Tag Archives: Judge Nedra Su Kawasaki

Case Study Guide: Thea White v. Encanto Garden Townhouses Association (Case No. 26F-H223-HOA)

Section 1: Executive Summary & Key Concepts

This study guide provides an exhaustive analysis of the administrative hearing decision in Case No. 26F-H223-HOA (Thea White v. Encanto Garden Townhouses Association), adjudicated by Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Nedra-Su Kawasaki for the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE) at the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH).

Case Overview Reference

Factual and Procedural Timeline

“ [June 17, 2026] --- Petitioner submits application for open security bars. │ [June 22 – July 6, 2026] --- Respondent denies application 3 times (treating it as an "enclosed back porch"). │ [July 6 & July 13, 2026] --- Petitioner makes written requests for supporting police/fire/governing documents. │ [July 17, 2026] --- Petitioner pays $500 fee and files Petition with ADRE. │ [July 21, 2026] --- ADRE mails Notice of Petition via USPS Certified Mail to Respondent. │ [August 10, 2026] --- Deadline for Respondent's Response Form (Respondent fails to respond). │ [October 9, 2026] --- Hearing held (Respondent fails to appear); ALJ issues Decision finding for Petitioner. “

1. June 17, 2026: Petitioner (Thea White) submits an architectural application for the installation of open security bars at her unit (2941 North 19th Avenue, Unit 95, Phoenix, AZ).
2. June 22, July 1, and July 6, 2026: Respondent (Encanto Garden Townhouses Association) denies Petitioner's application three separate times.

• First two denials: Evaluated the request as an "enclosed back porch" (a design Petitioner never submitted) and relied on alleged police and fire guidance regarding enclosed spaces.
• Third denial: Asserted an unwritten "grandfathering restriction."

1. July 6 and July 13, 2026: Petitioner submits two written requests asking Respondent to produce the police and fire guidance or any governing documents establishing the alleged grandfathering restriction. Respondent produces neither.
2. July 17, 2026: Petitioner pays the $500.00 filing fee and submits a formal Petition to the Arizona Department of Real Estate alleging violations of A.R.S. § 33-1242(A) and Declaration CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 1.
3. July 21, 2026: ADRE sends the Notice of Petition via USPS Certified Mail to Respondent, in care of Pride Community Management, at two separate Chandler, AZ addresses.
4. August 10, 2026: Statutory deadline for Respondent to submit a written response. Respondent fails to submit any response form.
5. October 9, 2026: OAH conducts the evidentiary hearing. The hearing is delayed 15 minutes, but no representative appears for Respondent. Petitioner testifies; Administrative Notice is taken of the ADRE Hearing File.
6. October 9, 2026: ALJ issues the final Order declaring Petitioner the prevailing party, ordering $500 reimbursement, and directing Respondent to comply with CC&R requirements.

Statutory and Governing Document Framework

1. Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) Title 33 & Title 32 Provisions

• A.R.S. § 33-1242(A) (Powers of Condominium Association): Establishes that the powers of a condominium association (such as adopting/amending rules or exercising powers conferred by bylaws) are explicitly subject to the provisions of the declaration. Powers exercised must align with the governing CC&Rs.
• A.R.S. § 32-2199: Grants Administrative Law Judges the legal authority to adjudicate disputes and ensure compliance with Title 33, Chapter 9 (Condominiums), and related condominium documents.
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.01 (Petitions & Response Requirements):
• Subsection A: Allows unit owners or associations to petition the ADRE regarding violations of condominium documents or statutes upon paying a filing fee.
• Subsection C: Requires ADRE to serve the respondent via certified mail, granting 20 days from mailing to file an answer showing cause.
• Subsection E: Mandates that a respondent's failure to answer is deemed an admission of the allegations made in the petition, requiring the commissioner to issue a default decision.
• A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 (Scope of Remedies): Authorizes the ALJ to order any party to abide by the statutory or contract provision at issue and levy civil penalties per violation. It explicitly limits tribunal authority by stating the Tribunal is not authorized to order other remediation or civil penalties for other conduct.
• A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.02(B), 32-2199.04, & 41-1092.09 (Rehearing Process): Rulings are binding unless a rehearing request is filed with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of service.

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

• Article VIII, Section 1 (Architectural Control):
• Approval Mandate: No improvement, building, fence, wall, or structure may be commenced or maintained without written plans/specifications detailing shape, height, materials, floor plans, location, and cost submitted to and approved in writing by the Association.
• Discretionary Standard: The Association can deny approval for aesthetic or other reasons, considering harmony/conformity with surrounding buildings and visibility from neighboring properties.
• The 30-Day Failure Clause: If the Association fails to approve or act upon submitted plans within thirty (30) days after submission, prior written approval is no longer required, and the article is legally deemed fully complied with.
• Square Footage Limitation: No unit owner is permitted under any circumstances to make additions or changes exceeding the original square footage of the residence.

Section 2: Short-Answer Practice Questions

Questions

1. What specific design modification did Petitioner Thea White apply for on June 17, 2026, and how did Respondent mischaracterize it in their denials?
2. What were the specific reasons provided by Respondent during its three denials of Petitioner's application?
3. What statutory consequence occurs under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(E) when a respondent fails to file a response form within the required timeframe?
4. Who was the management company handling communications for Respondent, and to what addresses was the Notice of Petition delivered?
5. How long did the Office of Administrative Hearings delay the October 9, 2026 hearing before proceeding in Respondent's absence?
6. According to CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 1, what happens if the Association fails to approve or act on plans within thirty (30) days of submission?
7. What exact monetary relief did the ALJ award to Petitioner, and what is the required timeline for payment?
8. What limitation does A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 place on the Administrative Law Judge’s remedial authority?
9. What is the deadline and procedure for a party seeking a rehearing of the ALJ’s Decision?
10. Under A.R.S. § 33-1242(A), what primary constraint governs an association's exercise of its statutory powers?

Answer Key

1. Petitioner's Application vs. Respondent's Mischaracterization:

Petitioner applied for open security bars. Respondent repeatedly mischaracterized and evaluated the application as an enclosed back porch, a design Petitioner never requested.

1. Reasons Provided for Application Denials:

• Denials 1 & 2: Cited external police and fire guidance regarding enclosed spaces.
• Denial 3: Asserted an unwritten "grandfathering restriction."

1. Statutory Consequence of Failing to Answer (A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(E)):

The failure to answer is statutorily deemed an admission of all allegations set forth in the Petition, requiring the entry of a default decision against the respondent.

1. Management Company and Service Addresses:

Respondent was managed by Pride Community Management. Notice of Petition was sent via USPS Certified Mail to:

• P.O. Box 13615, Chandler, AZ 85248
• 2450 S. Gilbert Rd., Ste. 205, Chandler, AZ 85286

1. Hearing Delay Duration:

The OAH delayed the hearing by 15 minutes past the scheduled start time before starting proceedings without Respondent.

1. The 30-Day Clause in CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 1:

If the Association fails to approve or act upon submitted plans within 30 days, formal approval is no longer required, and the unit owner is deemed to be in full compliance with Article VIII.

1. Monetary Award and Payment Timeline:

Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioner directly the $500.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the Order.

1. Statutory Remedial Limitation (A.R.S. § 32-2199.02):

The tribunal is strictly authorized to order compliance with statutes, governing documents, or contract provisions and levy civil penalties per violation. It is not authorized to award other forms of remediation or civil penalties for uncharged conduct.

1. Rehearing Deadline and Procedure:

A party must file a written request for rehearing with the Commissioner of the Department of Real Estate within 30 days of service of the Order, pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-2199.04 and 41-1092.09.

1. Constraint on Association Powers (A.R.S. § 33-1242(A)):

An association's broad statutory powers (e.g., rule-making, adopting bylaws, legal governance) are explicitly subject to the provisions of the declaration (CC&Rs).

Section 3: Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

Essay Prompt 1: Administrative Default and Due Process in HOA Dispute Resolution

Prompt: Analyze the legal and procedural consequences of Respondent’s failure to file an answer and appear at the administrative hearing under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01. Discuss how statutory default provisions balance administrative efficiency with due process considerations for condominium unit owners and associations.

• Key Points to Cover:
• Define the requirement under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(C) (20-day response window following certified mail notice).
• Analyze A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(E), which transforms non-response into a legal admission of all alleged factual claims (arbitrary application denials, failure to produce governing rules, evaluation of unsubmitted designs).
• Discuss the role of evidentiary procedures (taking Administrative Notice of the ADRE file, delaying 15 minutes to allow for tardiness) to ensure minimum procedural due process before issuing a default judgment.
• Evaluate how default mechanisms prevent associations or homeowners from stalling administrative dispute resolution processes.

Essay Prompt 2: Arbitrary Architectural Governance and Statutory Authority

Prompt: Section 33-1242(A) of the Arizona Revised Statutes mandates that an association's statutory powers are "subject to the provisions of the declaration." Evaluate how Encanto Garden Townhouses Association breached both its governing CC&Rs (Article VIII, Section 1) and state statutes through its review process of Thea White’s application.

• Key Points to Cover:
• Detail the discrepancy between White’s actual submission (open security bars) and the Association’s evaluation basis (enclosed back porch).
• Examine the duty of an HOA to base architectural rejections on clear, documented guidelines rather than unsubstantiated claims (e.g., failure to produce requested police/fire guidance or written grandfathering rules after two formal requests).
• Interpret Article VIII, Section 1 discretionary standards (harmony, aesthetic, conformity) vs. arbitrary/capricious enforcement.
• Discuss the interaction between A.R.S. § 33-1242(A) and CC&R compliance, demonstrating why an association acts ultra vires when rejecting applications outside the procedural rules established in its declaration.

Essay Prompt 3: Scope of Administrative Remedies in Condominium Disputes

Prompt: Examine the limits of administrative enforcement under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02. Discuss what remedies the Administrative Law Judge was statutorily authorized to grant, what remedies were excluded, and the practical implications for prevailing petitioners seeking full relief.

• Key Points to Cover:
• Detail the specific statutory authorization under A.R.S. § 32-2199.02 (ordering compliance, levying per-violation civil penalties, restoring filing fees).
• Contrast allowed remedies with explicit statutory restrictions ("This Tribunal is not authorized to order other remediation or order civil penalties for other conduct").
• Analyze the specific mandates of ALJ Kawasaki’s final Order ($500 fee reimbursement within 30 days and direction to comply with CC&Rs).
• Discuss the practical effectiveness of an administrative compliance order when an HOA management company fails to participate in proceedings.

Section 4: Key Terms Glossary

“ ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ GLOSSARY │ └─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ “

1. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judicial official who presides over administrative hearings, evaluates testimony and documentary evidence, and issues binding findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders. (e.g., Nedra-Su Kawasaki).
2. Administrative Notice: A rule of evidence permitting a judge to accept as factually true established official records or publicly verifiable documents without requiring formal independent proof (e.g., taking administrative notice of the ADRE Hearing File).
3. A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.: The statutory framework within the Arizona Revised Statutes authorizing the Department of Real Estate and OAH to hear, adjudicate, and enforce compliance regarding condominium and planned community governance disputes.
4. A.R.S. § 33-1242(A): The Arizona statute governing condominium association powers, establishing that all association actions, bylaws, and rule enforcement remain strictly subordinate to the community’s recorded declaration.
5. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs): The recorded legal document establishing the rules, architectural controls, rights, and restrictions binding property owners within a specific condominium or planned community development.
6. Default Decision: A decision issued against a party that fails to submit a required legal answer, pleading, or appearance within a statutorily defined deadline, legally deeming all opponent claims admitted.
7. Grandfathering Restriction: An exception allowing existing conditions or structures to remain legal even if new rules prohibit them; in this case, an unproven defense raised by Respondent without producing governing documentation.
8. Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH): An independent Arizona state agency responsible for conducting impartial, neutral administrative evidentiary hearings for state regulatory agencies.
9. Petitioner: The initiating party in an administrative proceeding who files a formal complaint or petition seeking legal relief (e.g., home/unit owner Thea White).
10. Respondent: The party against whom an administrative petition or lawsuit is brought, required to respond to allegations (e.g., Encanto Garden Townhouses Association).
11. USPS Certified Mail: A official mailing service providing the sender with proof of mailing and verified electronic delivery confirmation, used legally by ADRE to serve Notice of Petitions under A.R.S. § 32-2199.01(C).

Study Guide: McLaughlin v. Sky Crossing Community Association (Case No. 26F-H071-REL)

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Margaret McLaughlin (Petitioner) and the Sky Crossing Community Association (Respondent). It explores the legal arguments regarding Homeowners Association (HOA) authority, the interpretation of community governing documents, and the specific dispute over permanent eave lighting.

Final Written Result and Limits

On September 2, 2026, ALJ Nedra-Su Kawasaki deemed Respondent the prevailing party. Conclusion 10 limited the decision to whether the February 1, 2025 Design Guideline amendment substantively altered CC&R Section 8.12. Reading that provision with Section 3.1(b), the ALJ concluded that the amendment did not substantially alter the CC&Rs. The separate enforcement issue was not decided. The hearing arguments and discussion questions below should be considered within that limit (1464251.pdf, pp. 9–10).

1. Case Overview and Core Themes

The hearing included arguments about the guideline amendment and enforcement against installed eave lights. The written decision addressed only the amendment issue, as described above.

Key Themes:

• Governing Document Hierarchy: The relationship between Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and supplemental Design Guidelines.
• Architectural Control: The extent of an HOA’s power to regulate the exterior appearance of a home based on "aesthetic considerations."
• Enforcement Equity: Allegations of retroactive and inconsistent enforcement of community rules.
• Dark Sky Compliance: The impact of community-specific environmental standards on homeowner modifications.

2. Key Figures and Entities

3. Timeline of Significant Events

4. Legal and Procedural Arguments

The Petitioner’s Arguments

• Lack of Prior Prohibition: At the time of installation (2022), the CC&Rs and Guidelines did not explicitly mention "permanent eave lights."
• Good Faith Efforts: Petitioners sought guidance from the assistant community manager, who allegedly advised them to wait for the resident board before submitting a formal application.
• Inconsistent Enforcement: Petitioners claim other residents (e.g., Saltzman, Lorna) have these lights and have not faced similar fines or enforcement actions.
• Dark Sky Standard: They argue their lights shine downward and do not violate the Phoenix Dark Sky Ordinance, unlike the Association’s roundabout lighting.
• Survey Misuse: They allege the 2022 survey was flawed due to technical errors and that the Board misinterpreted the results to justify a prohibition.

The Respondent’s Arguments

• Contractual Obligation: Homeowners are bound by the CC&Rs, which have required prior written approval for any modification to an "improvement" since 2017.
• Absolute Discretion: CC&Rs Section 3.3 grants the DRC "sole and absolute discretion" to reject plans based purely on "aesthetic considerations," even if the plans comply with specific guidelines.
• No Waiver Clause: Under Section 11.1(C), the failure to enforce a rule in one instance does not constitute a waiver of the right to enforce it in the future.
• Enforcement Feasibility: The Board argues that allowing the lights would be impossible to police consistently without expensive nighttime compliance drives.
• Documented History: The Association provided letters showing that even the original builder-controlled board had denied requests for these lights.

5. Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. According to CC&Rs Section 3.2, what is required before a homeowner can make a "modification" to an "improvement"?

• Answer: Prior written approval from the Design Review Committee (DRC).

1. Define "Modification" as used in the Sky Crossing governing documents.

• Answer: Any addition, alteration, repair, or change that alters the exterior appearance of any improvement on a lot.

1. What did Petitioner’s timeline say about the amendment effective February 1, 2025?

• Answer: The amendment prohibited eave lights from being used even as holiday lights, according to the timeline recounted in Finding 12 (1464251.pdf, p. 6).

1. How did the Respondent address the claim that they have "common area" lighting that violates the same standards?

• Answer: The Board argued common area lighting (roundabouts) is installed for resident safety and is on Association property, which they have full control over, unlike individual lots.

1. What is the purpose of the "No Waiver" provision in Section 11.1(C)?

• Answer: It ensures that if the HOA fails to take action against one violation, it does not lose the right to enforce that same rule against others or at a later date.

6. Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. The Tension Between Subjectivity and Governance: Analyze Section 3.3(B) of the Sky Crossing CC&Rs, which states that DRC decisions can be based on "purely aesthetic considerations" and are "purely subjective." Discuss the benefits and risks of such broad authority in a planned community. How does this subjectivity affect a homeowner's ability to "act in good faith"?
2. The "Dark Sky" Identity: Sky Crossing is described as a "dark community." Explore how this environmental identity serves as a foundational argument for the Respondent. To what extent should a community’s "character" (e.g., viewing stars at night) override individual property rights?
3. Procedural Fairness in HOA Transitions: The Petitioners allege they were caught in a "transition" period between a builder-controlled board and a resident-controlled board. Evaluate the claim that the Association acted unreasonably by enforcing a rule that was "clarified" only after the homeowners had invested in the installation.

7. Glossary of Important Terms

• AAM / CCMC: Third-party management companies contracted by the Association to handle daily operations and compliance.
• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): A judge who presides over hearings involving state agency disputes (in this case, the Arizona Department of Real Estate).
• Beastro / Festoon Lighting: String-style lighting often used on patios; specifically regulated and generally required to be turned off by 10:00 p.m.
• CC&Rs: Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the primary legal document governing the use of land and the behavior of residents within the community.
• Dark Sky Community: A designation or design intent focused on minimizing light pollution to preserve the visibility of the night sky.
• Declarant: The original builder or developer (Taylor Morrison/Pulte) who controlled the Association prior to the resident board transition.
• Improvement: A defined term in the CC&Rs including the residence, fences, walls, trees, or any other structure of any kind.
• Modification: Any change to the exterior appearance of an improvement.
• Notice of Violation (NOV): A formal communication from the HOA informing a homeowner that they are in breach of community documents.

Study Guide: Caitlin Brewer v. Marley Park Community Association (No. 25F-H118-REL)

This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative hearing between Caitlin Brewer (Petitioner) and the Marley Park Community Association (Respondent). It synthesizes the legal arguments, evidence, and procedural history regarding a dispute over architectural requirements and the enforcement of homeowner association (HOA) regulations.

Key Concepts and Case Overview

1. The Core Dispute

The matter concerns whether the Marley Park Community Association has the legal authority to require a homeowner to construct a perimeter wall on her lot and whether the association complied with Arizona statutory requirements before threatening fines.

• The Petitioner’s Stance: Caitlin Brewer argues that no recorded governing document mandates a homeowner to build a wall where one has not historically existed. She asserts the lot existed for approximately 20 years without a wall (including 15 years as the developer's Welcome Center) and that the association is improperly shifting a "developer infrastructure" obligation onto her.
• The Respondent’s Stance: The Association argues that while a wall is not required for the lot itself, it becomes a requirement once the homeowner applies to build a pool (for safety and enclosure). They maintain that any such wall must comply with "authentic" architectural standards, which they define as matching the home's stone accents and following specific spacing for pillars.

2. Governing Authority and Discretion

A central theme of the case is the scope of the Design Review Committee's (DRC) authority.

• Subjective Aesthetics: The Association's Community Charter (specifically Section 6.3) and Design Guidelines grant the DRC the power to make decisions based on "purely aesthetic considerations." Determinations are described as "purely subjective," and opinions may vary regarding the desirability of improvements.
• Authenticity: Design Guideline 4.1 emphasizes "authentic architecture." Improvements must continue the "authentic detailing" of the existing architectural style. For homes with stone accents, the DRC requires walls to include matching stone pillars.

3. Statutory Requirements and Due Process

The hearing addresses several Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) and association bylaws:

• ARS 33-1803: Governs the imposition of monetary penalties and the member's right to a hearing before the board.
• ARS 33-1806: Relates to resale disclosure. Brewer argues the disclosure she received during the purchase reflected no violations or required improvements.
• Bylaws Article 4.1: Addresses officers and corporate powers.
• Open Meeting Laws (ARS 33-1804): Brewer alleges the association failed to properly identify the governing documents being enforced during open sessions.

4. Evidence of Inconsistent Enforcement

Brewer provided evidence regarding neighboring lots (13134 and 13150) that were built in 2024. These lots received plain stucco perimeter walls installed by the builder without DRC approval or stone pillars. The Association claimed no records of these approvals existed because they were "builder homes" under a developer contract, rather than homeowner improvements.

5. The "Orange Fence" Violation

During the dispute, Brewer erected an orange temporary safety fence to protect her children while pool construction was being considered. The Association identified this as a violation of the requirement that all exterior modifications receive prior DRC approval. The Association threatened fines of up to $250 per day for the fence, which was eventually removed.

Short-Answer Practice Questions

1. What was the historical use of the Petitioner's lot before it was sold to a private homeowner? The lot was owned by the developer for approximately 15 years and operated as the Marley Park Welcome Center.

2. According to the Association, what specific project triggered the requirement for a perimeter wall? The application to construct a swimming pool.

3. What two design options did the Board provide to the Petitioner for the required wall?

1. A wall made of red brick to match the community theme.
2. A stucco CMU wall with stone pillars (integrated pillars and stone elements) that match the home's stone accents.

4. What is the Association's stated standard for the spacing of stone pillars on Sweetwater Avenue? The Association asserts that pillars should be placed at intervals consistent with comparable walls, which they measured at an average of approximately 10 feet.

5. How did the Petitioner challenge the Association's "10-foot average" for pillar spacing? The Petitioner testified that her own measurements of the same nine homes showed an actual average distance of approximately 29.3 feet.

6. Under the Community Charter, is compliance with the Design Guidelines a guarantee of project approval? No. Section 6.3 of the Charter states that the guidelines provide guidance but are not the exclusive basis for a decision, and compliance does not guarantee approval.

7. What happened to the certified mail request for a hearing sent by the Petitioner on November 26, 2025? The mailing was prevented from delivery, not accepted, not rescheduled, and ultimately returned unclaimed, though the Association acknowledged receiving an email version.

8. Why does the Petitioner argue the wall is the responsibility of the HOA or developer? She cites Residential Design Guidelines (e.g., Section 13.06.G.I) which classify these types of walls as "original construction" to be built by the "original home builder or master developer."

Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration

1. Discretion vs. Documentation: Analyze the conflict between the DRC’s "subjective" authority to enforce aesthetic standards and the homeowner's right to clear, written notice of regulations. Does the lack of a specific numerical spacing requirement in the governing documents undermine the Association’s enforcement of a 10-foot pillar rule?
2. The Impact of Resale Disclosures: Discuss the role of the ARS 33-1806 resale disclosure in this case. If a disclosure identifies "no violations" on a property that lacks a perimeter wall, should the Association be barred from later requiring a wall based on "original construction" standards?
3. Inconsistent Enforcement and Builder Exceptions: The Association argues that "builder homes" follow different rules than "homeowner improvements." Evaluate whether this distinction justifies allowing different architectural standards (such as plain stucco walls) for new builds while requiring more expensive stone-pillared walls for existing homeowners.
4. The Burden of Infrastructure: Examine the argument that the wall is "original construction." If a developer fails to build a designated community feature for 15 years, does the obligation to complete that infrastructure pass to the subsequent homeowner, or should it remain a successor responsibility of the HOA?

Glossary of Important Terms

• Administrative Law Judge (ALJ): The presiding official (in this case, Nedra-Su Kawasaki) who conducts the hearing and issues a decision.
• Arterial Wall: A wall that faces a street or open space, often subject to stricter aesthetic guidelines than interior yard walls.
• CMU (Concrete Masonry Unit): Standard building blocks used for wall construction.
• Community Charter: The foundational governing document for Marley Park that outlines how the association is run and governed.
• Community Wall: A wall constructed as part of the original community infrastructure by the developer, typically featuring a common appearance (like red brick).
• DRC (Design Review Committee): A group of volunteers authorized to approve or deny applications for exterior modifications to homes.
• OAH (Office of Administrative Hearings): An independent Arizona state agency that conducts hearings for contested matters arising from state regulation.
• Pillisters (Pillars): Decorative or structural columns integrated into a wall.
• Theme Wall: A wall that faces a street or open space but is not designated as a community wall; it is generally required to match the style and character of the specific residence.
• View Fence: A fence (often wrought iron) that allows for visibility, as opposed to a solid privacy wall.
• Welcome Center: The original use of the Petitioner's lot, which served as a sales office for the developer and was built without the standard perimeter wall.