Case Summary
| Case ID | 22F-H2221018-REL |
|---|---|
| Agency | ADRE |
| Tribunal | OAH |
| Decision Date | 2022-08-05 |
| Administrative Law Judge | Kay A. Abramsohn |
| Outcome | loss |
| Filing Fees Refunded | $500.00 |
| Civil Penalties | $0.00 |
Parties & Counsel
| Petitioner | Terry Marvin & Lori J. Lefferts | Counsel | — |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondent | The Stone Canyon Community Association, Inc. | Counsel | Nicholas C.S. Nogami |
Alleged Violations
CC&R § 11.3; Guidelines § 1, Items 1 & 32; Guidelines § 5, Item 12
Outcome Summary
The Petition alleging that the Stone Canyon Community Association violated its Design Guidelines by granting a variance for secondary improvements within the side-yard setback to Lot 19 owners was dismissed. The ALJ found that the DRC exercised reasonable discretion in granting a deviation (variance) under Guidelines Section 5, Item 12, and the Petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof.
Why this result: The Administrative Law Judge determined that the Design Review Committee acted reasonably within its authority to grant a deviation (variance) to the Guidelines to allow the proposed secondary improvements (grading, driveway, enclosure) within the 15’ side-yard setback in extenuating circumstances, consistent with the requirements outlined in Guideline Section 5, Item 12.
Key Issues & Findings
Alleged violation by DRC when granting a variance for side-yard setback requirements for secondary improvements.
Petitioners (Lot 20 owners) alleged the DRC violated guidelines by granting a variance to Lot 19 owners for placing secondary improvements (driveway, grading, site walls, enclosure) within the 15-foot side-yard setback. Petitioners sought rescission of the variance, arguing the DRC failed to establish an unreasonable hardship or burden as required by Guideline Section 5, Item 12, thereby acting unreasonably and causing diminution in Lot 20 value.
Orders: Petitioners' Petition is dismissed. Petitioners bear their $500.00 filing fee.
Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No
Disposition: respondent_win
- Guidelines Section 1, Item 1
- Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
- Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
- A.A.C. R2-19-119
- A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
Analytics Highlights
- CC&R Section 11.3
- Guidelines Section 1, Item 1
- Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
- Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
- A.R.S. Title 33, Chapter 16
- A.A.C. R2-19-119
Video Overview
Audio Overview
Decision Documents
22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 940674.pdf
22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 953784.pdf
22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 954492.pdf
22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 958478.pdf
22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 958503.pdf
22F-H2221018-REL Decision – 990387.pdf
Questions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA's architectural decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated its governing documents.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. They must demonstrate that it is more probable than not that the Association or its Committee violated specific provisions of the governing documents (such as Design Guidelines).
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that, as alleged, Association through actions of Committee had violated Guidelines Section 1, Items 1 and 32 requirements and Section 5, Item 12 requirements when Committee granted a variance…1
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
- burden of proof
- legal standards
- evidence
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means evidence that is more convincing than the opposing evidence, showing the fact is 'more probable than not.'
Detailed Answer
The ALJ defines this legal standard as evidence that carries greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition. It does not require absolute certainty, but rather that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”2
Legal Basis
Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)
Topic Tags
- legal definitions
- standards of evidence
Question
Can my HOA grant a neighbor a variance for construction setbacks?
Short Answer
Yes, if the governing documents grant the Design Review Committee discretion to deviate from requirements in extenuating circumstances.
Detailed Answer
If the Design Guidelines provide the Committee with discretion to deviate from requirements when following them would create an unreasonable hardship or burden, the HOA can validly grant a variance. The ALJ looks for whether the Committee exercised 'reasonable discretion' under this authority.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the hearing record demonstrates that Committee exercised reasonable discretion under its authority to grant… a Section 5, Item 12 deviation, i.e., a variance… to allow the proposed/approved secondary improvements to be placed within the 15’ side-yard setback.3
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
Topic Tags
- variances
- setbacks
- HOA discretion
- architectural review
Question
Can the HOA treat driveways and landscaping differently than main house structures regarding setbacks?
Short Answer
Yes, governing documents may allow 'modifications' for secondary improvements even if structures have strict setbacks.
Detailed Answer
Governing documents may distinguish between 'building structures' (which must strictly comply with setbacks) and 'secondary improvements' like driveways, grading, or site walls. The documents may allow modifications to setbacks for these secondary items on a case-by-case basis.
Alj Quote
All building Structures shall comply with the above outlined setback distances. Modifications to the above outlined setback distances will be considered on a case-by-case basis for secondary improvements such as grading, landscaping, driveways, site walls, etc.4
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
Topic Tags
- setbacks
- driveways
- landscaping
- architectural guidelines
Question
What qualifies as an 'unreasonable hardship' that justifies a variance?
Short Answer
Practical necessities, such as needing access to a garage that otherwise complies with setbacks, can be considered an extenuating circumstance.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the Committee determined that needing driveway access to a new garage (which itself was built within the allowable building envelope) constituted an 'extenuating circumstance.' This practical necessity justified granting a variance for the driveway and grading to encroach into the setback area.
Alj Quote
The hearing record demonstrates that… Association supported the Committee’s determination that needing access to the new RV garage which itself was being built within the building envelope… met the criteria of “extenuating” circumstances… for purposes of granting a “variance” for the new driveway to be placed and necessary grading to occur within the 15’ side-yard setback.5
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
Topic Tags
- hardship
- variances
- construction
Question
If I lose my case against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
No, if the petition is dismissed, the homeowner is typically ordered to bear the cost of the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ has the authority to order who pays the costs. In this decision, after dismissing the petition because the homeowners failed to prove a violation, the ALJ ordered the homeowners to pay their own filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners bears their $500.00 filing fee.6
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
- fees
- penalties
- costs
Case
- Docket No
- 22F-H2221018-REL
- Case Title
- Terry Marvin & Lori J. Lefferts v. The Stone Canyon Community Association, Inc.
- Decision Date
- 2022-08-05
- Alj Name
- Kay A. Abramsohn
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Questions
Question
What is the burden of proof for a homeowner challenging an HOA's architectural decision?
Short Answer
The homeowner must prove by a 'preponderance of the evidence' that the HOA violated its governing documents.
Detailed Answer
In an administrative hearing regarding an HOA dispute, the petitioner (homeowner) bears the burden of proof. They must demonstrate that it is more probable than not that the Association or its Committee violated specific provisions of the governing documents (such as Design Guidelines).
Alj Quote
Petitioners bear the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that, as alleged, Association through actions of Committee had violated Guidelines Section 1, Items 1 and 32 requirements and Section 5, Item 12 requirements when Committee granted a variance…1
Legal Basis
A.A.C. R2-19-119
Topic Tags
- burden of proof
- legal standards
- evidence
Question
What does 'preponderance of the evidence' mean in an HOA hearing?
Short Answer
It means evidence that is more convincing than the opposing evidence, showing the fact is 'more probable than not.'
Detailed Answer
The ALJ defines this legal standard as evidence that carries greater weight than the evidence offered in opposition. It does not require absolute certainty, but rather that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.
Alj Quote
A preponderance of the evidence is “[e]vidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence which is offered in opposition to it; that is, evidence which as a whole shows that the fact sought to be proved is more probable than not.”2
Legal Basis
Black's Law Dictionary (6th ed. 1990)
Topic Tags
- legal definitions
- standards of evidence
Question
Can my HOA grant a neighbor a variance for construction setbacks?
Short Answer
Yes, if the governing documents grant the Design Review Committee discretion to deviate from requirements in extenuating circumstances.
Detailed Answer
If the Design Guidelines provide the Committee with discretion to deviate from requirements when following them would create an unreasonable hardship or burden, the HOA can validly grant a variance. The ALJ looks for whether the Committee exercised 'reasonable discretion' under this authority.
Alj Quote
The Administrative Law Judge concludes that the hearing record demonstrates that Committee exercised reasonable discretion under its authority to grant… a Section 5, Item 12 deviation, i.e., a variance… to allow the proposed/approved secondary improvements to be placed within the 15’ side-yard setback.3
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
Topic Tags
- variances
- setbacks
- HOA discretion
- architectural review
Question
Can the HOA treat driveways and landscaping differently than main house structures regarding setbacks?
Short Answer
Yes, governing documents may allow 'modifications' for secondary improvements even if structures have strict setbacks.
Detailed Answer
Governing documents may distinguish between 'building structures' (which must strictly comply with setbacks) and 'secondary improvements' like driveways, grading, or site walls. The documents may allow modifications to setbacks for these secondary items on a case-by-case basis.
Alj Quote
All building Structures shall comply with the above outlined setback distances. Modifications to the above outlined setback distances will be considered on a case-by-case basis for secondary improvements such as grading, landscaping, driveways, site walls, etc.4
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines Section 1, Item 32
Topic Tags
- setbacks
- driveways
- landscaping
- architectural guidelines
Question
What qualifies as an 'unreasonable hardship' that justifies a variance?
Short Answer
Practical necessities, such as needing access to a garage that otherwise complies with setbacks, can be considered an extenuating circumstance.
Detailed Answer
In this case, the Committee determined that needing driveway access to a new garage (which itself was built within the allowable building envelope) constituted an 'extenuating circumstance.' This practical necessity justified granting a variance for the driveway and grading to encroach into the setback area.
Alj Quote
The hearing record demonstrates that… Association supported the Committee’s determination that needing access to the new RV garage which itself was being built within the building envelope… met the criteria of “extenuating” circumstances… for purposes of granting a “variance” for the new driveway to be placed and necessary grading to occur within the 15’ side-yard setback.5
Legal Basis
Design Guidelines Section 5, Item 12
Topic Tags
- hardship
- variances
- construction
Question
If I lose my case against the HOA, do I get my filing fee back?
Short Answer
No, if the petition is dismissed, the homeowner is typically ordered to bear the cost of the filing fee.
Detailed Answer
The ALJ has the authority to order who pays the costs. In this decision, after dismissing the petition because the homeowners failed to prove a violation, the ALJ ordered the homeowners to pay their own filing fee.
Alj Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioners bears their $500.00 filing fee.6
Legal Basis
Administrative Order
Topic Tags
- fees
- penalties
- costs
Case
- Docket No
- 22F-H2221018-REL
- Case Title
- Terry Marvin & Lori J. Lefferts v. The Stone Canyon Community Association, Inc.
- Decision Date
- 2022-08-05
- Alj Name
- Kay A. Abramsohn
- Tribunal
- OAH
- Agency
- ADRE
Case Participants
Petitioner Side
- Terry Marvin (petitioner)
- Lori J. Lefferts (petitioner)
Also referred to as Lori Lebert/Leopards
Respondent Side
- Nicholas C.S. Nogami (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP - Parker C. Fox (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP - Sami M. Farhat (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP - Mark Saul (HOA attorney)
CARPENTER, HAZLEWOOD, DELGADO & BOLEN, LLP
Partner of Mr. Nogami and counsel to the HOA - Jerry Young (Consulting Architect)
Association representative and Consulting Architect for the Design Review Committee - Theodore Riggs (DRC member)
Also referred to as Ted Riggs; witness called by Petitioners - Richard Reese (DRC member)
Also referred to as Dick Reif/Rice/Reef; former DRC member; witness called by Petitioners - Kevin Given (DRC member)
Head of the DRC; voted against Lot 19 approval - Steve Hall (DRC member)
Absent from July 27, 2021 Committee meeting - Andrew Deni (Architect)
Architect for Lot 19 Owners (also referred to as Andy Deni/Denah/Dencki) - Martin Coe (Lot owner)
Lot 19 Owner - Lydia Roos (Lot owner)
Lot 19 Owner - Tim Stampson (General Contractor)
General Contractor for Lot 19 Project (also referred to as Ken Samson) - Divine Homes (observer)
Summer associate observing proceedings with HOA attorneys - Edward GA (observer)
Summer associate observing proceedings with HOA attorneys
Neutral Parties
- Kay Abramsohn (ALJ)
- Louis Dettorre (Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - A. Hansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - D. Gardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - d. jones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - v. nunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate - c. serrano (OAH staff)
Signed transmittal - Miranda Alvarez (Legal Secretary)
Signed transmittal (also referred to as M Alvarez) - Gina Marcus (Design Review Coordinator)
Association staff/minutes taker - Cindy Nichols (unknown)
Possible minutes taker
Other Participants
- Nicholas Dana (Lot owner)
Owner of Lot 24 and resident of Lot 25 - Steven Schmidt (observer)
Petitioner in a different matter, observing the hearing