Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121040-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key themes, evidence, and legal proceedings in the administrative case Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2121040-REL). The central conflict revolves around Petitioner Marc Archer’s proposal for a two-story addition to his home, which was denied by the Respondent, the PMPE Community Association’s Architectural Committee (AC). Mr. Archer alleged this denial was an unreasonable withholding of approval, violating Arizona statute § 33-1817(B)(3).

The case is marked by a protracted history, including a previous denial for a different one-story design in 2019 and an earlier ruling in this matter (December 2020) that found the Association had violated its own procedures by not providing a written reason for its April 2020 denial. This procedural failure led to a formal denial letter on December 30, 2020, which became the central focus of the subsequent hearings.

The Association cited three primary reasons for the denial: 1) the addition lacked harmony with the existing structure, resembling a “large box”; 2) the proposal to use painted roof tiles was unacceptable; and 3) the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat expanses.

Mr. Archer countered with extensive evidence, including testimony from building industry experts and a registered architect, arguing that the design was harmonious, incorporated numerous architectural details found on the existing house, and that the Association’s objections were unfounded and inconsistent. The proceedings revealed significant confusion stemming from the Association’s denial letter, which conflated mandatory reasons for denial with what it later claimed were “advisory only” suggestions.

Ultimately, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden ruled in favor of Mr. Archer. The March 30, 2022 decision concluded that the Association’s reasons for denial were unreasonable and not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the project and reimburse Mr. Archer’s $500 filing fee. A subsequent request for rehearing by the Association was withdrawn, making the ALJ’s decision final.

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• 2019 Denial (One-Story Design): Mr. Archer first sought approval for a one-story garage with a flat roof. The Association denied final approval. In a decision dated September 3, 2019 (Docket 19F-H1919063-REL), an ALJ concluded the Association had not violated the statute, noting the architectural rules favored pitched roofs and the structure would be visible above a nine-foot wall.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• April 10, 2020 Denial (No Written Basis): The Association’s Architectural Committee (AC) denied the proposal during a conference call but failed to provide a written basis for the denial, as required by its own rules.

• December 3, 2020 ALJ Decision (Procedural Violation): In response to a petition filed by Mr. Archer, an ALJ determined the Association had violated its CC&Rs and the state statute by not providing a written reason for denial. The decision explicitly noted it was not a finding on the merits of the architectural design itself.

• December 30, 2020 Written Denial: The Association issued a formal written response outlining its reasons for denial. This document’s confusing structure, with separate sections for “reasons for denial” and “comments… for resubmittal,” became a major point of contention.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman elaborated that the addition was akin to “building a structure and then attaching that structure instead of… building an addition to his home.” Key issues he identified were that the new roofline did not blend into the existing second-story roof and that the structure connected to the house at only two points. The committee felt it would not look like it “was there from the beginning.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman argued that because AR Section 4.4 does not explicitly state that painted tiles are acceptable, they are therefore not acceptable. He stated, “[The committee] didn’t feel that in this kind of development… that is not an acceptable… way to… tile one’s roof.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Argument: The denial stated, “There needs to be architectural elements per pop out in windows etc. Prim to break up expanses and add ‘architectural expression’ to the addition as outlined in 4.2.”

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Existing Elements: He demonstrated that the proposed addition incorporated numerous features already present on his house, including stucco pop-outs, soffit details, and eave designs. During cross-examination of Mr. Kauffman, Mr. Archer used photographs to establish that pop-outs, which the committee initially claimed were not present elsewhere on the house, did in fact exist near the bay windows.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

◦ Thomas Bragg, a registered architect, concluded in a sealed affidavit that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs, noting the design “matched the existing architecture” and was “varied and does not present any large unbroken wall areas with the blended details.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Painted Tiles: He provided evidence that painting roof tiles is no different than painting stucco, as both are cement-based products. Furthermore, he noted that the ARs do not contain any prohibition on painting tiles, whereas other materials like vinyl siding are explicitly prohibited. During the hearings, he also indicated he may have located matching tiles, potentially rendering the issue moot.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

• However, this section contained two of the three official reasons for denial (roof tiles and architectural elements) and included the statement that the addition “will be limited to a single story,” which Mr. Kauffman later admitted under questioning was not a firm requirement.

• The ALJ noted this created significant confusion: “At the hearing, Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of bullets was advisory only, which was not clear to Mr. Archer until the hearing.”

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

• A prior ALJ decision found that during the April 10, 2020 conference call, “at least two members expressed their concerns with how Petitioner was planning to use the new addition. Specifically, the members were concerned Petitioner was going to accumulate more ‘junk’.”

• In the current hearing, Mr. Archer played an audio recording where a prior judge asked Mr. Kauffman, “Is there anything in the architectural guidelines that says how a structure is going to be used should affect whether or not it’s approved?”

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

Mr. Kauffman repeatedly testified that the approval process is intended to be collaborative, yet acknowledged that no discussions occurred after the April 2020 denial. The Association’s stance was that Mr. Archer failed to engage, while Mr. Archer felt he was facing a “moving target.” The ALJ highlighted the lack of clarity from the Association, which hindered any potential collaboration. The judge expressed surprise at the need to clarify that the existing house must be considered in the review:

“I don’t see how you could possibly make a decision without taking the house into consideration. And I apologize… that just strikes me as so self-evident that… I’m surprised we we’ve had to have it out.” – ALJ Thomas Shedden

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

The decision found that Mr. Archer had met his burden of proof to show the Association unreasonably withheld approval. The ALJ systematically dismantled each of the Association’s reasons for denial:

1. Harmony: “There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.” The judge noted that other houses have more than one roofline, making the proposed addition consistent with the neighborhood.

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121040-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121040-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121040-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121040-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121040-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Decision Documents

21F-H2121040-REL-RHG Decision – 980535.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:29:50 (46.7 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL-RHG Decision – 983516.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:29:53 (38.4 KB)

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121040-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121040-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	full
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Marc Archer	Counsel	—
Respondent	PMPE Community Association, Inc.	Counsel	Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
AR Section 1.1
AR Section 4.4
AR Section 4.2

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.

Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association

Posted on March 29, 2022 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2221026-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-03-29
Administrative Law Judge	Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Judy Clapp	Counsel	Kevin Harper
Respondent	Forest Trails Homeowners Association	Counsel	Edward D. O'Brien; Edith I. Rudder

Alleged Violations

Declaration § 2.2; Declaration § 2.21; Architectural Guidelines

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the petition, finding that the Petitioner failed to prove that the Forest Trails Homeowners Association violated its governing documents when it approved landscaping that obstructed parking in a common area.

Why this result: The Petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary burden that the HOA violated the Declaration or related statutes. The ALJ found that the Declaration permits landscaping in the common area (Section 2.2) and the petitioner presented no legal authority mandating the disputed area remain solely available for parking.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation concerning landscaping in common area preventing parking.

Petitioner Judy Clapp alleged the HOA improperly approved the adjacent homeowner's (Normans) landscaping project in the common area next to Lot 1473 Trailhead. She claimed this blocked a historical parking area used by multiple homeowners, violating Declaration Section 2.2 (common area use for benefit of all members, including parking as a permitted use) and Architectural Guidelines (prohibiting exclusive use of common area).

Orders: The petition was dismissed. The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to meet the burden of proof to establish that the Respondent violated the Declaration or any statute.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

Declaration § 2.2
Declaration § 2.21
Architectural Guidelines
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Declaration § 3.4
Declaration § 4.1

Analytics Highlights

Topics: Common Area, Landscaping, Parking, Architectural Control Committee, Exclusive Use, HOA Governance

Additional Citations:

Declaration § 2.2
Declaration § 2.21
Architectural Guidelines
A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
Declaration § 3.4
Declaration § 4.1

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_ElectronicNotice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:20:57 (92.4 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_ElectronicNotice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:20:59 (125.2 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Hearing_Scheduled.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:01 (194.1 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Notice_AppearanceRespondent.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:03 (218.4 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Notice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:06 (1111.9 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Notice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:08 (1303.7 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Payment.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:10 (223.9 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:12 (1183.8 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 944374/HO22-21026_Response_Petition_Form.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:15 (72.2 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – 958497.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:16 (122.6 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_ElectronicNotice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:18 (92.4 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_ElectronicNotice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:19 (125.2 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Hearing_Scheduled.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:20 (194.1 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Notice_AppearanceRespondent.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:22 (218.4 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Notice_Hearing.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:23 (1111.9 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Notice_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:25 (1303.7 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Payment.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:26 (223.9 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Petition.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:28 (1183.8 KB)

22F-H2221026-REL Decision – HO22-21026_Response_Petition_Form.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-27T21:21:30 (72.2 KB)

Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221026-REL

Case Briefing: Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the proceedings of the administrative hearing held on March 9, 2022, regarding Docket Number 22F-H2221026-l. The dispute involves a challenge by petitioner Judy Clapp against the Forest Trails Homeowners Association (HOA) concerning the landscaping of an eight-foot unpaved common area adjacent to 1473 Trail Head (the “Norman lot”).

The central conflict involves the Board’s decision to allow a homeowner to install a rock berm on association-owned land that had historically functioned as a parking lane for residents accessing a nearby trail head. The petitioner alleges this action violates the community’s Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by granting exclusive use of common area to one homeowner and eliminating a long-standing community benefit. The association contends that the Board acted within its authority to approve architectural requests, maintained consistency with community-wide landscaping standards, and addressed legitimate nuisance and erosion concerns.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview and Hearing Details

• Date of Hearing: March 9, 2022

• Administrative Law Judge: Alvin Moses Thompson

• Petitioner: Judy Clapp (Represented by Kevin Harper)

• Respondent: Forest Trails Homeowners Association (Represented by Ed O’Brien)

• Key Witnesses: Judy Clapp (Petitioner); Dean Meyers (Board Member/Witness for Respondent)

• Subject Property: Common area adjacent to 1473 Trail Head, Prescott, Arizona.

——————————————————————————–

Primary Legal and Regulatory Framework

The dispute centers on the interpretation of specific governing documents produced as evidence:

Amended Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)

• Section 2.2 (Common Areas and Open Space): States that common areas “shall be for the use and benefit of all members” and should be left in their natural state unless used for specific purposes, including “trails, walkways, driveways, parking areas, appropriate signs, recreational amenities, [and] landscaping.”

• Section 3.4: Grants the association the authority to “own, repair, manage, operate, and maintain” common areas according to the plat.

• Section 3.4.9: Designates the Architectural Control Committee (ACC) as the “judge of all aesthetic matters” on the common area.

• Section 4.1: Provides the Board with flexibility in its decision-making regarding association property.

Architectural Guidelines

• Landscaping Provisions: Permitted on the unpaved association-owned area (approx. 8 feet) between the lot line and the street only with ACC approval.

• Exclusive Use Restriction: Mandates that any such approval “will not give the property owner exclusive use of this association property.”

——————————————————————————–

Main Themes and Arguments

1. Historical Use vs. New Architectural Approval

The petitioner argues that the area in question served as a de facto parking lane for approximately 15–20 years, accommodating up to three vehicles.

• Petitioner Position: The removal of this parking area harms residents who now must walk an additional mile or more to access trail heads. Clapp asserts the association consistently denied similar requests in the past to protect common area access.

• Respondent Position: The HOA argues that parking was never a “guaranteed right” or a “written amenity” in the declaration. They contend the Board could not “say no” to the Normans’ request because hundreds of other homeowners have similar roadside landscaping.

2. Allegations of “Exclusive Use”

A major point of contention is whether the rock berm constitutes a violation of the rule against “exclusive use.”

• Petitioner’s Argument: The installation of large boulders and a rock berm makes it impossible for vehicles to park and “unsafe” or “risky” for pedestrians to walk over, effectively gifting the land to the adjacent homeowner.

• Respondent’s Argument: The area is not fenced or walled. Members of the public or homeowners can still theoretically walk on it, meaning use is not exclusive. Dean Meyers testified that the area is “less accessible” but still accessible at the ends.

3. Nuisance Mitigation and Safety

The HOA justifies the landscaping as a solution to long-standing issues.

• Respondent’s Evidence: Dean Meyers testified that the parking area created nuisances including noise (dogs, yelling), trash, and public intrusion 40 feet from the Normans’ kitchen. Furthermore, Meyers cited an erosion issue where water was undermining the cement curb, a problem he claims the landscaping resolved.

• Petitioner’s Rebuttal: Clapp, a former board member of 10 years, testified she never heard of safety, noise, or trash complaints regarding this site until February 2021, four months after the rocks were installed. She suggested the “safety” argument was an after-the-fact justification.

4. Conflict of Interest and Procedure

The petitioner raised concerns regarding the motivations behind the approval.

• Self-Serving Motivation: Witness Dean Meyers is a permanent board member and also the owner of the landscaping company hired by the Normans to perform the work.

• Lack of Formal Vote: Clapp testified that the work appeared to be allowed without a formal board vote, though respondent minutes from October 27, 2020, show the board requested gravel samples for the project.

——————————————————————————–

Critical Evidence and Testimony

Photographic Evidence (Exhibit 6)

The hearing reviewed nine photographs showing the evolution of the site:

• Before: A dirt “parking lane” capable of holding cars.

• After: A “rock berm” consisting of large boulders and smaller rocks that completely prohibit vehicle access.

Comparison to Other Amenities

Clapp pointed to the community tennis courts as evidence of unfair treatment.

• Tennis Court Parking: The HOA recently expanded and paved parking for tennis players (Exhibits 17, 18).

• Trail Head Parking: Conversely, the HOA eliminated parking for hikers at the trail head, which Clapp described as the community’s only other amenity.

Legal Opinion of Jim Atkinson

An email exchange (Exhibit 7) involving former Board President and attorney Jim Atkinson was introduced. Atkinson’s noted opinion stated:

• The 8-foot area is common area property, “no different than its ownership of the paved areas.”

• Parking is a permitted use under Section 2.2.

• The Board “never agreed to allow a lot owner to block access to the shoulder area.”

——————————————————————————–

Conclusions and Sought Relief

The Petitioner seeks an order confirming that the CC&Rs prohibit these specific landscaping changes and requiring the association to restore the common area to its original condition.

The Respondent maintains that the Board acted within its discretionary authority to manage common areas and treat all members fairly by approving a standard landscaping request. They argue the Petitioner is seeking a “prescriptive easement” to park in a specific spot, a right they claim does not exist under the governing documents or Arizona law.

Summary Table of Arguments

Petitioner’s View

Respondent’s View

Land Use

Reserved for the benefit of all members (parking/trails).

Subject to Board management and aesthetic discretion.

Accessibility

Rock berm creates “exclusive use” by blocking access.

No fence exists; property remains technically accessible.

Safety/Nuisance

No evidence of prior complaints; “punitive” decision.

Resolved erosion, trash, and noise nuisances.

Consistency

Association has historically denied such requests.

Hundreds of other lots have identical landscaping.

Board Ethics

Decision was self-serving (witness was the contractor).

Business was private between the contractor and homeowner.

Study Guide – 22F-H2221026-REL

Study Guide: Judy Clapp v. Forest Trails Homeowners Association (Docket No. 22F-H2221026-I)

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing held on March 9, 2022, regarding a dispute over common area usage, landscaping rights, and parking access within the Forest Trails community.

——————————————————————————–

Part I: Short-Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2–3 sentences based on the provided hearing transcript and documents.

1. What is the central issue of the dispute between Judy Clapp and the Forest Trails Homeowners Association?

2. How does Section 2.2 of the Forest Trails Declaration define the purpose and permitted uses of “common areas”?

3. What physical modification to the area near 1473 Trail Head triggered this legal action, and who performed the work?

4. What is the Petitioner’s primary argument regarding the “exclusive use” of the landscaped common area?

5. How does the Association justify its decision to approve the Normans’ landscaping request despite member objections?

6. What did the 2002–2003 review of the plat and CC&Rs reveal to the Association board regarding the 8-foot strips alongside the roadways?

7. What “nuisances” did the Respondent cite as reasons for prohibiting parking at the trail head location?

8. How does the Petitioner use the example of the community tennis courts to argue that the Association’s parking policy is inconsistent?

9. According to the testimony of Dean Myers, what is the Association’s policy regarding damage to homeowner-installed landscaping caused by snowplows?

10. What specific legal relief is the Petitioner seeking from the Administrative Law Judge?

——————————————————————————–

Part II: Answer Key

1. The dispute centers on the Association’s decision to allow a specific homeowner (the Normans) to landscape a common area in a way that prohibits long-standing member parking. The Petitioner argues this violates the Declaration’s provision that common areas benefit all members, while the Association claims the right to manage aesthetics and address nuisances.

2. Section 2.2 states that common areas are for the “use and benefit of all members” and should generally be left in their natural state. However, it explicitly allows these areas to be used for specific purposes, including trails, walkways, driveways, parking areas, landscaping, and utility easements.

3. The Normans installed large boulders and a rock berm on the association-owned unpaved roadway shoulder to prevent vehicles from parking there. This work was executed by Dean Myers, who is a permanent member of the Association’s Board of Directors and the owner of a landscaping company.

4. The Petitioner argues that the installation of the rock berm effectively grants the Normans “exclusive use” of the common area by making it physically inaccessible to others. She contends this violates the Architectural Guidelines, which state that landscaping approval shall not give a property owner exclusive use of association property.

5. The Association argues it must treat all members fairly, noting that hundreds of other residents have been allowed to landscape the common area up to the roadside. They assert that denying the Normans’ request would have unfairly “singled them out” when similar requests are universally approved.

6. The board realized that the 8-foot unpaved areas on each side of the paved roads were not private property but were actually “common areas” owned and managed by the Association. Following this discovery, the Association took over maintenance responsibilities, such as weed control and erosion management, for these strips.

7. The Respondent claimed that parking at the trail head created nuisances including trash, noise, and “public intrusion” from non-residents. Additionally, Dean Myers testified that parking was exacerbating erosion issues that were beginning to undermine the concrete street curb.

8. The Petitioner points out that the Association recently expanded and paved parking at the community tennis courts to benefit members who play tennis. She argues it is discriminatory to improve amenities for one group of members while removing a traditional parking benefit for those who use the hiking trails.

9. The Association generally holds the homeowner responsible for the costs of repairing any landscaping that extends into the common area if it is damaged by a snowplow. This serves as a condition of allowing private landscaping on association-owned land; the board only pays if the plow operator acted “stupidly.”

10. The Petitioner is seeking an order confirming that the Declaration prohibits these specific landscaping changes. Furthermore, she is requesting that the Association be ordered to restore the common area to its original condition to allow for continued member parking.

——————————————————————————–

Part III: Essay Questions

Instructions: Use the source context to develop comprehensive responses to the following prompts. (Answers not provided).

1. Aesthetics vs. Utility: Analyze the tension between the Board’s authority to judge “aesthetic matters” (Section 3.4.9) and the “permitted uses” of common areas (Section 2.2). Which authority should take precedence when a visual improvement eliminates a functional use?

2. The Definition of Exclusive Use: Evaluate the Respondent’s argument that the rock berm does not constitute “exclusive use” because there is no fence. Contrast this with the Petitioner’s testimony regarding the physical safety and accessibility of the area for members.

3. Conflicts of Interest in Governance: Discuss the implications of Dean Myers serving as both the board member approving (or allowing) the project and the contractor performing the work. How does this dual role affect the Association’s “fairness” argument?

4. Safety and Nuisance as Justification: Examine the evidence provided for safety concerns and nuisances at the trail head. Was the Association’s response (permitting boulders) a proportionate and evidenced-based solution to the problems described?

5. Historical Practice vs. Written Code: Explore the legal weight of “decades of practice” versus the literal interpretation of the Plat and Declaration. Should sixteen years of uninterrupted use by members create a protected right to park, even if not explicitly marked on a plat map?

——————————————————————————–

Part IV: Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Architectural Control Committee (ACC)

The body (often the Board of Directors in this case) responsible for reviewing and approving or denying changes to property and common areas.

Common Area

Land owned by the Homeowners Association for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of all members, such as the 8-foot strips adjacent to roadways.

Declaration (CC&Rs)

The “Amended Declaration of Covenant Conditions and Restrictions,” which serves as the primary governing document for the Forest Trails community.

Developer Position

A permanent seat on the Board of Directors reserved for the original developer or their representative (currently held by Dean Myers).

Easement

A legal right to use another’s land for a specific limited purpose; in this case, the trail head access is described as an easement between two lots.

Exclusive Use

The sole right to use a portion of property to the exclusion of others; prohibited for private owners on association common areas.

GIS (Geographic Information System)

Digital mapping technology used in the hearing to show property lines and the relationship between lots and association-owned streets.

Natural State

The original, undeveloped condition of land; Section 2.2 mandates common areas be kept this way unless used for specific permitted purposes like trails or parking.

Petitioner

The party initiating the legal grievance or “petition” (Judy Clapp).

Plat / Plat Map

An official map drawn to scale, showing the divisions of a piece of land, including lots, streets, and common areas.

Respondent

The party responding to the legal grievance (Forest Trails Homeowners Association).

Rock Berm

A man-made barrier or mound constructed of rocks and boulders used in this case to physically block vehicle access to a shoulder.

Blog Post – 22F-H2221026-REL