This is a summary of the Administrative Law Judge Decision in *Arthur Fisenko & Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko vs. Bellvue Homeowners Association* (No. 21F-H2121046-REL), heard on August 30, 2021.

Key Facts and Proceedings

The dispute involved Arthur Fisenko and Viktoriya Tkach-Fisenko (Petitioners), property owners in the Bellvue subdivision, and the Bellvue Homeowners Association (Respondent). The case was heard by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) pursuant to Arizona statutes governing disputes between owners and planned community associations.

Petitioners initially filed a two-issue petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that the Association's Architectural Review Committee (ARC) arbitrarily and capriciously rejected landscaping modification requests. By July 30, 2021, the issue concerning the installation of pavers and artificial grass became moot when the Respondent reversed its initial denial.

The main issue for the hearing was whether the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) and/or CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2, by denying Petitioners’ request to move their garage-side yard wall eight (8) feet forward on their property. The proposal included using the same materials and replacing an existing single-wide gate with a previously approved double-wide gate.

Key Arguments

1. Petitioners’ Argument: Petitioners asserted that the Association's denial was arbitrary and capricious, noting that the ARC had approved the paver/artificial grass portion of their request without requiring supplemental information. They argued that their initial Architectural Request Form, filled out without counsel, should have been approved despite any technical omissions.
2. Respondent’s Argument: The Association contended that the Petitioners' Architectural Request Form was deficient and incomplete because crucial and relevant information was missing. Specifically, after the initial denial in February 2021 (citing concerns over length and neighbor impact), Petitioners were instructed in March 2021 to submit a complete form, a plot plan, elevation plans, and specifications. Respondent argued that because Petitioners failed to provide this specific supplemental information, the ARC was unable to make a reasonably objective determination necessary for approval.

Legal Points and Outcome

The Petitioners bore the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3) (which mandates that architectural approval "shall not unreasonably be withheld") or CC&Rs Article VII, Section 2.

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Petitioners failed to sustain their burden of proof. The decision rested on the finding that the Petitioners did not provide sufficient and/or requisite information necessary for the ARC to reasonably evaluate the wall modification request. Furthermore, the record established that Petitioners were specifically advised what supplemental information was required but failed to cure their application deficiencies.

The final decision held that the Respondent’s refusal to grant the Architectural Request was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Therefore, the Petitioners’ petition was denied.