Arroyo Mountain Estate HOA vs. Goebel: A Dispute Over Architectural Approval

Executive Summary

This document provides a comprehensive overview of the dispute between the Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association (HOA) and homeowners Rick and Elizabeth Goebel, culminating in an administrative law hearing on August 28, 2024. The central conflict revolves around the construction of a courtyard wall at the Goebels’ property, which the HOA alleged was unapproved and in violation of community guidelines.

The Goebels maintained that they followed all required procedures, submitting multiple revised applications at the HOA’s request, and ultimately received explicit, unconditional approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before commencing work. They argued that they built a “courtyard wall” in conformance with section 2.9 of the guidelines, which does not specify a height limit, and not a “pony wall,” which is restricted to 42 inches under section 2.24.

The HOA contended that the Goebels’ application was misleading due to a lack of critical details, specifically the wall’s 8-foot 8-inch height and a three-foot overhead hood. Key members of the ARC testified they understood the application to be for landscaping only and would have denied it had the full scope been clear. The HOA argued the constructed wall violates the spirit and letter of the guidelines intended to maintain community aesthetic uniformity.

The case concluded with a definitive ruling by an Administrative Law Judge on September 11, 2024. The judge denied the HOA’s petition, finding that they had not met their burden of proof. The decision highlighted that the Goebels had followed the prescribed process, justifiably relied on the ARC’s formal approval, and that the HOA’s month-long delay in issuing a stop-construction notice was unreasonable. The ruling deemed the ARC’s approval “tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines.”

The Core Dispute: The Courtyard Wall

The conflict centers on improvements made at the Goebels’ property, located at 5408 North Prescott Court (incorrectly listed multiple times in HOA documents as 5408 North Carson Court). The primary structure in question is a wall enclosing a front courtyard area, which the Goebels’ plans identified as a “courtyard wall.”

Alleged Violations by the HOA

The HOA’s petition alleged that the Goebels were in violation of two primary governing documents:

1. CC&Rs Article V, Section 5.22: This section requires homeowners to receive ARC approval before beginning any construction that alters the exterior appearance of a property, demanding that requests “Specify in detail the nature and extent of construction.”

2. Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines, Section 2.24: This section governs “Pony Walls and Courtyards,” stating that pony walls constructed in a front yard to form a courtyard “should be no higher than 42 inches.”

The HOA argued that the wall built by the Goebels, which reaches a height of approximately 8 feet 8 inches, is functionally a pony wall and therefore violates the 42-inch height restriction.

The Homeowner’s (Goebel) Position and Timeline

The Goebels’ defense was anchored in their assertion of procedural compliance, reliance on a formal approval, and a belief that they were being unfairly targeted.

Application and Approval Process

The timeline of the application process was a key element of the Goebels’ case:

Dec 30, 2022

Initial consolidated application for all improvements submitted via email.

Jan 3, 2023

Initial application denied with the instruction to “please resubmit separate applications for the different projects.”

Jan 3, 2023

Revised, separate applications submitted to the community manager, Katie Sand.

Jan 3, 2023

Additional comments received from Katie Sand requesting further changes.

Jan 3, 2023

Final revised applications submitted at 4:14 p.m. and notice of acceptance received at 4:26 p.m.

Jan 5, 2023

The ARC formally approved the applications, within 48 hours of submission, without requesting additional information.

Argument of Good Faith and Procedural Adherence

Mr. Goebel argued that he diligently followed the HOA’s process and could not have done more to ensure compliance.

“I follow the requirement of the architectural community prepared the application submitted the application via the appropriate application approval process and received approval. It’s unclear what I’m being violated for. It is unclear as to how I violated any part of the approval or constructed improvements not identified on the plan.” – Rick Goebel

He emphasized that the ARC, under its own guidelines, had the power to request more information if the application was deemed incomplete but chose not to, instead granting full approval. Elizabeth Goebel further stated, “they approved the application and we move forward with our approval… We still got the approval. We moved forward in good faith and constructed what we had done.”

Construction Timeline and HOA Response

• March 21, 2023: Engineering drawings submitted to Maricopa County.

• March 24, 2023: Technical approvals and permits issued by the county.

• April 7, 2023: Construction commenced.

• April 19, 2023: The wall reached its full height.

• May 12, 2023: Nearly one month after the wall was completed, the Goebels received a stop-construction notice from the HOA.

Claims of Targeted Harassment

Mr. Goebel testified that he felt his family and home were being targeted by board members, leading to significant distress and financial cost.

“Over the past 12 months, I’ve had to deal with continued harassment from our board… People drive past my home, take pictures of my home. John Conalo has driven past my home multiple times taking pictures of my home… I have people to drive by my home, take photos and post these photos online and generally disrupt the reasonable enjoyment of my property. I am of the opinion that me and my home are being targeted for these improvements by members of the board who are utilizing funds to support the basic attack.” – Rick Goebel

The Homeowners Association’s (HOA) Position

The HOA’s case, presented by attorney Daniel Francom, focused on the argument that the Goebels’ application was deficient and that any approval granted was therefore invalid for the wall as constructed.

Insufficient Detail and Misleading Application

The HOA argued the Goebels “failed to provide sufficient details” in their application.

• Wall Height: The plans did not specify the wall would be 8 feet 8 inches high.

• Overhead Hood: The plans did not clearly indicate a three-foot deep overhead structure above the gate.

• County Plans: The detailed plans submitted to Maricopa County, which included engineering reports and the exact wall height, were never provided to the HOA.

Board President John Consalvo testified that the application “showed nothing about a construction wall showing landscape application turned in.”

Architectural Committee’s Interpretation

ARC member Judy Oliver provided crucial testimony for the HOA, stating that the committee was misled by the application’s presentation.

• She testified that since the application was titled “revamping of landscaping,” she and other members “assumed that this was regarding landscaping only.”

• Regarding the wall itself, she stated, “I felt that that wall wasn’t even up for discussion at the time.”

• Crucially, she asserted that had the Goebels provided specifics for an 8-foot wall, the committee would have denied the project as it “counters the architectural guidelines.”

Violation of Guideline 2.24 (“Pony Walls”)

The HOA’s legal argument rested on classifying the Goebels’ structure under section 2.24. They argued that because the wall creates a courtyard, it should be considered a “pony wall” and is therefore subject to the 42-inch height limit, regardless of what the Goebels labeled it in their plans. They argued the wall “sticks out like a sore thumb” and that there are no other similar walls in the community.

Key Witness Testimony

Ms. Rozzo’s testimony significantly undermined the HOA’s position.

• Admission of Error: When asked if she noted the courtyard wall, she stated, “No, I absolutely missed it. I am completely honest about that. I have missed it just like we’ve missed other ones and nothing’s done about it.”

• Precedent of Inaction: She testified that the ARC had mistakenly approved “at least 15 to 20 homes” with non-compliant improvements and that “the HOA has never pursued them.” She cited unapproved walls, pavers, and concrete pads at other properties.

• Challenge to HOA’s Pursuit: She expressed surprise that the HOA was pursuing this case, stating that when she told John Consalvo that pursuing the Goebels meant they should pursue all other erroneous approvals, he “chuckled and said, ‘Mike, my neighbor,'” implying a neighbor of the board president also had unapproved improvements.

• Board Vote: Ms. Rozzo, who was also a board member for a short time, revealed that the decision to take action against the Goebels was not unanimous, with two of the five board members voting “no.”

Mr. Consalvo testified that the board’s function is to maintain the community and enforce HOA rules. He stated that the Goebels’ application did not provide the required detail for the courtyard wall, its height, or the overhead gate structure. He confirmed he took photos of the property and that, in his view, the wall as built did not conform to any approved application and should have been limited to 42 inches.

Ms. Oliver testified she had been on the ARC since 2017. She stated that the application was understood to be for landscaping and that the wall was not considered for approval due to the lack of detail. She testified that had the 8-foot height been specified, the application would have been denied.

The Final Decision: Administrative Law Judge Ruling

On September 11, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone issued a final, binding decision in the case (No. 24F-H050-REL).

Ruling

The Petitioner’s (HOA’s) petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.

Reasoning for the Decision

The judge provided a clear, multi-point rationale for siding with the Goebels:

1. Procedural Compliance: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC.”

2. Justifiable Reliance on Approval: The ARC had multiple opportunities to question the plans and did so on other matters. The judge concluded that Ms. Rozzo’s approval, even if she “missed it,” was a formal action on which the “Respondent justifiably relied… and moved ahead with construction.”

3. Approval as an Exception: The judge stated the formal approval “was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”

4. Unreasonable Delay by HOA: The judge found that for the HOA “to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”

5. Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge noted that “this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines,” referencing the testimony about other unpursued violations in the community.

Final Order

• The HOA’s petition was formally denied.

• The Respondent (Goebels) was not required to reimburse the HOA’s $500 filing fee.