not encroach on shared areas.

### 4. Statute of Limitations and Procedural Laches
The HOA’s legal counsel raised a significant procedural defense regarding the age of the dispute.

* **Historical Claims:** The primary homeowner petition in question was from 2015. The HOA argued that any claim regarding a failure to hold a meeting in 2015 was time-barred by Arizona’s statute of limitations (A.R.S. § 12-548 or 12-550).
* **Ongoing Controversy:** The Petitioner argued the issue was ongoing because his solar applications continued to be denied as recently as 2025.

---

## Key Quotes with Context

| Quote | Speaker | Context |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| "I think that in general they've kind of enacted a de facto ban on a state protected technology." | Scott D. Haferkamp | During the pre-hearing conference, explaining his frustration with the HOA's lack of solar guidelines. |
| "A petition has to be narrowed down to you are alleging a specific violation of a particular statute or provision in the HOA declaration or CCNRs." | Judge Kay A. Abramsohn | Instructing the Petitioner on the necessity of specificity in administrative hearings. |
| "The Board’s decision does not constitute an absolute ban on solar devices. Rather, it reflects the unique constraints of a condominium in which the roofs and walls are collectively owned." | HOA Board (Letter) | Cited in the final decision as the justification for denying the Petitioner's February 2025 solar application. |
| "The Bylaws do not call for members to vote on amendments to Board rules or guidelines, and that members cannot force the Board to take action." | Daniel S. Francom (HOA Counsel) | Argument made during the hearing to differentiate between Board powers and Member powers. |
| "I have never seen that petition until yesterday when that was presented to me from Dan [HOA Counsel]." | Tim Pollock (HOA President) | Testifying under oath that he had no recollection of seeing the homeowner petition from 2015 until the current litigation began. |

---

## Chronology of Solar Applications and Denials

---

## Actionable Insights

Based on the Tribunal's findings and the conduct of the case, the following insights are derived from the record:

* **Clarity of Governing Documents:** Boards and homeowners must distinguish between mandatory actions (e.g., "shall") and discretionary actions (e.g., "may"). In this case, the word "may" in the Bylaws regarding special meetings gave the Board legal cover to decline the Petitioner's request.
* **Documentation and Management:** The discrepancy regarding whether the Board President ever saw the 2015 petition highlights a potential failure in communication between the property management company (Vision Community Management) and the Board. Formal records of all homeowner petitions should be maintained and verified.
* **Narrowing of Issues:** In OAH proceedings, a "one-issue" petition (which carries a $500 fee) must be strictly focused. The Petitioner's initial inclusion of 11 years of history and multiple grievances was procedurally trimmed to a single focus: the 2015 petition and the lack of solar guidelines.
* **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner in an administrative hearing bears the burden of proving a violation by a "preponderance of the evidence." Merely showing that an HOA's decision was frustrating or lacked transparency is insufficient if it does not violate a specific provision of the CC&Rs, Bylaws, or state law.
* **Solar Policy Proactivity:** To avoid litigation, associations may benefit from adopting proactive solar guidelines that define what constitutes an "undue burden" on common elements, rather than reacting to applications on a case-by-case basis.

Case Study Guide: Haferkamp v. Artisan Parkview Condominium Association

# Case Study Guide: Haferkamp v. Artisan Parkview Condominium Association

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative legal proceedings in the matter of *Scott D. Haferkamp v. Artisan Parkview Condominium Association, Inc.* (Case No. 25F-H047-REL). It covers the procedural history, core legal arguments regarding homeowner association (HOA) governance, and the final administrative decision.

## 1. Case Overview and Key Entities

### Core Dispute
The Petitioner, Scott D. Haferkamp, alleged that the Artisan Parkview Condominium Association (the Respondent) violated state statutes and its own governing documents by failing to act on a homeowner petition and by refusing to provide clear guidelines or rules for the installation of solar technology.

### Key Entities
| Entity | Role/Description |
| :--- | :--- |
| **Scott D. Haferkamp** | Petitioner; a homeowner in the Artisan Parkview Condominium Association. |
| **Artisan Parkview Condominium Association** | Respondent; a 35-unit residential development in Phoenix, Arizona. |
| **Tim Pawlak** | President of the HOA Board (served for 21 years at the time of the hearing). |
| **Arizona Dept. of Real Estate (ADRE)** | The state agency that receives and processes HOA petitions before forwarding them for hearing. |
| **Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH)** | An independent state agency that conducts evidentiary hearings for the ADRE. |
| **Kay A. Abramsohn** | The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who presided over the case and issued the final decision. |
| **Vision Community Management** | The property management company representing the HOA. |

---

## 2. Key Concepts and Legal Framework

### The "One-Issue" Rule
Pursuant to Arizona administrative procedures, a petitioner filing with the ADRE must pay a filing fee (in this case, $500.00) for a "one-issue" petition. Although the Petitioner’s initial filing contained multiple concerns spanning over a decade, he was required to narrow his focus to a single issue for the hearing: **The lack of action on a signed homeowner petition and the board's failure to provide solar guidelines.**

### Governing Documents
* **CC&Rs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions):** The primary deed restrictions governing the community. Article 8.4 gives the board authority to adopt rules regarding common elements.
* **Bylaws:** The rules governing the administration of the association.
* **Section 2.2 (Special Meetings):** Provides that special meetings of the members may be called by a written request signed by members representing at least 25% of eligible votes.
* **Section 3.10 (Powers and Duties):** Outlines the board's authority to adopt and publish rules and regulations.

### Statutory References
* **ARS § 33-439:** Arizona statute regarding solar energy devices and the limitations associations can place on them.
* **ARS § 32-2199 et seq.:** The statutes authorizing the ADRE to hear disputes between homeowners and associations.
* **ARS § 44-1761:** Provides the definition of a "solar device," which the Petitioner argued includes battery backup systems (e.g., Tesla batteries).

---

## 3. Timeline of Significant Events

* **2003:** Artisan Parkview Condominium Association is established; Tim Pawlak joins the board.
* **September 2014:** Petitioner’s first application for solar panels is denied due to "common element" (roof) restrictions.
* **2014–2015:** Petitioner collects signatures from 12 owners (exceeding the 25% threshold for the 35-unit community) to request a meeting/vote on solar panels.
* **September 2, 2015:** Community Manager emails Petitioner stating solar will be discussed at the next board meeting.
* **September 24, 2015:** The Board holds a meeting with legal counsel present. Solar is discussed but tabled; no special member meeting is called.
* **August 15, 2024:** Petitioner applies to install Tesla batteries; the application is denied on October 4, 2024, citing aesthetic impact.
* **February 2, 2025:** Petitioner submits a combined application for solar panels and battery backup.
* **March 4, 2025:** HOA denies the combined application, citing structural integrity, roof warranties, and the shared nature of the walls and roof.
* **March 20, 2025:** Petitioner files his formal petition with the ADRE.
* **October 21, 2025:** The OAH conducts the formal evidentiary hearing.
* **December 6, 2025:** ALJ Kay A. Abramsohn issues the final decision in favor of the HOA.

---

## 4. Short-Answer Practice Questions

**Q1: What was the primary reason the HOA gave for denying solar panel installations on the condominium roofs?**
**Answer:** The HOA contended that the roofs and exterior walls are "common elements" owned collectively by the association. They argued that punctures for solar attachments would void roof warranties and create maintenance complications.

**Q2: According to Section 2.2 of the HOA Bylaws, what percentage of member signatures is required to request a special meeting?**
**Answer:** At least 25% of the total number of eligible votes.

**Q3: How did the ALJ interpret the Board's decision to place the solar issue on a regular board meeting agenda rather than calling a special member meeting?**
**Answer:** The ALJ ruled that by placing the issue on the regular agenda, the Board "implicitly declined" to call a special meeting, which was within their discretionary power.

**Q4: Why was the Petitioner forced to narrow his case to a "single issue" before the hearing?**
**Answer:** Because he had filed a "one-issue" petition and paid the corresponding $500.00 fee. OAH procedures require that the scope of the hearing match the filing fee and petition type.

**Q5: What was the Respondent’s argument regarding the "statute of limitations"?**
**Answer:** The Respondent argued that the claims regarding the 2015 petition were more than 10 years old and thus "extinguished" under Arizona law (ARS 12-548 or 12-550), as the statute of limitations for breach of contract is typically six years.

---

## 5. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

### Prompt 1: Board Discretion vs. Member Mandate
Analyze the distinction between "Board Business" and "Member Business" as presented in the case. In his closing argument, the Respondent’s attorney argued that the Petitioner's request (adopting solar guidelines) was a board function under Section 3.10 of the Bylaws, not a member function. Explain how this distinction influenced the ALJ’s decision regarding the 25% signature petition.

### Prompt 2: Common Elements and Technology Protection
The Petitioner argued that the HOA’s refusal to allow solar panels constituted a "de facto ban" on a state-protected technology (ARS § 33-439). However, the HOA argued that the unique nature of condominiums—where roofs are shared common elements—supersedes an individual's right to install such devices if they compromise the structure. Discuss the tension between state laws protecting green technology and the contractual obligations of condominium owners to preserve common property.

### Prompt 3: Procedural Fidelity and Evidence
Review the testimony regarding the September 2015 board meeting. The Petitioner claimed he did not recall an attorney being present or solar being discussed in detail, while the HOA provided minutes and testimony to the contrary. Evaluate the importance of "Administrative Notice" and the role of contemporaneous documentation (like meeting minutes) in resolving conflicting testimonies in an administrative hearing.

---

## 6. Glossary of Important Terms

* **Administrative Law Judge (ALJ):** A judge who moves over administrative hearings, specializing in disputes involving state agency regulations.
* **ARS (Arizona Revised Statutes):** The codified laws of the state of Arizona.
* **Common Elements:** Parts of a condominium project (like roofs, hallways, and exterior walls) that are owned collectively by all unit owners or the association rather than by an individual.
* **Continuance:** The postponement of a legal hearing to a future date.
* **Design Review Application:** A formal request by a homeowner to the HOA's architectural committee to make changes to the exterior of their property.
* **Evidentiary Hearing:** A formal proceeding where both parties present witnesses and exhibits under oath to establish facts.
* **Pre-hearing Conference:** A preliminary meeting (often virtual) to clarify issues, discuss potential motions, and set the schedule for the formal hearing.
* **Preponderance of the Evidence:** The legal standard of proof in civil and administrative cases; it means that a fact is "more probably true than not."
* **Statute of Limitations:** A law that sets the maximum time after an event within which legal proceedings may be initiated.
* **Tribunal:** A person or institution with authority to judge, adjudicate on, or determine claims or disputes.

Solar Rights vs. Shared Roofs: Lessons from the Haferkamp v. Artisan Parkview Dispute

# Solar Rights vs. Shared Roofs: Lessons from the Haferkamp v. Artisan Parkview Dispute

### 1. Introduction: The High-Stakes Collision of Green Energy and Community Living
For homeowners in managed associations, the promise of sustainable technology often runs headlong into the rigid framework of collective governance. This tension is magnified in condominium settings, where the very air above a unit is often a "common element" owned by all. In the matter of *Scott D. Haferkamp v. Artisan Parkview Condominium Association, Inc.*, a decade-long war of attrition over rooftop solar panels finally culminated in a significant legal clarification by the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE).

At the heart of the dispute was a fundamental question of governance: Can a homeowner compel an HOA Board to adopt specific solar guidelines through a membership petition? Following an evidentiary hearing in late 2025, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued a decision that reaffirms the expansive discretionary powers of HOA boards, providing a stark lesson in the procedural hurdles facing "green" initiatives in shared-roof communities.

### 2. A Decade-Long Timeline: From First Application to Final Hearing
The conflict at Artisan Parkview was not a sudden flare-up but a persistent struggle that spanned over ten years of applications, petitions, and board-level friction:

* **September 2014:** Haferkamp submitted his initial design application for solar panels. The Board denied it, citing concerns over penetrations into "common element" roofing.
* **September 2015:** Haferkamp submitted a homeowner petition with **12 signatures** (representing approximately 34% of the 35-unit community) seeking a meeting and vote on solar guidelines.
* **September 24, 2015:** At a formal Board meeting, the directors discussed the legalities of solar installation with counsel but took no specific action, effectively tabling the issue.
* **August 2024 – February 2025:** After years of quiet, Haferkamp submitted new applications for Tesla battery backups and combined solar/battery systems. Both were denied.
* **March 20, 2025:** Haferkamp formally filed his dispute with the ADRE under **ARS § 32-2199.05**, the statute authorizing the Department to hear such community disputes.
* **October 21, 2025:** The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) conducted the final evidentiary hearing to resolve the narrowed legal question.

### 3. The Homeowner’s Argument: Seeking Transparency and Progress
Petitioner Scott Haferkamp presented himself as a frustrated pioneer, arguing that the Board’s persistent inaction constituted a systemic failure to respect member rights. His arguments focused on three primary claims:

* **The "De Facto Ban":** Haferkamp alleged the HOA maintained an unlawful "de facto ban" on solar technology, violating **ARS § 33-439**, which protects the use of solar energy devices from unreasonable HOA restrictions.
* **Ignored Mandates:** He highlighted the Board’s failure to call a special meeting after receiving a signed petition from over 25% of the community. He noted the internal community support for the initiative, pointing out that even **Board Member Eric Ferguson signed the petition** despite Ferguson’s own prior votes as a director to deny the applications.
* **Feasibility and Guidelines:** Haferkamp introduced solar guidelines from California jurisdictions to demonstrate that installation on shared roofs is structurally feasible and standard practice in other regions. He argued the Board was derelict in its duty by not providing its own alternative guidelines.

### 4. The HOA’s Defense: Protecting the "Common Elements"
The Association, represented by Board President Tim Pawlak and legal counsel, argued that the Board’s denials were not a rejection of solar technology itself, but a necessary protection of the community’s shared assets. Their defense relied on:

* **Structural Integrity:** The Board feared that roof penetrations by individual owners would void manufacturer warranties and create long-term maintenance liabilities for the Association.
* **Aesthetics & Character:** As a 35-unit complex with a uniform architectural style, the Board argued it had the duty to maintain the community’s character.
* **Jurisdictional Authority:** The HOA contended that adopting architectural rules is "Board Business," not "Member Business." They argued that while members can petition for a meeting, they cannot use that meeting to usurp the Board's discretionary rulemaking authority.
* **Implicit Denial:** The HOA argued that by placing the solar issue on the September 2015 agenda and discussing it with counsel, they had formally "considered" the petition. Their subsequent inaction was not an "ignored" request, but an "implicit denial" of the demand for a special meeting.

### 5. The "One-Issue" Rule and Procedural Nuances
The OAH operates under strict procedural constraints, particularly regarding the "One-Issue Rule." Because Haferkamp filed under the **$500 filing fee** level at the Department of Real Estate, he was legally restricted to a single central claim.

While Haferkamp’s original filing was a sprawling **147-page document** detailing a decade of grievances, the ALJ forced him to narrow the focus to a single issue: *"Lack of action on a signed homeowner petition and the HOA/board not providing guidelines/rules for solar."* Furthermore, the ALJ clarified that the OAH lacks the authority to order mediation or award financial damages; its role is strictly limited to determining if a violation of community documents or state statutes occurred.

### 6. The Verdict: Why the HOA Prevailed
On December 6, 2025, the ALJ issued a decision in favor of Artisan Parkview, ruling that the Board had not violated its governing documents. The decision hinged on the legal distinction between a board's duty to listen and its duty to act.

> **ALJ Interpretation of Bylaws Article II, Section 2.2**
> "The hearing evidence clearly demonstrates the HOA has discretion whether or not to call a special members meeting. The hearing record does not contain a specific written denial by the Board to call a special meeting; however, by placing the issue of solar installation on the September 24, 2015 Board meeting agenda, HOA had **implicitly declined** to call a special meeting at that time." (Conclusion of Law #6)

The judge further concluded that a Board's choice not to adopt specific rules does not constitute a violation of governing documents if the Board retains the authority to manage common elements at its discretion.

### 7. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and HOA Boards
This case serves as a vital case study for community associations navigating the transition to green energy:

1. **Discretion vs. Mandate:** There is a sharp legal line between "Member Business" (e.g., electing directors) and "Board Business" (e.g., architectural rulemaking). Boards generally cannot be compelled by petition to adopt specific administrative rules.
2. **The Common Element Barrier:** Condominium solar rights are vastly different from single-family home rights. Because the roof is a "common element," the Association's duty to maintain structural integrity often overrides an individual's desire for solar installation.
3. **Procedural Precision is Fatal:** Haferkamp’s petition was ultimately deemed **defective** for its purpose. It requested a general "meeting/vote" on rules rather than proposing a specific, formal amendment to the CC&Rs that the membership actually had the authority to pass.
4. **The Power of Minutes:** The HOA successfully defeated the claim of "inaction" because they could produce meeting minutes from 2015 showing they had discussed the issue with counsel. In the eyes of the law, "considering and rejecting" is a form of action.

### 8. Conclusion: The Path Forward
The ALJ’s ruling stands as a **Recommended Decision** for the Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. While the HOA was named the prevailing party, the legal process allows for a final check: under **ARS § 41-1092.09**, the petitioner has 30 days to request a rehearing with the Commissioner.

Though the Association won on procedural and discretionary grounds, the Board indicated a theoretical openness to "alternative designs" that do not penetrate shared roofs or exterior walls. For homeowners at Artisan Parkview and beyond, the message is clear: the path to green energy in a condominium requires less of a "petition for rules" and more of a "technical design" that leaves the common elements untouched.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Scott D. Haferkamp (Petitioner)
Homeowner representing himself in the proceeding.

Respondent Side

Daniel S. Francom (Attorney)
Artisan Parkview Condominium Association, Inc.
Legal counsel representing the HOA.
Tim Pawlak (HOA Board President)
Artisan Parkview Condominium Association, Inc.
Served on the HOA board for 22 years and testified as a witness.
Eric Ferguson (Former Board Member)
Artisan Parkview Condominium Association, Inc.
Served on the board in 2014 and signed the homeowner petition.
Clint Goodman (Attorney)
Goodman Law Firm
Represented the HOA during the 2015 board meeting regarding solar installations.

Neutral Parties

Kay A. Abramsohn (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding judge who issued the decision.
Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Received electronic transmittal of the administrative decisions.

Facebook Comments Box