**Case Summary: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.**
**Case No.** 19F-H1919063-REL
**Forum:** Office of Administrative Hearings (Arizona)
**Date of Decision:** September 3, 2019

**Background and Facts**
Petitioner Marc D. Archer, a member of the PMPE Community Association in Glendale, Arizona, submitted plans in September 2017 to construct a garage addition. Although the Board initially issued preliminary approval, it withheld final approval upon learning that Archer intended to build a flat roof enclosed on all sides that would exceed the height of the adjoining 9-foot wall.

Archer's existing garage featured an arched (pitched) roof, but he wished to avoid a pitched roof on the addition. The Association Board notified Archer that he could construct a flat roof only if it was lower than the adjacent wall—and thus not "Visible From Neighboring Property"—pursuant to Article 1.34 of the community’s CC&Rs.

**Legal Issue**
Archer filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate (ADRE), alleging that the Association violated **A.R.S. § 33-1817(3)** by unreasonably withholding approval of his construction plans. The matter was referred for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the Board's denial was unreasonable,.

**Key Arguments**
* **Petitioner (Archer):** Archer argued that his design was harmonious with surrounding structures, noting that another side of his home featured a flat-top patio. He further alleged that the Association’s enforcement was arbitrary and discriminatory, claiming they had allowed other non-harmonious patios and failed to enforce rules against a neighbor who kept a kitchen countertop in their front yard for a year,.
* **Respondent (Association):** The Association denied the allegations of arbitrary enforcement. They argued that the denial was based on Section 4.4 of the Architectural Rules, which states that "pitched roofs predominate" as they are an important part of the visual environment. They maintained that requiring a pitched roof was reasonable to ensure the addition remained harmonious with Archer's existing pitched-roof garage.

**Findings and Conclusions of Law**
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson presided over the hearing. The decision was based on the following legal principles and findings:
* **Burden of Proof:** The burden was on the Petitioner to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the Association violated state law.
* **Contractual Obligations:** CC&Rs are treated as a contract between the parties, and their unambiguous terms must be enforced to effectuate the parties' intent.
* **Reasonableness:** While an association cannot unreasonably withhold approval, the evidence showed that PMPE's Architectural Rules explicitly encourage pitched roofs. The ALJ found that Archer’s plan for a visible flat roof was not harmonious with the surrounding structures, specifically his own existing garage.

The Judge determined that the Board reasonably concluded the plans were inconsistent with the CC&Rs and Architectural Rules. Consequently, Archer failed to prove that the Association acted unreasonably.

**Final Outcome**
The Administrative Law Judge ordered that the petition be **dismissed**. The Respondent, PMPE Community Association, Inc., was deemed the prevailing party.