Tag Archives: Filing Fee Refund

Elieen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 23F-H002-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-11-17
Administrative Law Judge Sondra J. Vanella
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $500.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Eileen Ahearn Counsel —
Respondent High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association Counsel Jason Smith, Esq.

Alleged Violations

HLR CCR 6.2.1 and HLR Association Rules: Nominating and Election Committee Mission and Procedures (approved 19 July 2021)

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge upheld the Petition, finding the Respondent HOA violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures by refusing to count otherwise valid couriered ballots and subsequent in-person attempts to vote at the July 5, 2022 Special Election. Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party and awarded the $500 filing fee refund, and the HOA was assessed a $500 civil penalty.

Key Issues & Findings

Denial of the right to vote in Removal/Recall Special Election

Petitioners alleged they were denied the right to vote in the July 5, 2022 Removal/Recall Special Election after their initial ballots (couriered prior to the meeting) were rejected for lacking a postmark, and their subsequent attempts to cast new ballots in person were rejected for reasons including 'double voting' or being 'too late.' The ALJ found the HOA violated its established election procedures.

Orders: The Petition was upheld, and Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party. Respondent was ordered to pay Petitioners their $500.00 filing fee and pay a civil penalty of $500.00 to the Department.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes, Civil penalty: $500.00

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • HLR CCR 6.2.1
  • Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Dispute, Election Violation, Voting Rights, CCNR, Recall Election, Filing Fee Refund, Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.04
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.09
  • HLR CCR 6.2.1
  • Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/20wrMO7dIOJYlU7OS8wGNN

Decision Documents

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1009442.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:47 (60.1 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 1013289.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:50 (127.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996298.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:54 (54.8 KB)

23F-H002-REL Decision – 996319.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:49:58 (7.5 KB)

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • ballots
  • couriers
  • voting rights

Question

What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?

Short Answer

Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.

Alj Quote

Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.

Legal Basis

Association Election Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • ballot validity
  • rules

Question

Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?

Short Answer

Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • fairness
  • HOA obligations

Question

If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?

Short Answer

No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.

Legal Basis

Voting Rights / Election Procedures

Topic Tags

  • in-person voting
  • ballot rejection
  • elections

Question

Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?

Short Answer

No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.

Alj Quote

Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.

Legal Basis

Fair Election Practices

Topic Tags

  • discrimination
  • deadlines
  • fairness

Question

What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?

Short Answer

The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • reimbursement

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • hearing process

Case

Docket No
23F-H002-REL
Case Title
Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2022-11-17
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

Can my HOA refuse to count a ballot simply because it was delivered by a courier or neighbor rather than mailed?

Short Answer

No. If the HOA's procedures do not explicitly forbid couriers and it has been past practice, they cannot reject ballots solely for lacking a postmark.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ ruled that the HOA violated its procedures by rejecting ballots placed in the ballot box prior to the election (via courier) simply because they lacked postmarks. The judge noted that the custodian of the box did not believe it was a problem and there was no reason for homeowners to believe they couldn't do so.

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to count Petitioners’ and other homeowners’ ballots that had been placed in the ballot box prior to the election… There was also no reason for Petitioners or the other homeowners to believe that they could not place their ballots in the ballot box prior to the election and have those ballots counted.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • ballots
  • couriers
  • voting rights

Question

What are valid reasons for an HOA to consider a ballot ineligible or spoiled?

Short Answer

Valid reasons typically include incorrect vote counts, unconfirmed ownership, illegibility, unsigned envelopes, or lack of good standing.

Detailed Answer

The decision outlines specific criteria for invalidating ballots found in the HOA's procedures. Arbitrary reasons not listed in the governing documents (like lack of a postmark when not required) are not valid grounds for rejection.

Alj Quote

Reasons a ballot may not be valid include incorrect number of votes, lot ownership cannot be confirmed, ballot is illegible, ballot envelope is not signed, or a member is not in good standing.

Legal Basis

Association Election Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • ballot validity
  • rules

Question

Is the HOA obligated to try to count votes rather than looking for reasons to disqualify them?

Short Answer

Yes. If the election procedures state that every effort will be made to count votes to ensure fairness, the HOA must adhere to that standard.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ cited the HOA's own mission statement which promised to make every effort to count votes. Rejecting ballots for minor procedural issues (like lacking a postmark) when the voters are present and eligible violates this obligation.

Alj Quote

Respondent’s Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures state that 'every effort will be made to count as many votes as possible assuring a fair, open and honest election.' This was not the case at the July 5, 2022 Special Election.

Legal Basis

Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures

Topic Tags

  • elections
  • fairness
  • HOA obligations

Question

If my mailed ballot is rejected, can the HOA prevent me from voting in person at the meeting?

Short Answer

No. If you are present at the meeting and your absentee ballot is rejected, the HOA should allow you to cast a replacement ballot.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ found a violation when the HOA refused to accept in-person ballots from homeowners whose courier ballots were rejected. The decision noted that these ballots were not ineligible for any valid reason (like lack of standing).

Alj Quote

Respondent violated its Nominating and Elections Committee Mission and Procedures when the Elections Committee Chair… refused to accept in-person ballots at the meeting, notwithstanding that those ballots could not be considered ineligible ballots.

Legal Basis

Voting Rights / Election Procedures

Topic Tags

  • in-person voting
  • ballot rejection
  • elections

Question

Can the HOA enforce a voting deadline strictly against some owners but not others?

Short Answer

No. It is a violation to tell some owners they are 'too late' while allowing others to vote after the deadline.

Detailed Answer

The decision noted that while the Petitioners were told voting was closed at 6:00 PM and they were 'too late,' another homeowner was allowed to place a ballot in the box at 6:15 PM.

Alj Quote

Homeowner Jeffrey Knox personally handed in his ballot at the meeting by placing it in the ballot box at approximately 6:15 p.m., notwithstanding that voting supposedly closed at 6:00 p.m.

Legal Basis

Fair Election Practices

Topic Tags

  • discrimination
  • deadlines
  • fairness

Question

What penalties can an HOA face if they are found to have violated election rules?

Short Answer

The HOA may be ordered to refund the homeowner's filing fee and pay a civil penalty to the Department of Real Estate.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the ALJ ordered the HOA to pay $500 to the petitioners (reimbursement) and a $500 civil penalty to the state.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00… IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that… Respondent shall pay to the Department a civil penalty in the amount of $500.00

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • reimbursement

Question

What is the 'burden of proof' for a homeowner in an administrative hearing?

Short Answer

The homeowner must prove the violation by a 'preponderance of the evidence,' meaning it is more likely than not that the violation occurred.

Detailed Answer

The decision defines the evidentiary standard required for the petitioners to win their case.

Alj Quote

Petitioners bear the burden of proof to establish that Respondent committed the alleged violation(s) by a preponderance of the evidence… 'A preponderance of the evidence is such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.'

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)

Topic Tags

  • legal standards
  • burden of proof
  • hearing process

Case

Docket No
23F-H002-REL
Case Title
Eileen Ahearn and Robert Barfield v. High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
Decision Date
2022-11-17
Alj Name
Sondra J. Vanella
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Eileen Ahearn (petitioner)
  • Robert Barfield (petitioner)
  • Randy Kling (witness / former board member)
    Testified for Petitioners. Also referred to as Randy Clling/Clean.
  • Claire Peachey (witness / election committee member)
    Testified for Petitioners. Custodian of the ballot box.
  • Joyce Green (witness)
    Testified for Petitioners.
  • Jeffrey Knox (witness)
    Testified for Petitioners. Property owner who received rejected ballots.

Respondent Side

  • Jason Smith (HOA attorney)
    Smith & Wamsley PLLC
  • Nancy Sakarelli (board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Board President; appeared virtually.
  • Corinthia Pangalinan (former board president / board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Subject of recall petition; responded to original complaint.
  • Becky Hilgart (Election Committee Chair / board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Subject of recall petition. Also referred to as Rebecca Kilgart/Gilgart/Elart.
  • Tommy Smith (Election Committee Volunteer / property owner)
    Involved in denying votes.
  • Wally Oliday (board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Subject of recall petition.
  • Amanda Miller (board member)
    High Lonesome Ranch Estates Property Owners Association
    Subject of recall petition.

Neutral Parties

  • Sondra J. Vanella (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    OAH staff transmitting documents.
  • c. serrano (Administrative Staff)
    Staff transmitting documents.
  • AHansen (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • labril (ADRE Staff)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate

Other Participants

  • Edna Barton (observer)
    On the line during the hearing.
  • Jill Burns (observer)
    Present in the hearing room.
  • John Kron (observer)
    Present in the hearing room.
  • Stacy (board director)
    Director mentioned in meeting agenda.
  • Deborah Bonesac (property owner)
    Referenced in testimony regarding past courier procedures.
  • Billy McFarland (board member)
    Subject of previous recall election.

M&T Properties LLC v. Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2222060-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-09-06
Administrative Law Judge Tammy L. Eigenheer
Outcome total
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner M&T Properties LLC Counsel Lucas Thomas, Owner
Respondent Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association Counsel David Rivandi, Director

Alleged Violations

Section 6.7 of the First Amendment to the Amended and Restated Declaration of Condominium and of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Kivas Uno Condominium

Outcome Summary

The Petitioner prevailed on the singular issue raised: Respondent (HOA) was found to be in violation of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs for failing to retain a duly licensed property management agent at the time the petition was filed. The HOA was ordered to reimburse the $500 filing fee and comply with the CC&Rs moving forward. No civil penalty was imposed.

Key Issues & Findings

Professional Management

Respondent (HOA) acknowledged that as of the date the Petition was filed (June 6, 2022), it did not retain or maintain a Managing Agent who is duly licensed by the State of Arizona as a property manager, which violated Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs.

Orders: Respondent was ordered to reimburse Petitioner the $500.00 filing fee and was directed to comply with the requirements of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs going forward.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Analytics Highlights

Topics: CCNR violation, Property Management, Filing Fee Refund, No Civil Penalty
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.
  • A.R.S. § 33-1248
  • A.R.S. § 33-1258
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119

Video Overview

Audio Overview

https://open.spotify.com/episode/4FXJWGa1ZgJsdQCw7AE6RR

Decision Documents

22F-H2222060-REL Decision – 997254.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:48:47 (87.5 KB)

Questions

Question

If my HOA fixes a violation after I file a formal complaint, do I still win the case?

Short Answer

Yes. If the violation existed at the time the petition was filed, the homeowner can still prevail.

Detailed Answer

Even if an HOA corrects the issue before the hearing date, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) looks at whether the violation existed at the time the legal action commenced. The homeowner is entitled to a finding in their favor and reimbursement of fees if the violation was active when filed.

Alj Quote

Respondent is asserting that they have since hired a management company. That's great. There's still a admitted violation at the time of the petition which results in the finding against respondent and the requirement to repay the filing fee.

Legal Basis

Admission of violation at time of filing

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • mootness
  • remedies

Question

Can I bring up new issues during the hearing that I forgot to include in my written petition?

Short Answer

No. The hearing is strictly limited to the issues specifically raised in the original petition.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ will typically refuse to hear arguments regarding issues that were not included in the initial filing. If a homeowner has additional complaints, they must file a separate petition to address them.

Alj Quote

The parties attempted to raise and discuss numerous issues unrelated to the single issue raised in the Petition. … In the event there is a subsequent petition raising other issues that will be dealt dealt with in a separate proceeding.

Legal Basis

Scope of hearing

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • due process
  • hearing scope

Question

Is the HOA Board allowed to use 'we didn't know' as a defense for violating the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

No. Ignorance of the CC&R requirements is not a valid defense against a violation finding.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Board asserted they were unaware of the requirement to hire a professional manager. The ALJ noted this assertion but still found them in violation of the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Mr. Rivandi asserted the Board did not know they were required to have a professional management company… The failure to retain and maintain a Managing Agent was a violation of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Strict liability for CC&R compliance

Topic Tags

  • board defenses
  • compliance
  • fiduciary duty

Question

Can I get my $500 filing fee back if the HOA admits they were wrong?

Short Answer

Yes. If the homeowner prevails on the issue, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

When a violation is found (or admitted to) regarding the issue raised in the petition, the standard remedy includes ordering the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner for the cost of filing the action.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner its $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which they prevailed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

Will the HOA always be fined a penalty if they are found guilty of a violation?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ has the discretion to decide whether a civil penalty is appropriate based on the facts.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is proven, the judge may choose not to impose a civil penalty (fine) against the HOA, potentially if the HOA has already taken steps to correct the issue.

Alj Quote

Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Judicial discretion on penalties

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must show that their claim is 'more probable than not' based on the evidence provided. This is the standard burden of proof in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222060-REL
Case Title
M&T Properties LLC vs Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2022-09-06
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Questions

Question

If my HOA fixes a violation after I file a formal complaint, do I still win the case?

Short Answer

Yes. If the violation existed at the time the petition was filed, the homeowner can still prevail.

Detailed Answer

Even if an HOA corrects the issue before the hearing date, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) looks at whether the violation existed at the time the legal action commenced. The homeowner is entitled to a finding in their favor and reimbursement of fees if the violation was active when filed.

Alj Quote

Respondent is asserting that they have since hired a management company. That's great. There's still a admitted violation at the time of the petition which results in the finding against respondent and the requirement to repay the filing fee.

Legal Basis

Admission of violation at time of filing

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • mootness
  • remedies

Question

Can I bring up new issues during the hearing that I forgot to include in my written petition?

Short Answer

No. The hearing is strictly limited to the issues specifically raised in the original petition.

Detailed Answer

The ALJ will typically refuse to hear arguments regarding issues that were not included in the initial filing. If a homeowner has additional complaints, they must file a separate petition to address them.

Alj Quote

The parties attempted to raise and discuss numerous issues unrelated to the single issue raised in the Petition. … In the event there is a subsequent petition raising other issues that will be dealt dealt with in a separate proceeding.

Legal Basis

Scope of hearing

Topic Tags

  • procedure
  • due process
  • hearing scope

Question

Is the HOA Board allowed to use 'we didn't know' as a defense for violating the CC&Rs?

Short Answer

No. Ignorance of the CC&R requirements is not a valid defense against a violation finding.

Detailed Answer

In this case, the Board asserted they were unaware of the requirement to hire a professional manager. The ALJ noted this assertion but still found them in violation of the CC&Rs.

Alj Quote

Mr. Rivandi asserted the Board did not know they were required to have a professional management company… The failure to retain and maintain a Managing Agent was a violation of Section 6.7 of the CC&Rs.

Legal Basis

Strict liability for CC&R compliance

Topic Tags

  • board defenses
  • compliance
  • fiduciary duty

Question

Can I get my $500 filing fee back if the HOA admits they were wrong?

Short Answer

Yes. If the homeowner prevails on the issue, the ALJ can order the HOA to reimburse the filing fee.

Detailed Answer

When a violation is found (or admitted to) regarding the issue raised in the petition, the standard remedy includes ordering the Respondent (HOA) to reimburse the Petitioner for the cost of filing the action.

Alj Quote

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent reimburse Petitioner its $500.00 filing fee for the issue on which they prevailed.

Legal Basis

A.R.S. § 32-2199 et seq.

Topic Tags

  • fees
  • reimbursement
  • costs

Question

Will the HOA always be fined a penalty if they are found guilty of a violation?

Short Answer

No. The ALJ has the discretion to decide whether a civil penalty is appropriate based on the facts.

Detailed Answer

Even if a violation is proven, the judge may choose not to impose a civil penalty (fine) against the HOA, potentially if the HOA has already taken steps to correct the issue.

Alj Quote

Based on the facts presented, the Administrative Law Judge finds no civil penalty is appropriate in this matter.

Legal Basis

Judicial discretion on penalties

Topic Tags

  • penalties
  • fines
  • enforcement

Question

What level of proof is required for a homeowner to win an HOA dispute?

Short Answer

Preponderance of the evidence.

Detailed Answer

The homeowner (Petitioner) must show that their claim is 'more probable than not' based on the evidence provided. This is the standard burden of proof in these administrative hearings.

Alj Quote

In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated A.R.S. § 33-1248 and A.R.S. § 33-1258.

Legal Basis

A.A.C. R2-19-119

Topic Tags

  • evidence
  • burden of proof
  • legal standards

Case

Docket No
22F-H2222060-REL
Case Title
M&T Properties LLC vs Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association
Decision Date
2022-09-06
Alj Name
Tammy L. Eigenheer
Tribunal
OAH
Agency
ADRE

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Lucas Thomas (Petitioner Representative)
    M&T Properties LLC
    Owner, appeared on behalf of Petitioner.

Respondent Side

  • David Rivandi (Board Member/Respondent Representative)
    Kivas Uno Homeowners’ Association
    Director, appeared on behalf of Respondent. Confirmed being on the board of directors.

Neutral Parties

  • Tammy L. Eigenheer (ALJ)
    OAH
    Also referred to as Tammy Idier, Administrative Law Judge.
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
    Transmitted the order.

Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl v. Sabino Vista Townhouse

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 22F-H2221009-REL-RHG
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-04-25
Administrative Law Judge Velva Moses-Thompson
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Sam & Pipper O' Shaughnessy Stangl Counsel —
Respondent Sabino Vista Townhouse Association Counsel Nathan Tennyson

Alleged Violations

Article VI of the CC&Rs

Outcome Summary

The Administrative Law Judge deemed Petitioners the prevailing party. Respondent HOA violated Article VI of the CC&Rs by failing to maintain and remove rubbish from the natural desert area within the Common Area up to the exterior building lines, as the Board's determination not to maintain the area lacked proper authority without a CC&R amendment. The Respondent was ordered to comply with the CC&Rs and refund the Petitioners' filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

HOA maintenance obligations for common area up to exterior building lines

Petitioners alleged the HOA failed to maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures, specifically a natural desert area within the Common Area. The ALJ found that the CC&Rs require the Association to maintain and remove all rubbish within its property up to the exterior building lines, and the Board lacked the authority to refuse maintenance of the natural desert area without amending the CC&Rs.

Orders: Respondent is ordered to comply with the requirements of Article VI of the CC&Rs going forward and must pay Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00 within thirty (30) days.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • Article VI of the CC&Rs
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA Maintenance, CC&R Interpretation, Common Area Maintenance, Filing Fee Refund, Prevailing Party
Additional Citations:

  • A.R.S. § 32-2199(B)
  • A.R.S. § 33-1803
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.07(G)(2)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(A)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(1)
  • A.A.C. R2-19-119(B)(2)
  • Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553, 556 ¶ 9, 125 P.3d 373, 376 (2006)
  • Lookout Mountain Paradise Hills Homeowners’ Ass’n v. Viewpoint Assocs., 867 P.2d 70, 75 (Colo. App. 1993)
  • A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(B)
  • A.R.S. § 41-1092.08(H)
  • A.R.S. § 12-904(A)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221009-REL-RHG Decision – 959583.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:19 (49.7 KB)

22F-H2221009-REL-RHG Decision – 964651.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:21 (18.7 KB)

22F-H2221009-REL-RHG Decision – 964655.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:24 (99.7 KB)

22F-H2221009-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2221009-REL/927714.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:27 (95.3 KB)

22F-H2221009-REL-RHG Decision – ../22F-H2221009-REL/927747.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:29 (37.5 KB)





Briefing Doc – 22F-H2221009-REL-RHG


Stangl v. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association: A Dispute Over Common Area Maintenance

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the key facts, arguments, and legal decisions in the administrative case of Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl versus the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association. The central conflict revolves around the Association’s legal obligation, as defined by its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), to maintain a common area behind the Petitioners’ property.

The Petitioners alleged that the Association violated Article 6 of its CC&Rs by failing to maintain this area for over two decades, resulting in the accumulation of rubbish and the creation of a habitat for pests. The Association countered that the area in question was designated “natural desert” to serve as a buffer, and that maintaining it was not required and would be cost-prohibitive.

An initial hearing in November 2021 resulted in a decision in favor of the Petitioners. The Association was granted a rehearing, which took place in April 2022. Despite new arguments from the Association regarding budget constraints, historical precedent, and alleged interference by the Petitioners, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) upheld the original decision.

The final ruling on April 25, 2022, found that the language of CC&R Article 6 is unambiguous and requires the Association to maintain “all property up to the exterior building lines.” The ALJ concluded that the Board of Directors does not have the authority to unilaterally designate a common area as “unmaintained” without formally amending the CC&Rs. Consequently, the Association was ordered to comply with Article 6 and reimburse the Petitioners’ filing fee.

Case Overview

Case Name

Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl, Petitioners, vs. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association, Respondent.

Case Numbers

22F-H2221009-REL (Initial Hearing)
22F-H2221009-REL-RHG (Rehearing)

Adjudicating Body

Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

Administrative Law Judge

Velva Moses-Thompson

Key Dates

Petition Filed: August 6, 2021
Initial Hearing: November 8, 2021
Initial Decision: November 29, 2021
Rehearing: April 4, 2022
Final Decision: April 25, 2022

The Central Allegation: Violation of CC&R Article 6

The dispute is founded on the interpretation of Article 6 of the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association’s CC&Rs concerning “Common Maintenance.”

Key Provisions of Article 6:

• Maintenance Obligation: “The Association, or its duly authorized representative, shall maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures including but not limited to the landscaping… roofs, common elements, decorative walls, drainage… and be responsible for the rubbish removal of all areas within the common properties.”

• Standard of Care: “The Board of Directors of the Association shall use a reasonably high standard of care in providing for the repair, management and maintenance of said property, so that said townhouse project will reflect high pride of ownership.”

Petitioners’ Core Claim: Filed on August 6, 2021, the petition alleged that the Association violated Article 6 by failing to maintain the property behind their townhome unit. They asserted this neglect had persisted for the approximately 24 years they had lived there, leading to overgrowth and pest infestations.

The First Hearing and Decision (November 2021)

Summary of Arguments

• Petitioners (Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl):

◦ Alleged observing only 12 hours of landscaping work in their immediate back area over 24 years.

◦ Claimed the accumulated rubbish and overgrowth served as a habitat for pests, specifically mentioning “a pack rat for rattlesnakes.”

◦ Submitted a photograph of a rattlesnake skin found in their backyard as evidence.

• Respondent (Sabino Vista Townhouse Association):

◦ Testimony was provided by Charles Taylor Ostermeyer, secretary of the Board of Directors.

◦ Argued the area in question is a “natural desert area and underbrush” that begins 30 to 40 feet behind the homes.

◦ Initially claimed the Board had adopted a rule limiting maintenance to just 4 feet behind residences, citing Board meeting minutes. However, when pressed by the ALJ, Ostermeyer conceded that believing a formal rule was adopted “would be conjecture on my part.”

◦ Asserted it would be too costly to clear the entire region.

◦ Contended that the decision not to maintain the open desert area was a valid exercise of the “business judgment rule” applicable to non-profit organizations.

November 29, 2021 Decision

The ALJ, Velva Moses-Thompson, ruled in favor of the Petitioners.

• Finding: The preponderance of the evidence showed the Respondent failed to maintain the property as required by the unambiguous language of Article 6.

• Reasoning: The Respondent provided “no evidence of an Amendment to Article VI” and “no evidence of a rule properly adopted by the Board that would limit the common area to be maintained.”

• Order: The Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party, and the Association was ordered to reimburse their $500 filing fee and comply with Article 6 going forward.

The Rehearing and Final Decision (April 2022)

The Association’s request for a rehearing was granted, with the new hearing held on April 4, 2022. The Association was represented by Nathan Tennyson, Esq., and presented testimony from John Polasi, a Board member and Chairman of the Landscape Committee.

Rehearing Testimony and Arguments

Petitioner Arguments (Sam O’ Shaughnessy Stangl)

Respondent Arguments (John Polasi, HOA Board)

Core Issue is Deflection: Argued the Association’s narrative was a “deflection from the main issue.” Stated the HOA focused on irrelevant topics to circumvent the court’s correct original ruling.

Area is a “Natural Buffer”: The unmaintained area has existed since 1974 and serves as a natural buffer from Tanque Verde Creek, keeping wildlife out and preventing hikers/bikers from wandering into the neighborhood.

Tree Trimming Incident: Claimed the HOA falsely accused him of “singlehandedly” stopping all tree trimming. Clarified a December 2021 interaction with a contractor (Leon’s Tree Service) lasted only 30 seconds, where he refused permission to cut three shade branches in his private front courtyard.

Petitioner Hindrance: Alleged the Petitioners actively hindered tree trimming in December 2021 by refusing the contractor entry into their courtyard and blocking their driveway with an SUV to prevent the trimming of a low-hanging branch.

Pest Infestations: Maintained that pests are a significant problem, citing a recent rattlesnake sighting on his birthday (March 21) and his personal removal of “252 packrats in the last three years.”

Pest Control is Managed: Stated the HOA contracts “Mr. Packrat” to inspect the entire property quarterly. Polasi testified he had been chairman for a year and had “never heard of a single pack rider or rattlesnake anywhere.”

Misuse of Common Area: Dismissed accusations of misusing the common area as “pure deflection.” He stated his use (grilling, sitting outdoors) was adjudicated in court 18 years prior and found to be in compliance with CC&Rs.

Petitioner Misuse of Common Area: Accused the Petitioners of violating CC&Rs by placing personal items (barbecue, smoker, tables, chairs) in the common area and cutting a hole in their patio wall for water and electric lines.

Developer’s Intent: Cited a statement from Dale Chastine, the original developer, asserting the CC&Rs were written to “strictly forbid any unfettered wild growth” and require all common areas to be maintained in the same manner.

Board Authority and Historical Precedent: Cited 2020 Board Minutes that formally designated the area “35 ft to the south of southern homeowner rear wall” as “unmaintained natural desert landscape.” Referenced 1999 minutes indicating a 4-foot maintenance rule was previously in place.

New Issues: Attempted to introduce new evidence regarding a “complete drainage channel that… is now buried under debris and soil,” but the ALJ did not admit it as it was a new allegation not in the original petition.

Budgetary Constraints: Argued that maintaining the entire two-to-four-acre area would be excessively expensive. He noted the HOA had recently spent $15,000 on front-area tree trimming and $10,000 on tree repairs, and had other costs like a new pool pump.

April 25, 2022 Final Decision

The ALJ again ruled in favor of the Petitioners, affirming the initial decision.

• Core Conclusion: “Although the Board determined that it would not maintain the natural desert, the Board does not have authority under its CC&Rs to refuse to maintain any of the area of its property up to the exterior building lines.”

• Legal Reasoning: The CC&Rs are unambiguous and require the Association to maintain and remove rubbish from all property within its boundaries, including the area designated as “natural desert.”

• Path Forward for HOA: The ALJ explicitly stated, “If the Association does not want to maintain any area within its property up to the exterior building lines, the Association should amend its CC&Rs.”

• Final Order: The order from the November 29, 2021 decision was reiterated: Petitioners were deemed the prevailing party, the Respondent was ordered to pay the $500 filing fee, and the Respondent was directed to comply with Article VI of the CC&Rs.






Study Guide – 22F-H2221009-REL-RHG


Stangl v. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association: A Case Study Guide

This study guide provides a comprehensive review of the administrative case between homeowners Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl and the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association. It includes a short-answer quiz with a corresponding answer key, a set of essay questions for deeper analysis, and a glossary of key terms found within the case documents.

——————————————————————————–

Short Answer Quiz

Instructions: Answer the following questions in 2-3 sentences, using only information provided in the source documents.

1. What was the central violation alleged by the Petitioners in their August 6, 2021, petition?

2. According to Article 6 of the CC&Rs, what is the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association’s responsibility regarding property maintenance?

3. In the first hearing on November 8, 2021, what was the Respondent’s primary argument for not maintaining the area behind the Petitioners’ home?

4. What was the outcome of the first Administrative Law Judge Decision issued on November 29, 2021?

5. Who testified for the Respondent at the April 4, 2022, rehearing, and what were his roles within the Association?

6. What two historical documents did the Respondent present at the rehearing to support its maintenance policy for the area in question?

7. Describe the Respondent’s accusation against the Petitioners regarding the tree trimming service in December 2021.

8. What strategic reasons did the Respondent’s witness, John Polasi, give for leaving the desert area unmaintained?

9. In the final decision of April 25, 2022, why did the Administrative Law Judge rule against the Association despite its evidence of a board-approved maintenance plan?

10. What specific orders were issued to the Respondent in the final court decision?

——————————————————————————–

Answer Key

1. The Petitioners alleged that the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association violated Article 6 of its Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). Specifically, they claimed the Association failed to maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior lines and patio enclosures, focusing on the unkempt two-acre area behind their townhome.

2. Article 6 requires the Association to “maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures.” This includes landscaping, common elements, and rubbish removal, and mandates that the Board of Directors use a “reasonably high standard of care” so the project reflects a high pride of ownership.

3. In the first hearing, the Respondent argued that it had applied the “business judgment rule” applicable to non-profit organizations. The Association contended it would be too costly to clear out the entire region, which it described as an open desert area with many trees and weeds.

4. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found the Petitioners to be the prevailing party. The ALJ ordered the Respondent to comply with Article 6 of the CC&Rs going forward and to pay the Petitioners their filing fee of $500.00.

5. John Polasi testified for the Respondent at the rehearing. He was identified as a member of the Respondent’s Board of Directors and the Chairman of the Landscaping Committee.

6. The Respondent presented minutes from a Board Meeting in February 1999, which stated that only 4 feet behind residences were maintained, with the remainder left natural. They also presented minutes from a 2020 Board Meeting that revised this policy, designating an area 35 feet from the southern homeowner walls as the maintenance boundary.

7. The Respondent alleged that the Petitioners interfered with and prevented a tree trimming project conducted by Leon’s Tree Service. The witness claimed the Petitioners refused entry into their front patio to trim overhanging limbs and moved a vehicle into their driveway to block the work.

8. John Polasi testified that the unmaintained desert area serves as a “natural buffer.” He stated it keeps animals from the adjacent Tanque Verde Creek area from coming onto homeowner property and also prevents bikers and hikers from wandering into the neighborhood.

9. The ALJ ruled that although the Board had determined it would not maintain the natural desert area, the Board does not have the authority under its CC&Rs to refuse maintenance. The judge concluded that the CC&Rs require the Association to maintain all property up to the exterior lines and that if the Association wishes to change this, it must formally amend its CC&Rs.

10. The final order deemed the Petitioners the prevailing party and directed the Respondent to pay the Petitioners’ $500.00 filing fee within thirty days. It further ordered the Respondent to comply with the requirements of Article VI of the CC&Rs going forward.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

Instructions: The following questions are designed for essay-length responses to encourage a deeper analysis of the case. Answers are not provided.

1. Analyze the legal reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge in both the initial and final decisions. Why was Article 6 of the CC&Rs consistently interpreted as unambiguous, and how did this interpretation override the Respondent’s “business judgment” defense and subsequent board resolutions?

2. Compare and contrast the evidence and arguments presented by the Respondent in the first hearing versus the rehearing. How did the Association’s defense strategy evolve, and what new evidence did it introduce in the second hearing?

3. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. Using specific examples from the testimony and exhibits, explain how the Petitioners met this burden of proof and why the Respondent’s affirmative defenses failed to meet the same standard in both hearings.

4. Examine the tension between a homeowners’ association’s governing documents (like CC&Rs) and the operational decisions made by its Board of Directors. How does this case illustrate the limits of a Board’s authority to interpret or modify its responsibilities without formally amending the core documents?

5. Evaluate the various pieces of evidence introduced during the rehearing, such as the Board Minutes from 1999 and 2020, the letter from Leon’s Tree Service, and the attempted introduction of the developer’s affidavit. What role did each piece of evidence play in shaping the arguments, and why was some evidence given more weight or deemed inadmissible by the judge?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Definition

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

An independent judge who presides over administrative hearings, makes findings of fact, and issues decisions and orders. In this case, the ALJ was Velva Moses-Thompson.

Affidavit

A written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court. An affidavit from the original developer, Dale Chastain, was presented but not admitted into evidence.

Affirmative Defense

A defense in which the defendant introduces evidence that, if found to be credible, will negate liability, even if it is proven that the defendant committed the alleged acts.

Arizona Dept. of Real Estate

The state agency authorized by statute to receive and decide Petitions for Hearings from members of homeowners’ associations in Arizona.

Business Judgment Rule

A legal principle that grants directors of a corporation (or non-profit association) immunity from liability for losses incurred in corporate transactions if the directors acted in good faith. This was used as a defense by the Respondent in the first hearing.

Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions. These are the governing legal documents that set up the rules for a planned community or subdivision. The interpretation of Article 6 of the CC&Rs was the central issue of the case.

Common Area

Property in a planned community that is owned by the homeowners’ association and intended for the use and enjoyment of all members. The dispute centered on the maintenance of a common area behind the Petitioners’ home.

Conjecture

An opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. A witness for the Respondent admitted his belief about a maintenance rule was “conjecture.”

Evidentiary Hearing

A formal proceeding where parties present evidence and testimony before a judge to resolve a disputed issue.

Homeowners’ Association (HOA)

An organization in a subdivision, planned community, or condominium building that makes and enforces rules for the properties and its residents. In this case, the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association.

Office of Administrative Hearings

An independent state agency in Arizona where evidentiary hearings are conducted by Administrative Law Judges.

Petitioners

The party that files a petition to initiate a legal proceeding. In this case, Sam & Pipper O’ Shaughnessy Stangl.

Preponderance of the Evidence

The standard of proof in most civil cases, defined as “such proof as convinces the trier of fact that the contention is more probably true than not.” The Petitioners had the burden of proving their case by this standard.

Rehearing

A second hearing of a case, granted upon request, to reconsider the original decision. The April 4, 2022, hearing was a rehearing, treated as a “complete and new hearing.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed. In this case, the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association.

Restrictive Covenant

A provision in a deed or other legal document that limits the use of real property. The court noted that unambiguous restrictive covenants are enforced to give effect to the intent of the parties.

Riparian Area

An area of land adjacent to a river or stream. The Respondent’s witness described the community as being in a riparian area next to Tanque Verde Creek.






Blog Post – 22F-H2221009-REL-RHG


He Sued His HOA Over Landscaping and Won. They Demanded a Do-Over. He Won Again. Here Are the Lessons.

Introduction: The David vs. Goliath Tale of a Homeowner and His HOA

For many homeowners, dealing with a Homeowners Association (HOA) can feel like a constant struggle. Disputes over rules, maintenance, and responsibilities are common frustrations. But what happens when a homeowner believes their HOA is fundamentally failing to uphold its end of the bargain?

This is the story of Sam O’ Shaughnessy Stangl, a homeowner who took his HOA to court over its failure to maintain a common area behind his home. The outcome was surprising enough: he won. But when the HOA was granted a complete “do-over” hearing to re-argue the case from scratch, he won a second time.

This case, Stangl vs. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association, offers a powerful case study in the hierarchy of governing documents and the legal principle of plain language in contract law. Here are the surprising and powerful lessons from the repeated legal victory that every homeowner should know.

1. An HOA Board Vote Can’t Override Its Own Founding Documents

The HOA’s core defense was that its Board of Directors had made a decision to leave the area behind the homes as an “unmaintained natural desert.” This argument, however, proved legally insufficient across two separate hearings.

In the first hearing, board secretary Charles Taylor Ostermeyer testified that the board had decided to limit maintenance. However, when pressed by the judge, he admitted that claiming this decision was a formal “rule” would be “conjecture on my part.” For the rehearing, the association presented board member John Polaski, who formalized the argument, claiming the unmaintained area served as a “natural buffer.” To support this, they presented minutes from a 2020 board meeting, arguing that the board’s decision recorded in those minutes effectively created a new policy for that common area.

In both instances, the Administrative Law Judge delivered a decisive counter-ruling. The judge found that the association’s primary governing documents—the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs)—were the superior legal authority. A simple board vote recorded in meeting minutes could not nullify the binding requirements of the CC&Rs. The judge’s final order from the rehearing was unequivocal:

Although the Board determined that it would not maintain the natural desert, the Board does not have authority under its CC&Rs to refuse to maintain any of the area of its property up to the exterior building lines. … If the Association does not want to maintain any area within its property up to the exterior building lines, the Association should amend its CC&Rs.

This is a critical lesson for every homeowner. The CC&Rs function as a legally binding contract between the association and its members. A simple board resolution, a new rule, or a long-standing “tradition” cannot legally contradict the foundational covenants.

2. When the Contract is Clear, “All” Simply Means All

The entire case ultimately hinged on a single sentence in Article VI of the Sabino Vista Townhouse Association CC&Rs. This piece of text was so clear and powerful that the judge cited it as the deciding factor in both the original hearing and the rehearing. The language stated:

“The Association, or its duly authorized representative, shall maintain and otherwise manage all property up to the exterior building lines and patio enclosures including but not limited to the landscaping…”

The HOA attempted to argue around this plain language. Its representatives claimed that maintaining the entire area was too costly, that it had been unmaintained since the community was built in 1974, and that it was a “riparian area” (land adjacent to a river or stream) that should be left wild.

In both hearings, the judge rejected these arguments. The word “all” was not open to interpretation. The language of the CC&Rs was unambiguous and therefore had to be enforced as it was written. This illustrates a fundamental legal principle: when contract language is clear, arguments about convenience, cost, or past practice often fail when pitted against the plain text of a governing legal document.

3. Facts are Stubborn, Even in a “Complete New Hearing”

In a highly unusual procedural twist, after losing the first hearing in November 2021, the HOA was granted a “re-hearing” in April 2022. This was not an appeal, which reviews an original decision for errors, but a complete strategic reset. The judge explained its legal significance:

“And this is a re-hearing. So it is a complete and new hearing. … as if the first hearing didn’t happen.”

The HOA used this second chance to launch a new strategy. While the first hearing’s defense centered on cost and a vague, unwritten policy, the second hearing featured a new witness and a new, two-pronged approach: formalizing the “natural buffer” argument and adding an ad hominem strategy that attempted to portray Mr. Stangl as an uncooperative resident who had personally interfered with tree trimming.

But while the HOA’s tactics shifted, the central fact of the case could not be changed. The text of the CC&Rs was the same in April 2022 as it was in November 2021. The final outcome was identical to the first. The judge once again ruled in favor of the homeowner, ordering the HOA to comply with its own CC&Rs and to reimburse Mr. Stangl’s $500 filing fee.

This demonstrates a key legal reality: while procedural tactics can create new opportunities for argument, they cannot alter the foundational text of a contract. The HOA’s strategy shifted, but the CC&Rs—the central fact of the case—remained immutable.

Conclusion: A Final Takeaway for Every Homeowner

The case of Stangl vs. Sabino Vista Townhouse Association offers three profound takeaways for homeowners: the CC&Rs are supreme over board decisions, the plain language of those documents is incredibly powerful, and a fact-based argument is resilient. It serves as a potent reminder that an association’s governing documents are not just suggestions—they are enforceable contracts.

The next time you question an HOA policy, will you stop at their latest newsletter, or will you go back to the source?


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Sam O' Shaughnessy Stangl (petitioner)
  • Pipper O' Shaughnessy Stangl (petitioner)
  • Dale Chastain (witness)
    Original developer, provided affidavit/statement
  • Lisa Chastain (witness)
    Witness who signed affidavit

Respondent Side

  • Blake R. Johnson (HOA attorney)
    The Brown Law Group, PLLC
    Appeared at initial hearing
  • Nathan Tennyson (HOA attorney)
    The Brown Law Group, PLLC
    Appeared at rehearing
  • Charles Taylor Ostermeyer (board member)
    Sabino Vista Townhouse Association
    Secretary; witness at initial hearing
  • John Polasi (board member)
    Sabino Vista Townhouse Association
    Chairman of Landscaping Committee; witness at rehearing
  • Leon (contractor/witness)
    Leon's Tree Service
    Hired by Respondent

Neutral Parties

  • Velva Moses-Thompson (ALJ)
    OAH
  • Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
    ADRE
  • AHansen (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • djones (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • DGardner (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • vnunez (ADRE staff)
    ADRE
  • c. serrano (admin staff)
    Transmitted order
  • Miranda Alvarez (admin staff)
    Transmitted order

Other Participants

  • Barbara Barski (property manager)
    Former manager, referenced in testimony

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 928659.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:06 (39.6 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 943581.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:10 (37.9 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 953334.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:13 (45.2 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL Decision – 958716.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:16 (124.7 KB)





Study Guide – 21F-H2121040-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “21F-H2121040-REL”, “case_title”: “Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2022-03-30”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA unreasonably refuse to approve my architectural plans?”, “short_answer”: “No, state law prohibits the unreasonable withholding of approval for construction projects.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law explicitly states that an HOA cannot unreasonably withhold approval for architectural designs, plans, or amendments. If an HOA denies a request, the denial must be based on reasonable grounds supported by the community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3) provides that “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.””, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural review”, “homeowner rights”, “statutory compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to give me a written reason if they deny my project?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, failing to provide a written reason for denial can be considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this dispute, a prior decision established that the HOA violated the law by failing to provide the homeowner with a written explanation for denying preliminary approval. The homeowner must be informed of the specific basis for the decision.”, “alj_quote”: “In a Decision dated December 3, 2020, the ALJ in that matter determined that the Association had violated its CC&Rs and section 33-1817(B)(3) because it did not provide Mr. Archer with a written reason for denying preliminary approval.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedural requirements”, “due process”, “denial notices” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my request based on a rule that isn’t written down?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no. If the architectural rules do not explicitly prohibit a specific material or method, the HOA may be acting outside its authority to deny it.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA acted outside its authority by denying a request to paint roof tiles because the architectural rules (ARs) did not explicitly prohibit painting tiles, whereas other sections of the rules explicitly prohibited other specific materials (like vinyl siding).”, “alj_quote”: “Regarding the second basis for denial, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”, “legal_basis”: “Scope of Authority”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement authority”, “architectural rules”, “unwritten rules” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove the case if I file a petition against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner alleging the violation is responsible for providing evidence that supports their claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Archer bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my project because they think it doesn’t ‘harmonize’ with the neighborhood?”, “short_answer”: “Only if they can prove it will ‘dominate or sharply contrast’ with the community.”, “detailed_answer”: “While rules often require harmony, this is interpreted to mean the project should not dominate or contrast sharply. If the evidence shows the project shares features (like roof pitch) with other homes, a denial based on lack of harmony may be unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “AR section 1.1 shows that improvements are to harmonize with the community, “rather than to dominate and/or contrast sharply with it.” … There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.”, “legal_basis”: “Community Documents (AR Section 1.1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “aesthetics”, “harmony”, “architectural standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I get my filing fee back if I win against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the homeowner prevails, the HOA can be ordered to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law allows the prevailing party in an HOA dispute to recover the filing fee. In this case, because the ALJ ordered the HOA to approve the design, the HOA was also ordered to pay the petitioner’s $500 fee.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association also must pay to Mr. Archer his $500 filing fee. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “filing fees” ] }, { “question”: “Does hiring an architect to review my plans help my case?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, professional opinions stating your plans comply with the rules can be strong evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner presented an affidavit from a registered architect who reviewed the plans and rules, concluding the design was compliant. This evidence helped refute the HOA’s claims that the design lacked architectural elements.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Bragg concluded that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs. He noted that the proposed second floor matched the existing architecture and that the “lowered roof height is stepped below the existing second floor roof line….””, “legal_basis”: “Evidence Weight”, “topic_tags”: [ “expert testimony”, “evidence”, “architectural review” ] }, { “question”: “What if the HOA’s denial letter is confusing or lists reasons as just ‘advisory’?”, “short_answer”: “The judge will look at the actual reasons for denial, even if the HOA categorizes them poorly.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA listed some reasons for denial under a section labeled ‘advisory.’ The ALJ noted this was confusing but still analyzed whether those reasons were valid grounds for denial. The confusion did not prevent the judge from ruling the denial was unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association’s reasons for denial are arguably not clear because it included two of its three reasons in a portion of the denial notice that was advisory only. Nevertheless, Mr. Archer presented sufficient evidence to show that none of the three reasons is reasonable.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness Standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “denial notices”, “administrative review”, “confusion” ] } ] }






Blog Post – 21F-H2121040-REL


{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “21F-H2121040-REL”, “case_title”: “Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.”, “decision_date”: “2022-03-30”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA unreasonably refuse to approve my architectural plans?”, “short_answer”: “No, state law prohibits the unreasonable withholding of approval for construction projects.”, “detailed_answer”: “Arizona law explicitly states that an HOA cannot unreasonably withhold approval for architectural designs, plans, or amendments. If an HOA denies a request, the denial must be based on reasonable grounds supported by the community documents.”, “alj_quote”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3) provides that “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.””, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “architectural review”, “homeowner rights”, “statutory compliance” ] }, { “question”: “Is the HOA required to give me a written reason if they deny my project?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, failing to provide a written reason for denial can be considered a violation of the statute.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this dispute, a prior decision established that the HOA violated the law by failing to provide the homeowner with a written explanation for denying preliminary approval. The homeowner must be informed of the specific basis for the decision.”, “alj_quote”: “In a Decision dated December 3, 2020, the ALJ in that matter determined that the Association had violated its CC&Rs and section 33-1817(B)(3) because it did not provide Mr. Archer with a written reason for denying preliminary approval.”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 33-1817(B)(3)”, “topic_tags”: [ “procedural requirements”, “due process”, “denial notices” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my request based on a rule that isn’t written down?”, “short_answer”: “Generally no. If the architectural rules do not explicitly prohibit a specific material or method, the HOA may be acting outside its authority to deny it.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA acted outside its authority by denying a request to paint roof tiles because the architectural rules (ARs) did not explicitly prohibit painting tiles, whereas other sections of the rules explicitly prohibited other specific materials (like vinyl siding).”, “alj_quote”: “Regarding the second basis for denial, the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”, “legal_basis”: “Scope of Authority”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement authority”, “architectural rules”, “unwritten rules” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove the case if I file a petition against my HOA?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the homeowner alleging the violation is responsible for providing evidence that supports their claim by a preponderance of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Archer bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred. The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “A.A.C. R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal standards”, “hearing procedures” ] }, { “question”: “Can the HOA deny my project because they think it doesn’t ‘harmonize’ with the neighborhood?”, “short_answer”: “Only if they can prove it will ‘dominate or sharply contrast’ with the community.”, “detailed_answer”: “While rules often require harmony, this is interpreted to mean the project should not dominate or contrast sharply. If the evidence shows the project shares features (like roof pitch) with other homes, a denial based on lack of harmony may be unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “AR section 1.1 shows that improvements are to harmonize with the community, “rather than to dominate and/or contrast sharply with it.” … There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.”, “legal_basis”: “Community Documents (AR Section 1.1)”, “topic_tags”: [ “aesthetics”, “harmony”, “architectural standards” ] }, { “question”: “Can I get my filing fee back if I win against the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the homeowner prevails, the HOA can be ordered to reimburse the filing fee.”, “detailed_answer”: “State law allows the prevailing party in an HOA dispute to recover the filing fee. In this case, because the ALJ ordered the HOA to approve the design, the HOA was also ordered to pay the petitioner’s $500 fee.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association also must pay to Mr. Archer his $500 filing fee. ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A).”, “legal_basis”: “A.R.S. § 32-2199.02(A)”, “topic_tags”: [ “penalties”, “reimbursement”, “filing fees” ] }, { “question”: “Does hiring an architect to review my plans help my case?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, professional opinions stating your plans comply with the rules can be strong evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The homeowner presented an affidavit from a registered architect who reviewed the plans and rules, concluding the design was compliant. This evidence helped refute the HOA’s claims that the design lacked architectural elements.”, “alj_quote”: “Mr. Bragg concluded that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs. He noted that the proposed second floor matched the existing architecture and that the “lowered roof height is stepped below the existing second floor roof line….””, “legal_basis”: “Evidence Weight”, “topic_tags”: [ “expert testimony”, “evidence”, “architectural review” ] }, { “question”: “What if the HOA’s denial letter is confusing or lists reasons as just ‘advisory’?”, “short_answer”: “The judge will look at the actual reasons for denial, even if the HOA categorizes them poorly.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA listed some reasons for denial under a section labeled ‘advisory.’ The ALJ noted this was confusing but still analyzed whether those reasons were valid grounds for denial. The confusion did not prevent the judge from ruling the denial was unreasonable.”, “alj_quote”: “The Association’s reasons for denial are arguably not clear because it included two of its three reasons in a portion of the denial notice that was advisory only. Nevertheless, Mr. Archer presented sufficient evidence to show that none of the three reasons is reasonable.”, “legal_basis”: “Reasonableness Standard”, “topic_tags”: [ “denial notices”, “administrative review”, “confusion” ] } ] }


Case Participants

Petitioner Side

  • Marc Archer (petitioner)
  • Greg Hancock (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner, works in building industry
  • Dr. Victor Zach (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner, lives across the street from Petitioner
  • Dan Earlie (witness)
    Witness for Petitioner, experienced in homebuilding and HOA boards
  • Thomas Bragg (architect/witness)
    Registered architect hired by Petitioner

Respondent Side

  • Nicholas C. S. Nogami (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP
  • Keith Kauffman (board member/witness)
    PMPE Community Association, Inc.
    President and long-time board member of the Association
  • Gail Zigler (property manager/witness)
    Community manager for the Association
  • Mr. Sasser (committee member/neighbor)
    Mentioned as an opponent to the addition
  • Carlotta L. Turman (HOA attorney)
    Carpenter Hazlewood Delgado & Bolen LLP

Neutral Parties

  • Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
  • Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Tammy L. Ikenberg (ALJ/Hearing Officer)
    Office of Administrative Hearings
    ALJ in prior related proceedings (19F-H1919063-REL, 20F-H2020063-REL)
  • Claire Miller (Preserve Park Supervisor)
    City Parks and Recreation

Other Participants

  • AHansen (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • vnunez (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • djones (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • DGardner (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • tandert (unknown)
    Arizona Department of Real Estate
  • Miranda Alvarez (unknown)
    Clerical staff noted on transmission records (also Miranda A)
  • c. serrano (unknown)
    Clerical staff noted on transmission records
  • Dr. Smith (unknown)
    House used for a meeting location

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2




Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key themes, evidence, and legal proceedings in the administrative case Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2121040-REL). The central conflict revolves around Petitioner Marc Archer’s proposal for a two-story addition to his home, which was denied by the Respondent, the PMPE Community Association’s Architectural Committee (AC). Mr. Archer alleged this denial was an unreasonable withholding of approval, violating Arizona statute § 33-1817(B)(3).

The case is marked by a protracted history, including a previous denial for a different one-story design in 2019 and an earlier ruling in this matter (December 2020) that found the Association had violated its own procedures by not providing a written reason for its April 2020 denial. This procedural failure led to a formal denial letter on December 30, 2020, which became the central focus of the subsequent hearings.

The Association cited three primary reasons for the denial: 1) the addition lacked harmony with the existing structure, resembling a “large box”; 2) the proposal to use painted roof tiles was unacceptable; and 3) the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat expanses.

Mr. Archer countered with extensive evidence, including testimony from building industry experts and a registered architect, arguing that the design was harmonious, incorporated numerous architectural details found on the existing house, and that the Association’s objections were unfounded and inconsistent. The proceedings revealed significant confusion stemming from the Association’s denial letter, which conflated mandatory reasons for denial with what it later claimed were “advisory only” suggestions.

Ultimately, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden ruled in favor of Mr. Archer. The March 30, 2022 decision concluded that the Association’s reasons for denial were unreasonable and not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the project and reimburse Mr. Archer’s $500 filing fee. A subsequent request for rehearing by the Association was withdrawn, making the ALJ’s decision final.

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• 2019 Denial (One-Story Design): Mr. Archer first sought approval for a one-story garage with a flat roof. The Association denied final approval. In a decision dated September 3, 2019 (Docket 19F-H1919063-REL), an ALJ concluded the Association had not violated the statute, noting the architectural rules favored pitched roofs and the structure would be visible above a nine-foot wall.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• April 10, 2020 Denial (No Written Basis): The Association’s Architectural Committee (AC) denied the proposal during a conference call but failed to provide a written basis for the denial, as required by its own rules.

• December 3, 2020 ALJ Decision (Procedural Violation): In response to a petition filed by Mr. Archer, an ALJ determined the Association had violated its CC&Rs and the state statute by not providing a written reason for denial. The decision explicitly noted it was not a finding on the merits of the architectural design itself.

• December 30, 2020 Written Denial: The Association issued a formal written response outlining its reasons for denial. This document’s confusing structure, with separate sections for “reasons for denial” and “comments… for resubmittal,” became a major point of contention.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman elaborated that the addition was akin to “building a structure and then attaching that structure instead of… building an addition to his home.” Key issues he identified were that the new roofline did not blend into the existing second-story roof and that the structure connected to the house at only two points. The committee felt it would not look like it “was there from the beginning.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman argued that because AR Section 4.4 does not explicitly state that painted tiles are acceptable, they are therefore not acceptable. He stated, “[The committee] didn’t feel that in this kind of development… that is not an acceptable… way to… tile one’s roof.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Argument: The denial stated, “There needs to be architectural elements per pop out in windows etc. Prim to break up expanses and add ‘architectural expression’ to the addition as outlined in 4.2.”

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Existing Elements: He demonstrated that the proposed addition incorporated numerous features already present on his house, including stucco pop-outs, soffit details, and eave designs. During cross-examination of Mr. Kauffman, Mr. Archer used photographs to establish that pop-outs, which the committee initially claimed were not present elsewhere on the house, did in fact exist near the bay windows.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

◦ Thomas Bragg, a registered architect, concluded in a sealed affidavit that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs, noting the design “matched the existing architecture” and was “varied and does not present any large unbroken wall areas with the blended details.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Painted Tiles: He provided evidence that painting roof tiles is no different than painting stucco, as both are cement-based products. Furthermore, he noted that the ARs do not contain any prohibition on painting tiles, whereas other materials like vinyl siding are explicitly prohibited. During the hearings, he also indicated he may have located matching tiles, potentially rendering the issue moot.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

• However, this section contained two of the three official reasons for denial (roof tiles and architectural elements) and included the statement that the addition “will be limited to a single story,” which Mr. Kauffman later admitted under questioning was not a firm requirement.

• The ALJ noted this created significant confusion: “At the hearing, Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of bullets was advisory only, which was not clear to Mr. Archer until the hearing.”

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

• A prior ALJ decision found that during the April 10, 2020 conference call, “at least two members expressed their concerns with how Petitioner was planning to use the new addition. Specifically, the members were concerned Petitioner was going to accumulate more ‘junk’.”

• In the current hearing, Mr. Archer played an audio recording where a prior judge asked Mr. Kauffman, “Is there anything in the architectural guidelines that says how a structure is going to be used should affect whether or not it’s approved?”

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

Mr. Kauffman repeatedly testified that the approval process is intended to be collaborative, yet acknowledged that no discussions occurred after the April 2020 denial. The Association’s stance was that Mr. Archer failed to engage, while Mr. Archer felt he was facing a “moving target.” The ALJ highlighted the lack of clarity from the Association, which hindered any potential collaboration. The judge expressed surprise at the need to clarify that the existing house must be considered in the review:

“I don’t see how you could possibly make a decision without taking the house into consideration. And I apologize… that just strikes me as so self-evident that… I’m surprised we we’ve had to have it out.” – ALJ Thomas Shedden

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

The decision found that Mr. Archer had met his burden of proof to show the Association unreasonably withheld approval. The ALJ systematically dismantled each of the Association’s reasons for denial:

1. Harmony: “There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.” The judge noted that other houses have more than one roofline, making the proposed addition consistent with the neighborhood.

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.


Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by
Note: A Rehearing was requested for this case. The dashboard statistics reflect the final outcome of the rehearing process.

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2




Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key themes, evidence, and legal proceedings in the administrative case Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2121040-REL). The central conflict revolves around Petitioner Marc Archer’s proposal for a two-story addition to his home, which was denied by the Respondent, the PMPE Community Association’s Architectural Committee (AC). Mr. Archer alleged this denial was an unreasonable withholding of approval, violating Arizona statute § 33-1817(B)(3).

The case is marked by a protracted history, including a previous denial for a different one-story design in 2019 and an earlier ruling in this matter (December 2020) that found the Association had violated its own procedures by not providing a written reason for its April 2020 denial. This procedural failure led to a formal denial letter on December 30, 2020, which became the central focus of the subsequent hearings.

The Association cited three primary reasons for the denial: 1) the addition lacked harmony with the existing structure, resembling a “large box”; 2) the proposal to use painted roof tiles was unacceptable; and 3) the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat expanses.

Mr. Archer countered with extensive evidence, including testimony from building industry experts and a registered architect, arguing that the design was harmonious, incorporated numerous architectural details found on the existing house, and that the Association’s objections were unfounded and inconsistent. The proceedings revealed significant confusion stemming from the Association’s denial letter, which conflated mandatory reasons for denial with what it later claimed were “advisory only” suggestions.

Ultimately, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden ruled in favor of Mr. Archer. The March 30, 2022 decision concluded that the Association’s reasons for denial were unreasonable and not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the project and reimburse Mr. Archer’s $500 filing fee. A subsequent request for rehearing by the Association was withdrawn, making the ALJ’s decision final.

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• 2019 Denial (One-Story Design): Mr. Archer first sought approval for a one-story garage with a flat roof. The Association denied final approval. In a decision dated September 3, 2019 (Docket 19F-H1919063-REL), an ALJ concluded the Association had not violated the statute, noting the architectural rules favored pitched roofs and the structure would be visible above a nine-foot wall.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• April 10, 2020 Denial (No Written Basis): The Association’s Architectural Committee (AC) denied the proposal during a conference call but failed to provide a written basis for the denial, as required by its own rules.

• December 3, 2020 ALJ Decision (Procedural Violation): In response to a petition filed by Mr. Archer, an ALJ determined the Association had violated its CC&Rs and the state statute by not providing a written reason for denial. The decision explicitly noted it was not a finding on the merits of the architectural design itself.

• December 30, 2020 Written Denial: The Association issued a formal written response outlining its reasons for denial. This document’s confusing structure, with separate sections for “reasons for denial” and “comments… for resubmittal,” became a major point of contention.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman elaborated that the addition was akin to “building a structure and then attaching that structure instead of… building an addition to his home.” Key issues he identified were that the new roofline did not blend into the existing second-story roof and that the structure connected to the house at only two points. The committee felt it would not look like it “was there from the beginning.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman argued that because AR Section 4.4 does not explicitly state that painted tiles are acceptable, they are therefore not acceptable. He stated, “[The committee] didn’t feel that in this kind of development… that is not an acceptable… way to… tile one’s roof.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Argument: The denial stated, “There needs to be architectural elements per pop out in windows etc. Prim to break up expanses and add ‘architectural expression’ to the addition as outlined in 4.2.”

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Existing Elements: He demonstrated that the proposed addition incorporated numerous features already present on his house, including stucco pop-outs, soffit details, and eave designs. During cross-examination of Mr. Kauffman, Mr. Archer used photographs to establish that pop-outs, which the committee initially claimed were not present elsewhere on the house, did in fact exist near the bay windows.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

◦ Thomas Bragg, a registered architect, concluded in a sealed affidavit that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs, noting the design “matched the existing architecture” and was “varied and does not present any large unbroken wall areas with the blended details.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Painted Tiles: He provided evidence that painting roof tiles is no different than painting stucco, as both are cement-based products. Furthermore, he noted that the ARs do not contain any prohibition on painting tiles, whereas other materials like vinyl siding are explicitly prohibited. During the hearings, he also indicated he may have located matching tiles, potentially rendering the issue moot.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

• However, this section contained two of the three official reasons for denial (roof tiles and architectural elements) and included the statement that the addition “will be limited to a single story,” which Mr. Kauffman later admitted under questioning was not a firm requirement.

• The ALJ noted this created significant confusion: “At the hearing, Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of bullets was advisory only, which was not clear to Mr. Archer until the hearing.”

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

• A prior ALJ decision found that during the April 10, 2020 conference call, “at least two members expressed their concerns with how Petitioner was planning to use the new addition. Specifically, the members were concerned Petitioner was going to accumulate more ‘junk’.”

• In the current hearing, Mr. Archer played an audio recording where a prior judge asked Mr. Kauffman, “Is there anything in the architectural guidelines that says how a structure is going to be used should affect whether or not it’s approved?”

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

Mr. Kauffman repeatedly testified that the approval process is intended to be collaborative, yet acknowledged that no discussions occurred after the April 2020 denial. The Association’s stance was that Mr. Archer failed to engage, while Mr. Archer felt he was facing a “moving target.” The ALJ highlighted the lack of clarity from the Association, which hindered any potential collaboration. The judge expressed surprise at the need to clarify that the existing house must be considered in the review:

“I don’t see how you could possibly make a decision without taking the house into consideration. And I apologize… that just strikes me as so self-evident that… I’m surprised we we’ve had to have it out.” – ALJ Thomas Shedden

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

The decision found that Mr. Archer had met his burden of proof to show the Association unreasonably withheld approval. The ALJ systematically dismantled each of the Association’s reasons for denial:

1. Harmony: “There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.” The judge noted that other houses have more than one roofline, making the proposed addition consistent with the neighborhood.

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.


Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2




Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key themes, evidence, and legal proceedings in the administrative case Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2121040-REL). The central conflict revolves around Petitioner Marc Archer’s proposal for a two-story addition to his home, which was denied by the Respondent, the PMPE Community Association’s Architectural Committee (AC). Mr. Archer alleged this denial was an unreasonable withholding of approval, violating Arizona statute § 33-1817(B)(3).

The case is marked by a protracted history, including a previous denial for a different one-story design in 2019 and an earlier ruling in this matter (December 2020) that found the Association had violated its own procedures by not providing a written reason for its April 2020 denial. This procedural failure led to a formal denial letter on December 30, 2020, which became the central focus of the subsequent hearings.

The Association cited three primary reasons for the denial: 1) the addition lacked harmony with the existing structure, resembling a “large box”; 2) the proposal to use painted roof tiles was unacceptable; and 3) the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat expanses.

Mr. Archer countered with extensive evidence, including testimony from building industry experts and a registered architect, arguing that the design was harmonious, incorporated numerous architectural details found on the existing house, and that the Association’s objections were unfounded and inconsistent. The proceedings revealed significant confusion stemming from the Association’s denial letter, which conflated mandatory reasons for denial with what it later claimed were “advisory only” suggestions.

Ultimately, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden ruled in favor of Mr. Archer. The March 30, 2022 decision concluded that the Association’s reasons for denial were unreasonable and not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the project and reimburse Mr. Archer’s $500 filing fee. A subsequent request for rehearing by the Association was withdrawn, making the ALJ’s decision final.

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• 2019 Denial (One-Story Design): Mr. Archer first sought approval for a one-story garage with a flat roof. The Association denied final approval. In a decision dated September 3, 2019 (Docket 19F-H1919063-REL), an ALJ concluded the Association had not violated the statute, noting the architectural rules favored pitched roofs and the structure would be visible above a nine-foot wall.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• April 10, 2020 Denial (No Written Basis): The Association’s Architectural Committee (AC) denied the proposal during a conference call but failed to provide a written basis for the denial, as required by its own rules.

• December 3, 2020 ALJ Decision (Procedural Violation): In response to a petition filed by Mr. Archer, an ALJ determined the Association had violated its CC&Rs and the state statute by not providing a written reason for denial. The decision explicitly noted it was not a finding on the merits of the architectural design itself.

• December 30, 2020 Written Denial: The Association issued a formal written response outlining its reasons for denial. This document’s confusing structure, with separate sections for “reasons for denial” and “comments… for resubmittal,” became a major point of contention.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman elaborated that the addition was akin to “building a structure and then attaching that structure instead of… building an addition to his home.” Key issues he identified were that the new roofline did not blend into the existing second-story roof and that the structure connected to the house at only two points. The committee felt it would not look like it “was there from the beginning.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman argued that because AR Section 4.4 does not explicitly state that painted tiles are acceptable, they are therefore not acceptable. He stated, “[The committee] didn’t feel that in this kind of development… that is not an acceptable… way to… tile one’s roof.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Argument: The denial stated, “There needs to be architectural elements per pop out in windows etc. Prim to break up expanses and add ‘architectural expression’ to the addition as outlined in 4.2.”

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Existing Elements: He demonstrated that the proposed addition incorporated numerous features already present on his house, including stucco pop-outs, soffit details, and eave designs. During cross-examination of Mr. Kauffman, Mr. Archer used photographs to establish that pop-outs, which the committee initially claimed were not present elsewhere on the house, did in fact exist near the bay windows.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

◦ Thomas Bragg, a registered architect, concluded in a sealed affidavit that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs, noting the design “matched the existing architecture” and was “varied and does not present any large unbroken wall areas with the blended details.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Painted Tiles: He provided evidence that painting roof tiles is no different than painting stucco, as both are cement-based products. Furthermore, he noted that the ARs do not contain any prohibition on painting tiles, whereas other materials like vinyl siding are explicitly prohibited. During the hearings, he also indicated he may have located matching tiles, potentially rendering the issue moot.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

• However, this section contained two of the three official reasons for denial (roof tiles and architectural elements) and included the statement that the addition “will be limited to a single story,” which Mr. Kauffman later admitted under questioning was not a firm requirement.

• The ALJ noted this created significant confusion: “At the hearing, Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of bullets was advisory only, which was not clear to Mr. Archer until the hearing.”

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

• A prior ALJ decision found that during the April 10, 2020 conference call, “at least two members expressed their concerns with how Petitioner was planning to use the new addition. Specifically, the members were concerned Petitioner was going to accumulate more ‘junk’.”

• In the current hearing, Mr. Archer played an audio recording where a prior judge asked Mr. Kauffman, “Is there anything in the architectural guidelines that says how a structure is going to be used should affect whether or not it’s approved?”

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

Mr. Kauffman repeatedly testified that the approval process is intended to be collaborative, yet acknowledged that no discussions occurred after the April 2020 denial. The Association’s stance was that Mr. Archer failed to engage, while Mr. Archer felt he was facing a “moving target.” The ALJ highlighted the lack of clarity from the Association, which hindered any potential collaboration. The judge expressed surprise at the need to clarify that the existing house must be considered in the review:

“I don’t see how you could possibly make a decision without taking the house into consideration. And I apologize… that just strikes me as so self-evident that… I’m surprised we we’ve had to have it out.” – ALJ Thomas Shedden

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

The decision found that Mr. Archer had met his burden of proof to show the Association unreasonably withheld approval. The ALJ systematically dismantled each of the Association’s reasons for denial:

1. Harmony: “There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.” The judge noted that other houses have more than one roofline, making the proposed addition consistent with the neighborhood.

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.


Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Decision Documents

21F-H2121040-REL-RHG Decision – 980535.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:29:50 (46.7 KB)

21F-H2121040-REL-RHG Decision – 983516.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-09T17:29:53 (38.4 KB)

Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on by

Case Summary

Case ID 21F-H2121040-REL
Agency ADRE
Tribunal OAH
Decision Date 2022-03-30
Administrative Law Judge Thomas Shedden
Outcome full
Filing Fees Refunded $500.00
Civil Penalties $0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner Marc Archer Counsel —
Respondent PMPE Community Association, Inc. Counsel Nicholas C. S. Nogami

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1817(B)(3)

Outcome Summary

The Association unreasonably withheld approval for Marc Archer's two-story garage addition, thereby violating ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3). The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the design and refund the $500 filing fee.

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

The Association unreasonably withheld preliminary approval for the Petitioner's January 2020 two-story garage addition request. The ALJ determined that none of the three reasons provided by the Association for the denial were reasonable.

Orders: The Association must grant preliminary approval for the proposed design and must pay the Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of the Order.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: Yes

Disposition: petitioner_win

Cited:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA architectural approval, unreasonable denial, two-story garage addition, filing fee refund
Additional Citations:

  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3)
  • ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
  • ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
  • AR Section 1.1
  • AR Section 4.4
  • AR Section 4.2




Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121040-REL-RHG


Briefing Document: Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Executive Summary

This document synthesizes the key themes, evidence, and legal proceedings in the administrative case Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc. (No. 21F-H2121040-REL). The central conflict revolves around Petitioner Marc Archer’s proposal for a two-story addition to his home, which was denied by the Respondent, the PMPE Community Association’s Architectural Committee (AC). Mr. Archer alleged this denial was an unreasonable withholding of approval, violating Arizona statute § 33-1817(B)(3).

The case is marked by a protracted history, including a previous denial for a different one-story design in 2019 and an earlier ruling in this matter (December 2020) that found the Association had violated its own procedures by not providing a written reason for its April 2020 denial. This procedural failure led to a formal denial letter on December 30, 2020, which became the central focus of the subsequent hearings.

The Association cited three primary reasons for the denial: 1) the addition lacked harmony with the existing structure, resembling a “large box”; 2) the proposal to use painted roof tiles was unacceptable; and 3) the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat expanses.

Mr. Archer countered with extensive evidence, including testimony from building industry experts and a registered architect, arguing that the design was harmonious, incorporated numerous architectural details found on the existing house, and that the Association’s objections were unfounded and inconsistent. The proceedings revealed significant confusion stemming from the Association’s denial letter, which conflated mandatory reasons for denial with what it later claimed were “advisory only” suggestions.

Ultimately, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden ruled in favor of Mr. Archer. The March 30, 2022 decision concluded that the Association’s reasons for denial were unreasonable and not supported by a preponderance of the evidence. The Association was ordered to grant preliminary approval for the project and reimburse Mr. Archer’s $500 filing fee. A subsequent request for rehearing by the Association was withdrawn, making the ALJ’s decision final.

1. Case Overview

Case Number

21F-H2121040-REL

Petitioner

Marc Archer

Respondent

PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Presiding Judge

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Thomas Shedden

Core Allegation

The Association violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1817(B)(3), which states, “Approval of a construction project’s architectural designs, plans and amendments shall not unreasonably be withheld.”

Subject of Dispute

The denial of Mr. Archer’s January 2020 preliminary submittal for a two-story garage addition to his home at 8619 North Place, Phoenix, AZ.

2. Detailed Procedural History

The dispute has a multi-year history involving multiple architectural proposals and administrative hearings.

• 2019 Denial (One-Story Design): Mr. Archer first sought approval for a one-story garage with a flat roof. The Association denied final approval. In a decision dated September 3, 2019 (Docket 19F-H1919063-REL), an ALJ concluded the Association had not violated the statute, noting the architectural rules favored pitched roofs and the structure would be visible above a nine-foot wall.

• January 2020 Submittal (Two-Story Design): Mr. Archer submitted the current proposal for a two-story garage addition.

• April 10, 2020 Denial (No Written Basis): The Association’s Architectural Committee (AC) denied the proposal during a conference call but failed to provide a written basis for the denial, as required by its own rules.

• December 3, 2020 ALJ Decision (Procedural Violation): In response to a petition filed by Mr. Archer, an ALJ determined the Association had violated its CC&Rs and the state statute by not providing a written reason for denial. The decision explicitly noted it was not a finding on the merits of the architectural design itself.

• December 30, 2020 Written Denial: The Association issued a formal written response outlining its reasons for denial. This document’s confusing structure, with separate sections for “reasons for denial” and “comments… for resubmittal,” became a major point of contention.

• 2021-2022 Hearings: Hearings on the reasonableness of the denial were held before ALJ Thomas Shedden on July 29, 2021, October 22, 2021, and January 31, 2022.

• March 30, 2022 ALJ Decision: ALJ Shedden found in favor of Mr. Archer, ruling the Association’s denial was unreasonable.

• July 13, 2022 Finality: The Association requested a rehearing but subsequently withdrew the request, rendering the March 30, 2022 decision final.

3. The Association’s Rationale for Denial

The Association’s denial, as articulated in the December 30, 2020 letter and testimony from its president, Keith Kauffman, was based on three main points.

3.1 Lack of Harmony and Integration

The primary objection was that the addition failed to “harmonize with the current building structure” as required by the Architectural Rules (ARs).

• Argument: The Association contended Mr. Archer was “attaching a large two-story ‘box’ to [his] home and not incorporating the addition into the current structure.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman elaborated that the addition was akin to “building a structure and then attaching that structure instead of… building an addition to his home.” Key issues he identified were that the new roofline did not blend into the existing second-story roof and that the structure connected to the house at only two points. The committee felt it would not look like it “was there from the beginning.”

3.2 Unacceptable Painted Roof Tiles

The second reason for denial was that Mr. Archer’s proposal to paint new roof tiles to match the existing roof was unacceptable.

• Argument: According to the letter, “painted roof tiles are not acceptable and are not identified as under section 4.4 of the archetypal rule.”

• Kauffman’s Testimony: Mr. Kauffman argued that because AR Section 4.4 does not explicitly state that painted tiles are acceptable, they are therefore not acceptable. He stated, “[The committee] didn’t feel that in this kind of development… that is not an acceptable… way to… tile one’s roof.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

The final reason was that the design lacked sufficient architectural elements to break up large, flat wall expanses.

• Argument: The denial stated, “There needs to be architectural elements per pop out in windows etc. Prim to break up expanses and add ‘architectural expression’ to the addition as outlined in 4.2.”

• Testimony: Both Mr. Kauffman and community manager Gail Zigler testified that the proposed windows were not appropriate because they were not the same size as other windows on the house.

4. The Petitioner’s Rebuttal and Evidence

Mr. Archer presented a comprehensive case to counter each of the Association’s points, supported by his own testimony and that of multiple expert witnesses.

4.1 Design Harmony and Architectural Details

Mr. Archer argued that his design was meticulously planned to be harmonious with the existing home.

• Existing Elements: He demonstrated that the proposed addition incorporated numerous features already present on his house, including stucco pop-outs, soffit details, and eave designs. During cross-examination of Mr. Kauffman, Mr. Archer used photographs to establish that pop-outs, which the committee initially claimed were not present elsewhere on the house, did in fact exist near the bay windows.

• Roofline: He testified that staggering the rooflines adds aesthetic appeal and that tying the new roof directly into the existing second-story roof was not aesthetically viable.

• Expert Opinion:

◦ Greg Hancock, a builder of 25,000-30,000 homes, testified that the proposed addition is “not non-harmonious.”

◦ Dan Earlie, with 47 years in homebuilding, opined that Mr. Archer “went overboard in an effort to harmonize the addition.”

◦ Thomas Bragg, a registered architect, concluded in a sealed affidavit that the proposal was in compliance with the ARs, noting the design “matched the existing architecture” and was “varied and does not present any large unbroken wall areas with the blended details.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

Mr. Archer presented evidence that the objections regarding tiles and windows were unreasonable.

• Painted Tiles: He provided evidence that painting roof tiles is no different than painting stucco, as both are cement-based products. Furthermore, he noted that the ARs do not contain any prohibition on painting tiles, whereas other materials like vinyl siding are explicitly prohibited. During the hearings, he also indicated he may have located matching tiles, potentially rendering the issue moot.

• Window Sizes: Evidence showed that window sizes on Mr. Archer’s existing house, as well as on other houses in the community, already vary.

4.3 Witness Testimony

In addition to the building experts, a neighbor provided testimony supporting Mr. Archer’s position.

• Dr. Victor Zach, who lives across the street, testified that he is not opposed to the proposed addition.

5. Key Hearing Dynamics and Controversies

5.1 The Confounding Denial Letter

The structure of the December 30, 2020 letter was a central issue.

• Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of six bullet points was “advisory only” and intended to provide guidance.

• However, this section contained two of the three official reasons for denial (roof tiles and architectural elements) and included the statement that the addition “will be limited to a single story,” which Mr. Kauffman later admitted under questioning was not a firm requirement.

• The ALJ noted this created significant confusion: “At the hearing, Mr. Kauffman testified that the second set of bullets was advisory only, which was not clear to Mr. Archer until the hearing.”

5.2 Irrelevant Considerations by the Committee

Evidence from a previous hearing revealed that the AC’s decision-making process was influenced by factors outside the scope of architectural review.

• A prior ALJ decision found that during the April 10, 2020 conference call, “at least two members expressed their concerns with how Petitioner was planning to use the new addition. Specifically, the members were concerned Petitioner was going to accumulate more ‘junk’.”

• In the current hearing, Mr. Archer played an audio recording where a prior judge asked Mr. Kauffman, “Is there anything in the architectural guidelines that says how a structure is going to be used should affect whether or not it’s approved?”

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

Mr. Kauffman repeatedly testified that the approval process is intended to be collaborative, yet acknowledged that no discussions occurred after the April 2020 denial. The Association’s stance was that Mr. Archer failed to engage, while Mr. Archer felt he was facing a “moving target.” The ALJ highlighted the lack of clarity from the Association, which hindered any potential collaboration. The judge expressed surprise at the need to clarify that the existing house must be considered in the review:

“I don’t see how you could possibly make a decision without taking the house into consideration. And I apologize… that just strikes me as so self-evident that… I’m surprised we we’ve had to have it out.” – ALJ Thomas Shedden

6. Final Adjudication and Outcome

In his March 30, 2022 decision, ALJ Thomas Shedden ruled definitively in favor of the Petitioner, Marc Archer.

6.1 Conclusions of Law

The decision found that Mr. Archer had met his burden of proof to show the Association unreasonably withheld approval. The ALJ systematically dismantled each of the Association’s reasons for denial:

1. Harmony: “There was no substantial evidence adduced showing that Mr. Archer’s proposed addition will dominate or sharply contrast with the community.” The judge noted that other houses have more than one roofline, making the proposed addition consistent with the neighborhood.

2. Painted Roof Tiles: “The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Association acted outside its scope of authority because the ARs do not include a prohibition on painting tiles.”

3. Architectural Expression: “Mr. Archer provided credible evidence showing that the proposed addition will provide architectural expression as required by AR section 4.2.”

6.2 Final Order

Based on these conclusions, the Judge issued a two-part order:

1. IT IS ORDERED that Marc Archer is the prevailing party in this matter and that the Association should approve his preliminary design;

2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Association must pay to Mr. Archer Petitioner his filing fee of $500.00 within thirty days of this Order.

The Association’s subsequent withdrawal of its rehearing request finalized this decision.