The Cinder Block Stand-off: Lessons from a "Non-Permanent" Landscaping Dispute
1. Introduction: The High Stakes of Homeowner Improvements
For many residents in planned communities, the boundary between creative landscaping and a regulatory violation is often as thin as a property line. What a homeowner envisions as a flexible, aesthetic enhancement, an Association may view as a permanent, unauthorized structure that flouts community standards.
This tension was recently adjudicated before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) in the matter of Shaffstall v. Pinetop Lakes Association. The dispute centered on a fundamental clash of classifications: the homeowner, Cyndie Shaffstall, argued that her un-mortared installation was merely "non-permanent landscaping"—specifically a movable decorative plant backdrop. The Association, conversely, argued the installation was a "fence" or "structure" erected without the requisite architectural approval. As we analyze the legal definitions and administrative findings of this case, it becomes clear that in the world of community governance, the "catch-all" definition of a structure is often the deciding factor in neighborhood disputes.
2. The Structure in Question: Plant Backdrop or Property Barrier?
The installation at the center of this dispute was no mere garden trellis. Located on a corner lot, the installation was significant in both scale and intent. Based on the testimony and evidence presented, the physical components included:
- Materials Used: Un-mortared cinder blocks (approximately 14 lbs each) serving as base supports, bridged by 4×4 wood planks roughly 8 feet in length.
- The Scale: The structure involved between 74 and 100 cinder blocks and approximately 50 wood planks.
- The Weight Discrepancy: While the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) noted a total material weight of approximately 600 lbs, the Petitioner’s own testimony suggested a far more massive installation. Shaffstall described 35 to 40 sections weighing 70 lbs each—a calculation that puts the actual weight between 2,450 and 2,800 lbs.
- Homeowner’s Intent: The Petitioner testified the structure was designed to support potted plants, delineate her driveway, and create a visual "height" to deter school buses and cars from driving over her landscaping.
Shaffstall maintained the installation was "movable" and "non-permanent," claiming she could disassemble the entire structure in two and a half hours. However, as the Association would later argue, the physical reality of over a ton of concrete and timber suggested a level of permanence that went beyond simple garden decor.
3. Battle of the Definitions: What Constitutes a "Fence"?
The legal conflict rested on how the structure should be defined under the community's governing documents. Because the CC&Rs did not explicitly define "fence," the OAH looked to a combination of dictionary definitions and HOA rules.
Differing Interpretations: Fence vs. Decorative Border
| Source | Definition/Argument | Key Characteristics |
|---|
| Petitioner | Argues it is a "movable decorative plant backdrop" and "non-permanent landscaping." | Un-affixed, non-mortared, and intended to support plant growth. |
| Dictionary.com / Britannica | A barrier enclosing or bordering a yard, used to prevent entrance, mark a boundary, or decorate. | Often made of vertical posts and horizontal sections of wood, stone, or metal. |
| HOA Rules (3.7 & 3.22) | Classifies "decorative borders" and "fences" as structures requiring prior architectural approval. | Rule 3.22 specifically requires "natural materials" (e.g., decorative stone veneer rather than bare industrial cinder blocks). |
4. The Hearing: Arguments from the "Hot Seat"
On June 29, 2026, the matter was adjudicated before the OAH. The Association presented testimony from General Manager Dawn Yarosh, who was deemed an expert in Pinetop Community Association governing documents.
The Respondent's (HOA) Expert Testimony: Expert witness Dawn Yarosh emphasized several critical points:
- Lack of Precedent: The term "movable decorative plant backdrop" does not exist in the community’s CC&Rs or Rules & Regulations.
- Winter Sturdiness: Yarosh noted that the structure remained unmoved despite heavy wind events. Ironically, while the winter was described as "very light," the HOA argued the structure’s absolute stability during these events proved it was not a "temporary" fixture.
- Permit Requirements: Under Rule 3.22, "decorative borders" require a permit and must be constructed of natural materials. Bare concrete blocks would generally require a decorative stone veneer to meet community standards—a requirement Shaffstall bypassed by not submitting plans.
The Petitioner’s Rebuttal: Shaffstall argued that her installation fell under the "non-permanent landscaping" exception in Rule 2.1. She relied heavily on Pinetop Lakes Association v. Hatch, 137 Ariz. 390 (1983), a case involving the same association where the court ruled that undefined terms in CC&Rs cannot be broadly expanded by an HOA to create violations. She maintained that because the blocks were not mortared or bolted, they did not reach the legal threshold of a "structure."
5. The Final Verdict: Why the Homeowner Lost
Despite the homeowner's arguments regarding the beauty and movability of the installation, the ALJ denied the petition. In a move that created a "legal trap" for the Petitioner, the ALJ effectively rendered the "is it a fence?" debate moot by pivoting to the definition of a "structure."
The ALJ utilized the Oxford Learners Dictionary definition of "structure": "the way in which the parts of something are connected together, arranged or organized; a particular arrangement of parts." Under this broad definition, the ALJ's core conclusion was clear: the installation constitutes a "structure" regardless of its aesthetic beauty or the lack of mortar.
Because the installation was classified as a "structure," it fell under the absolute authority of Article A, Section 7 of the CC&Rs. This provision mandates that no structure shall be commenced or maintained until plans and specifications have been submitted to and approved by the Association. Shaffstall’s failure to seek this prior approval was the fatal blow to her case.
Notably, Shaffstall’s allegations regarding "due process" and "open meeting" violations were not decided. Because the OAH is a "one-issue-per-fee" jurisdiction, the Petitioner’s single filing fee covered only the classification of the structure, leaving the procedural complaints outside the court’s jurisdiction for this specific hearing.
6. Key Takeaways for Homeowners and HOAs
This case highlights the broad reach of architectural control and the importance of procedural compliance.
Pro-Tips for Homeowners:
- Prior Approval is Non-Negotiable: Always submit plans before beginning construction. Even items you consider "removable" or "non-permanent" can be legally classified as a "structure" once they reach a certain scale and weight.
- The "Structure" Catch-All: Understand that ALJs often use broad dictionary definitions. If an object is an "arrangement of parts" (like a ton of cinder blocks and wood), it is likely a structure requiring a permit.
- Aesthetics Do Not Equal Compliance: A "pretty border" can still be a violation if it uses prohibited materials (like bare concrete) or lacks the required veneer.
Pro-Tips for Associations:
- Expert Designation: During hearings, ensure your community managers are qualified and designated as experts in your governing documents to provide their testimony maximum weight.
- Mind the Irony of Sturdiness: Evidence that an installation survived even a "light" winter without moving can be used effectively to prove permanence, even in the absence of mortar or bolts.
- Consistency and Clarity: To minimize the impact of the Hatch precedent, associations should continuously update their Rules & Regulations to define modern landscape features that fall outside traditional "fence" descriptions.
7. Conclusion: Clarity Over Conflict
The "Cinder Block Stand-off" serves as a cautionary tale: in an HOA, it is significantly easier to ask for permission than to defend an un-permitted structure in court. The OAH's ruling affirmed the Association’s right to regulate any "arrangement of parts" on a property under the broad umbrella of a structure.
The outcome of Shaffstall v. Pinetop Lakes Association resulted in the denial of the petition and a requirement that the homeowner follow the Association’s order to remove the structure. Furthermore, the Petitioner was not reimbursed for her filing fee. For homeowners looking to innovate, the safest path forward is always through the architectural committee, rather than the courtroom.
