Case Summary
| Case ID | 25F-H073-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | Arizona Department of Real Estate |
| Tribunal | — |
| Decision Date | 2026-05-28 |
| Administrative Law Judge | NSK |
| Outcome | — |
| Filing Fees Refunded | — |
| Civil Penalties | — |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Unknown | Counsel | Pro Se |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Unknown | Counsel | Kyle von Johnson |
Alleged Violations
No violations listed
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
25F-H073-REL Decision – 1364163.pdf
25F-H073-REL Decision – 1364282.pdf
25F-H073-REL Decision – 1374028.pdf
25F-H073-REL Decision – 1374708.pdf
25F-H073-REL Decision – 1376199.pdf
25F-H073-REL Decision – 1377595.pdf
25F-H073-REL Decision – 1388589.pdf
25F-H073-REL Decision – 1388590.pdf
25F-H073-REL Decision – 1395020.pdf
25F-H073-REL Decision – 1395021.pdf
25F-H073-REL Decision – 1426783.pdf
25F-H073-REL Decision – 1429819.pdf
Briefing Document: Long v. Villas at Desert Camp Association (No. 25F-H073-REL)
Executive Summary
The legal dispute between Kay & William Long (Petitioners) and the Villas at Desert Camp Association (Respondent) centered on whether the Association's Board of Directors violated community Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by converting turf areas to desert landscaping without a formal membership vote. Petitioners alleged that the removal of approximately 2,500 square feet of grass across three areas—including a private lot (Lot 21) and specific common areas—constituted a "change of use" under Section 4.6 of the CC&Rs, which requires approval by a majority of members.
Respondent argued that the conversions were performed as part of their maintenance obligations under Sections 4.9 and 8.2(c), driven by water conservation mandates and a $8,000 rebate incentive from the City of Scottsdale. Following an evidentiary hearing on March 13, 2026, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Respondent. The ALJ determined that while "change of use" generally refers to the function or nature of a space, the CC&Rs specifically grant the Board the authority to "plant, replace, maintain and cultivate" landscaping without membership approval, designating the Board as the "sole judge" of such maintenance.
Detailed Analysis of Key Themes
1. Interpretation of "Change of Use" vs. "Maintenance"
The central legal conflict involved a terminological dispute over the scope of Section 4.6 (Change of Use) versus Article 8 (Maintenance).
- Petitioners' Stance: They argued that "change of use" encompasses changes in appearance, character, and function. By replacing walkable turf with rocks and desert plants, the functional nature of the common area was altered from a recreational amenity where residents could gather, play, or walk dogs to a purely aesthetic "decorative" space.
- Respondent's Stance: They contended that "change of use" refers to rezoning or physical obstructions (e.g., building a pickleball court or a clubhouse on open space). Because the land remained designated as "open space" in the plat, the use had not changed.
- Judicial Resolution: The ALJ defined "use" as a "purpose, object, or end." However, the judge concluded that because Section 8.2 specifically addresses landscaping—permitting the Board to "replace… and cultivate landscaping, shrubs, trees, and plantings"—this specific authority overrules the general "change of use" provision regarding turf removal.
2. External Environmental and Financial Pressures
The Association justified its actions by citing external pressures and financial benefits related to water conservation in Arizona.
- Conservation Mandates: Board President Ron Stacy testified that the City of Scottsdale and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) were moving toward mandating water consumption reductions.
- Financial Incentives: The Association secured an $8,000 rebate from the City of Scottsdale for the turf reduction.
- Long-Term Strategy: The Board presented a five-year plan for turf reduction to achieve a 20% reduction in water usage, citing the aging "Bermuda grass" (15+ years old) and excessive shade from mature trees as factors making grass unsustainable in certain areas.
3. Procedural Transparency and Member Engagement
A significant portion of the hearing addressed whether the Board acted unilaterally or with member input.
- The 2024 Survey: In February 2024, the Board conducted a survey of all 30 residents. Results showed:
- 26 out of 30 residents supported moving from grass to desert landscaping.
- 22 out of 30 residents believed a formal vote should not be required for every transition to desertscape.
- Notice and Red-Flagging: The Board marked proposed conversion areas with red flags for member inspection and discussed the plans during annual meetings in 2023 and 2025.
- Petitioners' Objection: Despite the survey, the Petitioners argued that a survey is not a substitute for the "binding vote" required by Section 4.6.
4. Jurisdiction Over Private Lots (Lot 21)
The case involved a unique overlap between private property and Association responsibility.
- Infraction Cures: Lot 21 (9191 E. Hoverland Road) was cited by the Master Association (DC Ranch) for dead grass. Under the sub-association's rules, it was the Respondent’s responsibility to cure this violation.
- Maintenance Authority: The Board used its authority to convert the lot's turf to desertscape to prevent future citations, noting that the area was heavily shaded and prone to water runoff, making grass growth impossible.
Important Quotes with Context
| Speaker | Quote | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Kay Long (Petitioner) | "The turf removal functioned as association directed landscaping conversions affecting common areas not routine maintenance." | During her testimony, arguing that the scale of the project (2,500 sq ft) exceeded "routine" care. |
| Ron Stacy (Board President) | "The board shall be the sole judge as to the appropriate maintenance, repair and replacement… this makes it really clear the association is the entity that is authorized." | Citing Section 4.9 to justify the Board's unilateral decision-making regarding the landscape. |
| Kyle von Johnson (Counsel) | "4.6 only applies when there's a change in use… All that changed was the look of the property." | Opening statement defining the Association's narrow interpretation of "change of use." |
| Aaron Largo (Property Manager) | "Leaving general maintenance things up to a community vote, it's not a realistic process… nor would it be conducive to any type of productivity." | Testifying on the "debilitating" practical implications if every landscape change required a membership vote. |
| ALJ Kawasaki | "Section 4.6 cannot be interpreted to mean that ‘change of use’ included landscaping." | From the Conclusions of Law in the Final Decision, explaining why the maintenance sections take precedence. |
Actionable Insights
For Homeowners Associations (HOAs)
- Explicit CC&R References: When undertaking large-scale projects, Boards should explicitly cite the specific sections (e.g., Maintenance 8.2) that grant them authority to act without a vote to preempt "change of use" challenges.
- Documenting External Necessity: The use of City mandates and expert landscape architect CAD drawings helped the Respondent prove "good cause" for their actions.
- Utilizing Non-Binding Surveys: While the survey in this case was not legally binding, it provided significant evidence that the Board was acting in the "best interest of the members," which is a requirement for Board resolutions.
For Homeowners/Members
- Distinguishing Use from Aesthetics: The ruling clarifies that in this jurisdiction, "use" refers to the legal or zoning designation (e.g., "open space"), not the physical material (grass vs. rock) or the aesthetic character of the land.
- Focusing on Private vs. Common: Challenges to work done on private lots (like Lot 21) may be dismissed if the association has a documented responsibility to maintain or cure violations on those lots.
- Electoral Remedy: The Respondent's counsel noted that if members disagree with maintenance choices, their primary remedy is to "exercise her vote in the next board election," rather than litigation, provided the Board stays within its maintenance authority.
Hearing Summary Data
| Category | Detail |
|---|---|
| Case Number | 25F-H073-REL |
| Hearing Date | March 13, 2026 |
| Final Decision Date | May 28, 2026 |
| Prevailing Party | Respondent (Villas at Desert Camp Association) |
| Total Area in Dispute | Approximately 2,500 square feet |
| Key CC&R Sections | 4.6 (Change of Use), 4.9 (Board as Sole Judge), 8.2(c) (Landscape Authority) |
| Filing Fee Paid | $500.00 |
Legal Study Guide: Kay & William Long v. Villas at Desert Camp Association
This study guide provides a comprehensive overview of the administrative case No. 25F-H073-REL, heard before the Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). It focuses on the interpretation of homeowners association (HOA) governing documents, specifically regarding the distinction between "change of use" and "routine maintenance."
Case Overview
- Matter: Kay & William Long (Petitioners) v. Villas at Desert Camp Association (Respondent).
- Central Issue: Whether the Association's Board violated Section 4.6 of the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) by removing turf and installing desert landscaping in common areas without a membership vote.
- Outcome: The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the Respondent, determining that the turf conversion fell under the Board’s maintenance authority rather than "change of use."
Key Legal Concepts and CC&R Provisions
1. Section 4.6: Procedure for Change of Use of Common Areas
This section requires a formal procedure for the Board to change the use of common areas:
- Requirement: The Board must adopt a resolution stating the current use is no longer in the members' best interest.
- Approval: Requires a majority vote of each class of members at a meeting, or a written notice where no more than 10% of members object within 30 days.
- Consistency: The new use must be for the common benefit and consistent with zoning and deed restrictions.
2. Section 4.9: Areas of Association Responsibility
This provision establishes the Board's authority over the management of the property:
- The Association is responsible for managing, maintaining, repairing, and replacing "Areas of Association Responsibility."
- The Board is designated as the sole judge of what constitutes appropriate maintenance, repair, and replacement.
3. Section 8.2(c): Maintenance of Common Areas
This section grants the Board specific rights regarding landscaping without requiring owner approval:
- The Board may plant, replace, maintain, and cultivate landscaping, shrubs, trees, and plantings at any time.
- The Board has the right to replace injured or diseased vegetation.
- Under Section 8.2(c)(12), the Board is the sole judge of appropriate maintenance within both common areas and lots.
4. Definition of "Change of Use"
The central legal dispute involved how to define a change in "use":
- Petitioners' View: Argued that "use" refers to the appearance, character, function, or nature of the space. Removing grass used for recreation (walking dogs, children playing) and replacing it with rock/desertscape is a change of function.
- Respondent's View: Argued that "use" refers to zoning and legal designations. Changing "open space" to another "open space" (even with different plants) is not a change of use. A change of use would require a physical barrier or a new facility, such as a clubhouse or pickleball court.
- ALJ’s Ruling: Determined that because the CC&Rs explicitly grant the Board authority over landscaping and "cultivation" without approval, Section 4.6 cannot be interpreted to include landscaping changes.
Fact Summary: The Turf Conversion Project
| Feature | Details |
|---|---|
| Locations | Lot 21 (private residence at 9191 E. Overland Rd) and three common areas near villas 9191, 9179, and 9167. |
| Scale | Approximately 2,500 square feet of landscape conversion. |
| Justification | Water conservation mandates from the City of Scottsdale and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). |
| Financials | The project was recorded in reserve accounts as a "Capital Improvement," which Petitioners argued indicated it was more than routine maintenance. |
| Community Feedback | A survey found that 26 out of 30 respondents favored moving from grass to desert landscaping; 22 out of 30 felt a membership vote was not required for every transition. |
| Lot 21 Specifics | The conversion was triggered by a Master Association (DC Ranch) citation for dead grass caused by heavy tree shade and drainage issues. |
Short-Answer Practice Questions
- What was the specific allegation made by the Petitioners in their July 2025 filing?
- Answer: That the Board violated Section 4.6 by removing turf and installing desert landscaping in common areas without a properly noticed membership vote.
- According to Section 4.9, who is the "sole judge" of appropriate maintenance and repair?
- Answer: The Association Board.
- What external factors did the Board President cite as reasons for the turf reduction plan?
- Answer: Expected mandates from the City of Scottsdale and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR) to significantly reduce water consumption over five years.
- What is the "Tract" designation for the common areas at issue in the DC Ranch Parcel 2.8 plat?
- Answer: Tract C, designated as "open space."
- How did the ALJ define "use" in the final decision, and what source was cited?
- Answer: "A purpose, object, or end, esp. of a useful or advantageous nature," citing the Oxford English Dictionary.
- Why was the turf conversion on Lot 21 excluded from the final legal determination regarding Section 4.6?
- Answer: Lot 21 is a privately owned residence, and Section 4.6 explicitly applies only to "Common Areas."
- What was the result of the $8,000 rebate mentioned in the testimony?
- Answer: The Association's property manager secured an $8,000 rebate from the City of Scottsdale for performing the turf reductions.
- What physical examples did Aaron Largo provide to describe a true "change of use"?
- Answer: Converting an area into a community center, a pickleball court, or a gated sports area (anything creating a physical obstruction).
Essay Prompts for Deeper Exploration
- Maintenance vs. Substantial Alteration: Compare the language of Section 8.2 (Maintenance) with Section 4.6 (Change of Use). How does a Board distinguish between "cultivating" landscaping and "altering the character" of a common area? Use evidence from the ALJ's decision to support your argument.
- The Role of Fiduciary Duty and Transparency: The Board President testified about detailed minutes, annual meetings, red-flagging project areas, and conducting a survey. Analyze whether these actions satisfy the Board's duty to the members, even if a formal vote under Section 4.6 was not legally required.
- External Regulatory Pressures: Discuss how environmental mandates (like those from the ADWR or City of Scottsdale) influence the interpretation of HOA contracts. Should a Board be given more latitude to bypass membership votes when acting to comply with state or municipal water conservation goals?
- The Impact of CC&R Section 11.3: Section 11.3 states that common areas are intended "solely for aesthetic purposes and limited recreational use." How does this provision undermine the Petitioners' argument that the loss of grass for "walking and playing" constitutes a fundamental change in the use of the land?
Glossary of Important Terms
- ADWR: Arizona Department of Water Resources; the state agency responsible for water management.
- ALJ: Administrative Law Judge; the official who presides over an administrative hearing and issues a decision.
- Areas of Association Responsibility: Specific parts of the property that the HOA is legally obligated to manage, maintain, and repair.
- CAD Drawing: Computer-Aided Design drawing; used in this case by Desert Earth Works to plan irrigation and plant placement.
- CC&Rs: Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions; the governing documents that dictate the rules and rights within a planned community.
- Common Area: Property within a development that is owned or managed by the HOA for the use and benefit of all members.
- Continuance: A legal order to postpone a hearing to a later date.
- Desertscape (Xeriscape): Landscaping designed to reduce or eliminate the need for supplemental water from irrigation.
- OAH: Office of Administrative Hearings; the independent state agency in Arizona that conducts evidentiary hearings.
- Open Space: A land-use designation (like Tract B or C in the plat) intended to remain undeveloped and accessible.
- Petitioners: The parties bringing the complaint (in this case, the Longs).
- Respondent: The party responding to the complaint (in this case, the Villas at Desert Camp Association).
The Great Grass Debate: Navigating HOA Rights and "Change of Use" in Desert Landscaping
Introduction: A Neighborhood Divided over Turf
The adjudication of Kay & William Long vs. Villas at Desert Camp Association (No. 25F-H073-REL) provides a definitive case study in the evolving landscape of Arizona community governance. Heard before the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 32-2199.01, the dispute encapsulates the friction between a homeowner’s expectation of historical community aesthetics and a Board’s broad authority to manage landscaping for sustainability and regulatory compliance.
The central triable issue was whether the Association’s decision to remove approximately 2,500 square feet of turf and install desert landscaping (desertscape) constituted a "change of use." If so, under the community's governing documents, a full membership vote would have been a prerequisite. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) was tasked with a fundamental question: Does shifting from grass to rock change the purpose of the land, or is it merely an exercise of the Board’s maintenance duty of care?
The Catalyst: From Citations to Conservation
The project was not an arbitrary aesthetic pivot but a strategic response to external pressures and site-specific maintenance failures. Several factors served as the catalyst:
- Regulatory Citations: The Master Association (DC Ranch) issued formal citations regarding "dead grass" on Lot 21, a private residence within the Villas where Bermuda grass had become unsustainable.
- Conservation Mandates: The Board cited looming water conservation requirements from the City of Scottsdale and the Arizona Department of Water Resources (ADWR). The Association aimed for a 20% total water reduction to ensure long-term viability and to secure an $8,000 rebate from the City of Scottsdale.
- Professional Planning: Rather than a simple rock installation, the Board engaged "Desert Earth Works" to develop a sophisticated "Planting Palette" and CAD drawings to improve drainage and adhere to Master Association standards.
The areas affected included the front yard of Lot 21 and common areas (Tract C) situated in front of Villas 9191, 9179, and 9167.
The Homeowner’s Challenge: The Argument for Section 4.6
Petitioners Kay and William Long contended that the Board had bypassed mandatory democratic protocols. Their challenge relied on a specific interpretation of CC&R Section 4.6:
- Substantial Alteration: They argued that the removal of 2,500 square feet of grass was a "substantial alteration" to the community’s character and appearance.
- Functional Loss: The Longs argued the transition from grass to desertscape resulted in a loss of recreational utility. They maintained that while grass provided a space for grandchildren to play or residents to gather, the new "aesthetic" desertscape was non-functional.
- The Voting Requirement: Under their reading of Section 4.6, any change of this magnitude required a majority vote of the membership, which the Board did not conduct.
The Board’s Rejoinder: Maintenance Duty of Care
The Association’s defense rested on the distinction between "use" and "maintenance." They argued that the fundamental use of the land—open space—remained unchanged. To justify their authority, they relied on a "Statutory Harmonization" of several CC&R sections:
| CC&R Section 4.6 (Membership Rights) | CC&R Section 8.2(c) & 4.9 (Delegated Board Prerogative) |
|---|---|
| Trigger: Requires a vote only if the Board resolves that the "current use" is no longer in the best interest of members. | Authority: Grants the Board the right to "plant, replace, maintain, and cultivate" landscaping at any time without owner approval. |
| Scope: Pertains to changes in the "purpose, object, or end" of the land (e.g., from a park to a building). | Discretion: Designates the Board as the "sole judge" (Sections 4.9 and 8.2(12)) as to the appropriate maintenance of common areas. |
As evidence of community sentiment, the Board presented results from a resident survey conducted on February 5, 2024. The data showed 26 residents favored grass reduction (versus 4 opposed), and 22 residents specifically voted against requiring a formal membership vote for every landscaping change (versus 8 in favor).
Inside the Hearing: Key Evidence and Testimony
The hearing on March 13, 2026, delved into the operational definitions of governance.
- Defining "Use" vs. "Appearance": Property Manager Aaron Largo testified that a "change of use" typically involves a physical barrier or obstruction—such as converting open space into a gated pickleball court or a community center—that fundamentally alters access.
- The Professionalism Defense: The Board submitted CAD drawings and testimony regarding the "Planting Palette" to prove the conversion was a professionally designed modification intended to address soil saturation and tree shade issues, not an arbitrary reduction.
- The "Conspiracy" Rebuttal: The Petitioners alleged the Board intentionally shut off water to Lot 21 to kill the grass and force the conversion. Board President Ron Stacy provided a decisive rebuttal, testifying that he was not in the community from June through September, making the allegation of his personal involvement logistically impossible.
The Verdict: Why the HOA Prevailed
In the ALJ’s Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, the Association was deemed the prevailing party. The ruling hinged on three critical legal anchors:
1. The Definition of "Use" The ALJ defined "Use" as a "purpose, object, or end." Since the common areas remained "open space" before and after the conversion, no change of use occurred under Section 4.6.
2. The Section 11.3 "Aesthetic" Anchor A pivotal "smoking gun" in the ALJ’s logic was CC&R Section 11.3(2), which explicitly states that common areas are intended "solely for aesthetic purposes and limited recreational use." This allowed the judge to conclude that because the land’s primary purpose was already "aesthetic," a change from one aesthetic (grass) to another (desertscape) did not alter the land's underlying purpose.
3. Plat Designation (Tract C) The ALJ noted that the common areas were located in "Tract C" of the recorded plat, designated as "open space." As long as the areas remained open and accessible, the Board was operating within its maintenance authority. Under Sections 4.9 and 8.2(12), the Board was the "sole judge" of how to maintain that space.
Conclusion: Top Takeaways for Homeowners and Boards
The Long vs. Villas at Desert Camp decision clarifies the boundaries of Board discretion in an era of environmental transition:
- "Sole Judge" Clauses are Powerful: When CC&Rs designate the Board as the sole judge of maintenance, courts are hesitant to interfere unless there is a fundamental shift in the land’s purpose (e.g., from open space to a structure).
- Aesthetics Do Not Equal Use: A change in the "character" or "look" of a neighborhood—even a substantial one—is legally distinct from a "change of use."
- Good Faith Efforts Matter: While not legally binding as a "vote," the Board’s use of a resident survey on February 5, 2024, and the marking of areas with red flags for inspection demonstrated a "good faith" effort to maintain transparency.
- Professional Substantiation: Utilizing Landscape Design Architects and CAD drawings helps insulate Boards from claims that landscaping changes are arbitrary or retaliatory.
As water scarcity continues to drive policy in the Southwest, this case reinforces that sustainability-driven landscaping modifications generally fall under a Board’s maintenance prerogative, provided the land remains dedicated to its platted purpose.
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Kay Long (Petitioner)
Homeowner representing herself in the hearing - William Long (Petitioner)
Co-petitioner homeowner - Pam Dendrak (Witness)
DC Ranch Modification Committee
Called by petitioner to testify regarding landscaping modification requirements
Respondent Side
- Kyle von Johnson (Counsel)
CHBD Law
Attorney for Villas at Desert Camp Association - Allison Preston (Counsel)
CHBD Law
Attorney for Villas at Desert Camp Association - Bri Roberts (Counsel)
CHBD Law
Attorney for Villas at Desert Camp Association - Ron Stacy (Board President / Witness)
Villas at Desert Camp Association
Testified on behalf of the respondent association - Aaron Largo (Property Manager / Witness)
Villas at Desert Camp Association
Community manager for the sub-association
Neutral Parties
- Nedra-Su Kawasaki (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Presiding judge who authored the final decision - Kay Abramsohn (Administrative Law Judge)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Signed initial orders granting continuances - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Listed on the transmittal record for OAH documents