**Case Summary: Myron H. Colvin v. Tierra Del Sol RV Resort Association**
**Case Number:** 19F-H19190064-REL
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings, Arizona
**Decision Date:** August 27, 2019

**Key Facts**
Petitioner Myron H. Colvin, a member of the Tierra Del Sol RV Resort Association, received approval from the Association in March 2018 and again in March 2019 to install concrete pavers in the setback area of his lot. Following the installation, the Association issued a Notice of Violation on May 8, 2019, citing a violation of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) § 4.3. The Association alleged the pavers were too large to be moved by one person without mechanical assistance. In response, Mr. Colvin filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging that the Association violated CC&R § 4.3.

**Legal Issues and Arguments**
The hearing focused on whether the Association violated the community documents and the tribunal’s jurisdiction over the dispute.
* **Petitioner’s Position:** Mr. Colvin contended that the Association had previously approved his project and asserted that he had not violated CC&R § 4.3.
* **Respondent’s Position:** The Association argued that CC&R § 4.3 restricts the placement of improvements in setback areas. They asserted that the section is violated only if an entity places an unapproved object there. Since the Association did not place any object in the setback, it could not be in violation. Additionally, the Association argued that the Office of Administrative Hearings lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment regarding whether Mr. Colvin was in violation.

**Decision and Reasoning**
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson dismissed the petition based on the following legal conclusions:
1. **Burden of Proof:** The Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the Respondent (the Association) violated its CC&Rs.
2. **Contract Interpretation:** CC&R § 4.3 prohibits structures, vehicles, or landscaping features in lot setbacks under specific conditions. The Judge found that Mr. Colvin did not allege facts showing the *Association* placed any such items in the setback. Instead, Mr. Colvin was asserting that *he* did not violate the section.
3. **Jurisdiction:** The Judge ruled that Mr. Colvin failed to establish that the Association violated Section 4.3. Furthermore, the tribunal determined it did not have jurisdiction to grant a declaratory judgment regarding the Petitioner's request to be found compliant with the rule.

**Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ordered the petition dismissed.