**Case Title:** William Cavanaugh v. Agua Dulce Homeowners Association
**Case Number:** 12F-H1213005-BFS
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, State of Arizona

**Hearing Proceedings and Key Facts**
The hearing took place on February 4, 2013, before Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) M. Douglas,. Petitioner William Cavanaugh, a homeowner and member of the Agua Dulce Homeowners Association ("Agua"), filed a petition alleging that Agua violated A.R.S. § 33-1205, Pima County Zoning Laws, and the association's CC&Rs,.

The central dispute involved vegetation within the community. The Petitioner alleged that Agua allowed homeowners to plant non-native plants that were not "low-pollen" or "low-water" vegetation, contrary to lists approved by Pima County,. He testified that this vegetation caused him health issues and argued Agua had the authority to force the removal of such plants.

**Key Arguments**
* **Respondent's Defense:** Agua argued that the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to interpret or enforce Pima County Zoning Codes.
* **Witness Testimony:**
* Linda Ware, a member of the Architectural Review Committee (ARC), testified that while Agua is strict regarding front yards, implementing the Petitioner's suggested changes for private backyards would be costly.
* Betty Blaylock, Board President, testified that Pima County officials had indicated they were not concerned with vegetation in private backyards within Agua,.
* Terry Anderson, a homeowner, expressed concern that the removal of established vegetation would infringe on private property rights and incur significant costs,.

**Legal Analysis and Issues**
The ALJ identified the standard of proof as a "preponderance of the evidence," which rests on the party asserting the claim. The tribunal addressed two main legal points:

1. **Jurisdiction:** The ALJ concluded that the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety does not have jurisdiction over alleged violations of Pima County Zoning Ordinances.
2. **Evidence of Violation:** The ALJ found that the Petitioner failed to present credible evidence that Agua violated its own CC&Rs or any state statutes regulating homeowners' associations.

**Final Decision**
The ALJ recommended that the petition be dismissed, ordering that no action was required of Agua. On April 17, 2013, the Office of Administrative Hearings certified the ALJ's decision as the final administrative decision of the Department of Fire, Building and Life Safety, as the Department had not accepted, rejected, or modified the decision within the statutory timeframe provided by A.R.S. § 41-1092.08,.