Case Summary
| Case ID | 24F-H050-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2024-09-11 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Adam D. Stone |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association | Counsel | Daniel S. Francom |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | Rick Jr. & Elizabeth Goebel | Counsel | — |
Alleged Violations
CC&R Article V, Section 5.22; Guidelines Section 2.24
Outcome Summary
The Administrative Law Judge denied the HOA's petition, finding the HOA failed to meet its burden of proving a violation. The homeowner justifiably relied on the ARC's approval, which was granted rapidly and without clarification requests, despite the lack of detail on the wall height, effectively granting an exception to the Guidelines.
Why this result: The HOA (Petitioner) failed to prove the violation by a preponderance of the evidence, primarily because the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) approved the plans after multiple rounds of review, and the homeowner relied on that approval. The delay in the stop construction notice was also deemed unreasonable.
Key Issues & Findings
Construction of unapproved structures/patio walls in excess of permitted height
Petitioner (HOA) alleged Respondent (homeowner) violated community documents by constructing walls around a courtyard in excess of the 42-inch height limit set by the Guidelines Section 2.24, and without sufficient prior approval (CC&R Section 5.22). The constructed wall was approximately 8 feet high.
Orders: Petitioner’s petition in this matter is denied. Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: petitioner_loss
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
- ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
Analytics Highlights
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2102
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199 et al.
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.05
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. §§ 32-2199(2)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.01(D)
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092
- ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803
- ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
- CC&R Article V, Section 5.22
- Guidelines Section 2.24
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
24F-H050-REL Decision – 1222437.pdf
Arroyo Mountain Estate HOA vs. Goebel: A Dispute Over Architectural Approval
Executive Summary
This document provides a comprehensive overview of the dispute between the Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association (HOA) and homeowners Rick and Elizabeth Goebel, culminating in an administrative law hearing on August 28, 2024. The central conflict revolves around the construction of a courtyard wall at the Goebels’ property, which the HOA alleged was unapproved and in violation of community guidelines.
The Goebels maintained that they followed all required procedures, submitting multiple revised applications at the HOA’s request, and ultimately received explicit, unconditional approval from the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) before commencing work. They argued that they built a “courtyard wall” in conformance with section 2.9 of the guidelines, which does not specify a height limit, and not a “pony wall,” which is restricted to 42 inches under section 2.24.
The HOA contended that the Goebels’ application was misleading due to a lack of critical details, specifically the wall’s 8-foot 8-inch height and a three-foot overhead hood. Key members of the ARC testified they understood the application to be for landscaping only and would have denied it had the full scope been clear. The HOA argued the constructed wall violates the spirit and letter of the guidelines intended to maintain community aesthetic uniformity.
The case concluded with a definitive ruling by an Administrative Law Judge on September 11, 2024. The judge denied the HOA’s petition, finding that they had not met their burden of proof. The decision highlighted that the Goebels had followed the prescribed process, justifiably relied on the ARC’s formal approval, and that the HOA’s month-long delay in issuing a stop-construction notice was unreasonable. The ruling deemed the ARC’s approval “tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines.”
The Core Dispute: The Courtyard Wall
The conflict centers on improvements made at the Goebels’ property, located at 5408 North Prescott Court (incorrectly listed multiple times in HOA documents as 5408 North Carson Court). The primary structure in question is a wall enclosing a front courtyard area, which the Goebels’ plans identified as a “courtyard wall.”
Alleged Violations by the HOA
The HOA’s petition alleged that the Goebels were in violation of two primary governing documents:
1. CC&Rs Article V, Section 5.22: This section requires homeowners to receive ARC approval before beginning any construction that alters the exterior appearance of a property, demanding that requests “Specify in detail the nature and extent of construction.”
2. Architectural and Landscape Design Guidelines, Section 2.24: This section governs “Pony Walls and Courtyards,” stating that pony walls constructed in a front yard to form a courtyard “should be no higher than 42 inches.”
The HOA argued that the wall built by the Goebels, which reaches a height of approximately 8 feet 8 inches, is functionally a pony wall and therefore violates the 42-inch height restriction.
The Homeowner’s (Goebel) Position and Timeline
The Goebels’ defense was anchored in their assertion of procedural compliance, reliance on a formal approval, and a belief that they were being unfairly targeted.
Application and Approval Process
The timeline of the application process was a key element of the Goebels’ case:
Dec 30, 2022
Initial consolidated application for all improvements submitted via email.
Jan 3, 2023
Initial application denied with the instruction to “please resubmit separate applications for the different projects.”
Jan 3, 2023
Revised, separate applications submitted to the community manager, Katie Sand.
Jan 3, 2023
Additional comments received from Katie Sand requesting further changes.
Jan 3, 2023
Final revised applications submitted at 4:14 p.m. and notice of acceptance received at 4:26 p.m.
Jan 5, 2023
The ARC formally approved the applications, within 48 hours of submission, without requesting additional information.
Argument of Good Faith and Procedural Adherence
Mr. Goebel argued that he diligently followed the HOA’s process and could not have done more to ensure compliance.
“I follow the requirement of the architectural community prepared the application submitted the application via the appropriate application approval process and received approval. It’s unclear what I’m being violated for. It is unclear as to how I violated any part of the approval or constructed improvements not identified on the plan.” – Rick Goebel
He emphasized that the ARC, under its own guidelines, had the power to request more information if the application was deemed incomplete but chose not to, instead granting full approval. Elizabeth Goebel further stated, “they approved the application and we move forward with our approval… We still got the approval. We moved forward in good faith and constructed what we had done.”
Construction Timeline and HOA Response
• March 21, 2023: Engineering drawings submitted to Maricopa County.
• March 24, 2023: Technical approvals and permits issued by the county.
• April 7, 2023: Construction commenced.
• April 19, 2023: The wall reached its full height.
• May 12, 2023: Nearly one month after the wall was completed, the Goebels received a stop-construction notice from the HOA.
Claims of Targeted Harassment
Mr. Goebel testified that he felt his family and home were being targeted by board members, leading to significant distress and financial cost.
“Over the past 12 months, I’ve had to deal with continued harassment from our board… People drive past my home, take pictures of my home. John Conalo has driven past my home multiple times taking pictures of my home… I have people to drive by my home, take photos and post these photos online and generally disrupt the reasonable enjoyment of my property. I am of the opinion that me and my home are being targeted for these improvements by members of the board who are utilizing funds to support the basic attack.” – Rick Goebel
The Homeowners Association’s (HOA) Position
The HOA’s case, presented by attorney Daniel Francom, focused on the argument that the Goebels’ application was deficient and that any approval granted was therefore invalid for the wall as constructed.
Insufficient Detail and Misleading Application
The HOA argued the Goebels “failed to provide sufficient details” in their application.
• Wall Height: The plans did not specify the wall would be 8 feet 8 inches high.
• Overhead Hood: The plans did not clearly indicate a three-foot deep overhead structure above the gate.
• County Plans: The detailed plans submitted to Maricopa County, which included engineering reports and the exact wall height, were never provided to the HOA.
Board President John Consalvo testified that the application “showed nothing about a construction wall showing landscape application turned in.”
Architectural Committee’s Interpretation
ARC member Judy Oliver provided crucial testimony for the HOA, stating that the committee was misled by the application’s presentation.
• She testified that since the application was titled “revamping of landscaping,” she and other members “assumed that this was regarding landscaping only.”
• Regarding the wall itself, she stated, “I felt that that wall wasn’t even up for discussion at the time.”
• Crucially, she asserted that had the Goebels provided specifics for an 8-foot wall, the committee would have denied the project as it “counters the architectural guidelines.”
Violation of Guideline 2.24 (“Pony Walls”)
The HOA’s legal argument rested on classifying the Goebels’ structure under section 2.24. They argued that because the wall creates a courtyard, it should be considered a “pony wall” and is therefore subject to the 42-inch height limit, regardless of what the Goebels labeled it in their plans. They argued the wall “sticks out like a sore thumb” and that there are no other similar walls in the community.
Key Witness Testimony
Ms. Rozzo’s testimony significantly undermined the HOA’s position.
• Admission of Error: When asked if she noted the courtyard wall, she stated, “No, I absolutely missed it. I am completely honest about that. I have missed it just like we’ve missed other ones and nothing’s done about it.”
• Precedent of Inaction: She testified that the ARC had mistakenly approved “at least 15 to 20 homes” with non-compliant improvements and that “the HOA has never pursued them.” She cited unapproved walls, pavers, and concrete pads at other properties.
• Challenge to HOA’s Pursuit: She expressed surprise that the HOA was pursuing this case, stating that when she told John Consalvo that pursuing the Goebels meant they should pursue all other erroneous approvals, he “chuckled and said, ‘Mike, my neighbor,'” implying a neighbor of the board president also had unapproved improvements.
• Board Vote: Ms. Rozzo, who was also a board member for a short time, revealed that the decision to take action against the Goebels was not unanimous, with two of the five board members voting “no.”
Mr. Consalvo testified that the board’s function is to maintain the community and enforce HOA rules. He stated that the Goebels’ application did not provide the required detail for the courtyard wall, its height, or the overhead gate structure. He confirmed he took photos of the property and that, in his view, the wall as built did not conform to any approved application and should have been limited to 42 inches.
Ms. Oliver testified she had been on the ARC since 2017. She stated that the application was understood to be for landscaping and that the wall was not considered for approval due to the lack of detail. She testified that had the 8-foot height been specified, the application would have been denied.
The Final Decision: Administrative Law Judge Ruling
On September 11, 2024, Administrative Law Judge Adam D. Stone issued a final, binding decision in the case (No. 24F-H050-REL).
Ruling
The Petitioner’s (HOA’s) petition was denied. The judge found that the HOA failed to prove its case by a preponderance of the evidence.
Reasoning for the Decision
The judge provided a clear, multi-point rationale for siding with the Goebels:
1. Procedural Compliance: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC.”
2. Justifiable Reliance on Approval: The ARC had multiple opportunities to question the plans and did so on other matters. The judge concluded that Ms. Rozzo’s approval, even if she “missed it,” was a formal action on which the “Respondent justifiably relied… and moved ahead with construction.”
3. Approval as an Exception: The judge stated the formal approval “was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”
4. Unreasonable Delay by HOA: The judge found that for the HOA “to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”
5. Inconsistent Enforcement: The judge noted that “this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines,” referencing the testimony about other unpursued violations in the community.
Final Order
• The HOA’s petition was formally denied.
• The Respondent (Goebels) was not required to reimburse the HOA’s $500 filing fee.
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H050-REL”,
“case_title”: “Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel”,
“decision_date”: “2024-09-11”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they ‘missed’ details in the plan?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they ‘missed’ a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee’s oversight after approval has been granted.”,
“alj_quote”: “Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.”,
“legal_basis”: “Justifiable Reliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural approval”,
“committee oversight”,
“homeowner reliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community’s design guidelines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.”,
“alj_quote”: “This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”,
“legal_basis”: “Exception to Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“guidelines”,
“exceptions”,
“compliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?”,
“short_answer”: “No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.”,
“alj_quote”: “Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”,
“legal_basis”: “Reasonableness / Laches”,
“topic_tags”: [
“enforcement timing”,
“stop work order”,
“construction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.”,
“legal_basis”: “Burden of Proof”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal procedure”,
“evidence”,
“burden of proof”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner’s defense.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA’s position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.”,
“alj_quote”: “Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent”,
“topic_tags”: [
“selective enforcement”,
“consistency”,
“precedent”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I submit an application and answer the committee’s questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn’t, the responsibility lies with them.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project”,
“legal_basis”: “Due Process / Procedural Compliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“application process”,
“due diligence”,
“homeowner obligations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to pay the HOA’s filing fees if they sue me and lose?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA’s petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“penalties”,
“costs”
]
}
]
}
{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “24F-H050-REL”,
“case_title”: “Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association v. Goebel”,
“decision_date”: “2024-09-11”,
“alj_name”: “Adam D. Stone”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“questions”: [
{
“question”: “If the HOA approves my architectural application, can they later claim a violation because they ‘missed’ details in the plan?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA approves the application, the homeowner can justifiably rely on that approval to proceed, even if the committee claims they missed specific details during review.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ ruled that once an application is approved, the homeowner has the right to rely on that approval to begin construction. Even if an Architectural Committee member testifies later that they ‘missed’ a detail (like a wall height) during their review, the approval stands. The HOA cannot penalize the homeowner for the committee’s oversight after approval has been granted.”,
“alj_quote”: “Ms. Rozzo testified that while she may have “missed it”, the Application was nonetheless approved, and Respondent justifiably relied on the approval and moved ahead with construction.”,
“legal_basis”: “Justifiable Reliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“architectural approval”,
“committee oversight”,
“homeowner reliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Can an approved application serve as a valid exception to written architectural guidelines?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. An approved application can be considered tantamount to an exception to the community’s design guidelines.”,
“detailed_answer”: “In this case, the HOA argued the construction violated height guidelines. However, because the specific project plans were submitted and approved by the committee, the ALJ determined that this approval effectively acted as an exception to the general guidelines, making the construction permissible.”,
“alj_quote”: “This was tantamount to an exception to the Guidelines as the project was approved.”,
“legal_basis”: “Exception to Guidelines”,
“topic_tags”: [
“guidelines”,
“exceptions”,
“compliance”
]
},
{
“question”: “Is it reasonable for an HOA to issue a stop work notice after I have already completed my project?”,
“short_answer”: “No. Waiting until a project is completed to issue a stop construction notice is considered unreasonable.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ found that the HOA failed to act in a timely manner. Issuing a stop construction notice nearly a month after the homeowner had already finished building the structure was deemed unreasonable behavior by the association.”,
“alj_quote”: “Moreover, for Petitioner to wait almost a month once the project was completed to provide a stop construction notice to Respondent was unreasonable.”,
“legal_basis”: “Reasonableness / Laches”,
“topic_tags”: [
“enforcement timing”,
“stop work order”,
“construction”
]
},
{
“question”: “Who has to prove that a violation occurred during an HOA hearing?”,
“short_answer”: “The HOA (the Petitioner) bears the burden of proof.”,
“detailed_answer”: “When an HOA petitions for a hearing regarding a violation, they must prove their case by a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’ This means they must convince the judge that their claim is more likely true than not. If they fail to meet this burden, the homeowner prevails.”,
“alj_quote”: “In this proceeding, Petitioner bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondent violated ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803.”,
“legal_basis”: “Burden of Proof”,
“topic_tags”: [
“legal procedure”,
“evidence”,
“burden of proof”
]
},
{
“question”: “Does it matter if the HOA has allowed other non-compliant projects in the neighborhood?”,
“short_answer”: “Yes. Evidence that the HOA has previously approved other projects that did not meet guidelines can support the homeowner’s defense.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ noted that the evidence showed this was not an isolated incident; the Architectural Committee had previously approved other projects that were not compliant with the Guidelines. This pattern weakens the HOA’s position in enforcing the rule against the current homeowner.”,
“alj_quote”: “Further, as the evidence provided, this was not the first time the ARC had approved projects that were not within the Guidelines.”,
“legal_basis”: “Arbitrary Enforcement / Precedent”,
“topic_tags”: [
“selective enforcement”,
“consistency”,
“precedent”
]
},
{
“question”: “If I submit an application and answer the committee’s questions, do I have to ensure they asked about every single detail?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If you follow the submission process and the committee has the opportunity to ask questions but doesn’t, the responsibility lies with them.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The homeowner followed the CC&R process by submitting the application. The committee had multiple chances to ask for clarification or details (like height) but failed to do so before approving. The judge ruled the homeowner followed the proper process.”,
“alj_quote”: “Respondent followed the process as laid out in section 5.22 of the CC&Rs, by submitting its Application to the ARC. The ARC had many opportunities thereafter to question Respondent about the project”,
“legal_basis”: “Due Process / Procedural Compliance”,
“topic_tags”: [
“application process”,
“due diligence”,
“homeowner obligations”
]
},
{
“question”: “Do I have to pay the HOA’s filing fees if they sue me and lose?”,
“short_answer”: “No. If the HOA’s petition is denied, the homeowner is not required to reimburse the filing fee.”,
“detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly ordered that because the petition was denied, the respondent (homeowner) was not required to pay back the $500 filing fee that the HOA paid to the Department.”,
“alj_quote”: “IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A), Respondent shall not reimburse Petitioner’s filing fee”,
“legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)”,
“topic_tags”: [
“fees”,
“penalties”,
“costs”
]
}
]
}
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Daniel S. Francom (HOA attorney)
Goodman Law
Represented Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association. - John Consalvo (board president, witness)
Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Board
President of the Association's Board; testified for Petitioner. - Judy Oliver (architectural committee member, witness)
Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Architectural Committee
Testified for Petitioner; member of the ARC.
Respondent Side
- Rick Goebel Jr. (respondent, homeowner)
Testified on his own behalf; also referred to as Mr. Gobel/Goebel. - Elizabeth Goebel (respondent, homeowner)
Testified on her own behalf; also referred to as Ms. Goebel. - Nancy Rozzo (architectural committee member, witness, former board member)
Arroyo Mountain Estate Homeowners Association Architectural Committee
Approved Respondent's plans; testified for Respondent. Referred to as Ms. Brazo/Rozo.
Neutral Parties
- Adam D. Stone (ALJ)
OAH
Administrative Law Judge assigned to the hearing. - Susan Nicolson (Commissioner)
ADRE
Commissioner of the Arizona Department of Real Estate. - V. Nunez (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]). - D. Jones (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]). - L. Abril (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]). - M. Neat (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]). - L. Recchia (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]). - G. Osborn (ADRE staff)
ADRE
Recipient of the decision for transmission (derived from email [email protected]).
Other Participants
- Katie Sand (property manager)
Vision Community Management
Former employee/property manager involved in initial communications; also referred to as Katie Tam and Katie Pan.
