Marc Archer v. PMPE Community Association, Inc.

Posted on March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

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 March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

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

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

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

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.

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

• 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.”

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.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

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

• 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.

• 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.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

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

• 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.

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.

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

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

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 March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

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

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

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

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.

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

• 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.”

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.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

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

• 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.

• 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.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

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

• 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.

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.

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

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

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 March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

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

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

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 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 March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

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

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

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

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.

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

• 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.”

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.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

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

• 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.

• 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.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

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

• 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.

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.

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

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

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 March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

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

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

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

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.

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

• 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.”

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.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

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

• 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.

• 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.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

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

• 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.

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.

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

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

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 March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

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

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

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

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.

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

• 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.”

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.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

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

• 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.

• 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.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

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

• 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.

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.

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

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

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 March 30, 2022 by [email protected]

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

Key Issues & Findings

Unreasonable withholding of architectural approval

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

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.

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

• 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.”

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.”

3.3 Insufficient Architectural Expression

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

• 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.

• 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.”

4.2 Defense of Roof Tiles and Window Design

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

• 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.

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.

5.3 The “Collaborative Process” Breakdown

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

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.

Clifford (Norm) Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

Posted on January 3, 2022 by [email protected]

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

Case Summary

Case ID	21F-H2121051-REL-RHG
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2022-01-03
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	none
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Clifford (Norm) Burnes	Counsel	—
Respondent	Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.	Counsel	John Crotty

Alleged Violations

ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804

Outcome Summary

The ALJ dismissed the Petitioner's complaint, finding that the Respondent HOA did not violate the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) because the action was taken without a meeting via unanimous written consent as authorized by A.R.S. § 10-3821.

Why this result: The Petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred, as the board acted without holding a formal meeting.

Key Issues & Findings

Violation of open meeting law by taking action via unanimous written consent

Petitioner alleged that the Board of Directors violated the open meeting law (A.R.S. § 33-1804) on May 3, 2020, by taking two actions using unanimous written consent of the Board members, which the Respondent claimed was permissible under A.R.S. § 10-3821 as action without a meeting.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: petitioner_loss

Cited:

ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
ARIZ. REV STAT. 10-3821

Analytics Highlights

Topics: HOA, Open Meeting Law, Unanimous Written Consent, Rehearing, Planned Community

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV STAT. 33-1804
ARIZ. REV STAT. 10-3821
ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199
ARIZ. REV. STAT. 32-2199.02(A)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. 41-1092.08
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. 10-3701(F)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. 10-3071

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

21F-H2121051-REL-RHG Decision – 930803.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:37:56 (46.9 KB)

21F-H2121051-REL-RHG Decision – 935756.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:01 (124.8 KB)

21F-H2121051-REL-RHG Decision – ../21F-H2121051-REL/899423.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:38:05 (101.7 KB)

Briefing Doc – 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG

Briefing Document: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association

Executive Summary

This briefing document synthesizes the legal proceedings and final decision in the case of Clifford (Norm) Burnes versus the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. (Case No. 21F-H2121051-REL). The core of the dispute was Petitioner Burnes’s allegation that the HOA Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting law for planned communities by taking two official actions on May 3, 2020, without holding a public meeting. The HOA defended its actions, stating that it utilized a provision in the Arizona statutes for non-profit corporations (ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821) that allows a board to take action “without a meeting” through the unanimous written consent of all directors.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Thomas Shedden, ultimately ruled in favor of the HOA. The key finding was that no “meeting” as defined by the open meeting law actually occurred on May 3, 2020. Instead, the Board President individually visited other board members to obtain signatures on consent forms. The ALJ concluded that the two relevant statutes—the open meeting law (§ 33-1803/1804) and the action-by-consent statute (§ 10-3821)—are not in conflict. An HOA board can legally use the action-by-consent procedure, but if it chooses to hold a meeting, it must comply with the open meeting law.

Mr. Burnes’s request for a rehearing, which raised several legal and jurisdictional arguments, was granted but ultimately denied on its merits. The ALJ systematically rejected each of Burnes’s arguments, reaffirming the original decision. The final order dismissed Mr. Burnes’s petition, making the HOA the prevailing party.

——————————————————————————–

Case Overview

• Petitioner: Clifford (Norm) Burnes

• Respondent: Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

• Case Number: 21F-H2121051-REL (and 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG for rehearing)

• Adjudicating Body: Arizona Office of Administrative Hearings

• Administrative Law Judge: Thomas Shedden

• Core Allegation: The Petitioner alleged that on May 3, 2020, the Respondent’s Board of Directors violated Arizona’s open meeting law (cited as ARIZ. REV STAT. § 33-1803 in the initial decision and § 33-1804 in the rehearing decision) by taking two formal actions via unanimous written consent without allowing members to attend and speak.

• Respondent’s Defense: The Respondent acknowledged taking action by unanimous consent but asserted this was permissible under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821, which allows for action without a meeting. Therefore, the open meeting law did not apply.

Factual Background and Timeline

1. April 2020: Mr. Burnes and his wife raised two issues with the HOA Board concerning “lot 7,” which is adjacent to their property. The issues were related to a construction bond waiver and the placement of a house on the lot.

2. April 2020 (Post-Complaint): Following the complaint, research was conducted by Jamie Argueta, and emails were exchanged between Mr. Burnes, the Board members, and Mr. Argueta.

3. April 19 & 21, 2020: The Board members met with Mr. and Ms. Burnes to discuss the issues. Minutes were kept for these meetings.

4. Undated Discussions: Board President Esmerelda Sarina Martinez and Board member Mr. Madill had informal discussions with other HOA members, which Ms. Martinez characterized as “neighbors talking and not a meeting.”

5. May 3, 2020: Ms. Martinez, acting alone, drafted two unanimous consent forms. She personally brought the forms and related documents to the homes of the other Board members, who each read the information and signed. The two actions taken by consent were:

◦ Honoring a waiver of the construction deposit for lot 7.

◦ A decision regarding the placement of the home on lot 7.

6. August 29, 2020: The first regularly scheduled Board meeting after the May 3rd actions was held. The meeting minutes did not include an entry showing that the written consent documents had been filed with the corporate records, a requirement of § 10-3281(A).

Procedural History

• May 7, 2021: Mr. Burnes filed his petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, initially asserting seven violations but being required to select only one for adjudication due to paying a single fee. He selected the violation of members not being permitted to attend and speak before the Board took formal action on May 3, 2020.

• July 16, 2021: An initial hearing was held before ALJ Thomas Shedden.

• July 28, 2021: The ALJ issued a decision dismissing Mr. Burnes’s petition, finding he had not proven a violation because no meeting occurred on May 3, 2020.

• September 2, 2021 (approx.): Mr. Burnes filed a Rehearing Request.

• September 22, 2021: The Department of Real Estate granted the request for a rehearing.

• December 9, 2021: The ALJ issued an order concluding the rehearing matter, noting that since only legal issues were raised, the decision would be based on the existing record and supplemental briefs (though neither party filed one).

• January 3, 2022: The ALJ issued the final decision on the rehearing, once again dismissing the petition and upholding the original ruling. This order was final and binding, subject to judicial review in the Superior Court.

Analysis of Legal Arguments from Rehearing

In his request for a rehearing, Mr. Burnes raised six primary legal arguments against the initial decision. The ALJ addressed and rejected each one.

Petitioner’s Argument

ALJ’s Analysis and Conclusion

1. Limited Jurisdiction: The ALJ’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33, Chapter 16 and does not include ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821.

Rejected. Jurisdiction was proper because Mr. Burnes alleged a violation of § 33-1804 (which is in Title 33, Ch. 16). Nothing prohibits a Respondent from raising defenses from outside Title 33, or the ALJ from considering them.

2. Inapplicability of § 10-3821: The statute for action-by-consent only applies to actions found in Title 10, Chapters 24-40. The actions the HOA took are not found there.

Rejected. The ALJ noted that Mr. Burnes himself acknowledged that “voting” is an action found within those chapters of Title 10, and voting is precisely the action that was taken by unanimous consent.

3. Conflict of Law (§ 10-3701(F)): Statute § 10-3701(F) states that in cases of inconsistency, Title 33 (planned communities) controls over Title 10.

Rejected. This analysis is flawed because § 10-3701(F) applies specifically to membership meetings (Title 10, Ch. 30). The statute for action by consent, § 10-3821, deals with directors’ meetings and is in a different chapter (Title 10, Ch. 31), which has no similar provision. The legislature’s choice to include this provision for membership meetings but not for board meetings indicates an intent to allow boards more latitude to act by consent.

4. Specific vs. General Statute: § 33-1804 is specific to planned communities and should control over § 10-3821, which applies to all non-profits. The policy of the state favors open meetings.

Rejected. This principle of statutory construction only applies when statutes are in conflict and cannot both be given effect. Here, they are not in conflict. Both can be given full effect: an HOA may take action without a meeting per § 10-3821, but if a meeting is held, it must follow the open meeting requirements of § 33-1804.

5. Bylaws Are Irrelevant: The ALJ wrongly cited the HOA’s bylaws allowing action-by-consent, because § 33-1804 applies “notwithstanding any provision in the… bylaws.”

Rejected. Mr. Burnes was correct that bylaws do not trump the open meeting law. However, he overlooked that § 10-3821 itself contains an exception: it does not apply if the corporation’s bylaws prohibit action by consent. The finding regarding the bylaws was necessary only to show that this exception did not apply to the HOA, thus making § 10-3821 available to them.

6. A Meeting Did Occur: Mr. Burnes asserted a meeting did take place on May 3, 2020.

Rejected. The ALJ found this position had several flaws: Mr. Burnes cited no evidence from the record to prove discussion occurred on May 3rd; he conflated prior meetings with the events of May 3rd; and he provided no legal authority to show that drawing on past discussions to draft a consent form constitutes a “meeting.” The ALJ also dismissed his reliance on new dictionary definitions not presented at the original hearing.

Key Statutes and Legal Principles

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 / § 33-1804 (Open Meetings Law):

◦ Mandates that “all meetings of the members’ association and the board of directors… are open to all members of the association.”

◦ Members “shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time during the deliberations and proceedings.”

◦ A “quorum of the board of directors that meets informally to discuss association business… shall comply with the open meeting and notice provisions.”

◦ Reflects a state policy that provisions should be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

• ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821 (Action Without Meeting):

◦ “Unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide otherwise, action… to be taken at a directors’ meeting may be taken without a meeting if the action is taken by all of the directors.”

◦ The action must be evidenced by one or more written consents, signed by each director, and included in the minutes filed with corporate records.

◦ A consent signed under this section has “the effect of a meeting vote.”

• Saguaro Crest HOA Bylaws (Section 3.5):

◦ The association’s bylaws explicitly provide directors with “the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting, which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written consent of all the directors.”

Conclusion and Final Order

The Administrative Law Judge concluded that Mr. Burnes failed to meet his burden of proof to show that the Saguaro Crest HOA violated the open meeting law. The central finding was that the HOA’s actions on May 3, 2020, did not constitute a “meeting” but were a legally permissible “action without a meeting” under ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821. The subsequent rehearing confirmed this legal interpretation.

The final order, issued January 3, 2022, was:

“IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner Clifford (Norm) Burnes’s petition is dismissed.”

The order was final and binding, with any further appeal requiring judicial review by the Superior Court within 35 days.

Study Guide – 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG

Study Guide: Burnes v. Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

This study guide provides a review of the administrative law case involving Petitioner Clifford (Norm) Burnes and Respondent Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc. It includes a short-answer quiz, an answer key, essay questions, and a glossary of key terms based on the provided legal decisions.

Short-Answer Quiz

Answer each question in 2-3 sentences, based on the information in the case documents.

1. What was the single, specific violation that Clifford (Norm) Burnes alleged against the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association’s Board of Directors?

2. What was the Respondent’s primary legal justification for the actions its Board of Directors took on May 3, 2020?

3. What two specific decisions did the Board make using the unanimous consent forms on May 3, 2020?

4. According to the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), how can both the open meeting law (§ 33-1804) and the statute allowing action without a meeting (§ 10-3821) be given effect without being in conflict?

5. What was the purpose of the rehearing granted to Mr. Burnes, and what was the outcome?

6. How did the HOA’s bylaws, specifically section 3.5, support the Respondent’s case?

7. What argument did Mr. Burnes make regarding the ALJ’s jurisdiction to consider ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 10-3821?

8. What is the standard of proof required in this matter, and who bears the burden of meeting it?

9. Mr. Burnes asserted that a meeting did occur on May 3, 2020. What flaws did the ALJ identify in this assertion?

10. What specific requests did Mr. Burnes make in his petition as a remedy for the alleged violation?

——————————————————————————–

Quiz Answer Key

1. Mr. Burnes’s single alleged violation was that at the “meeting” on May 3, 2020, HOA members were not permitted to attend and speak after discussion but before the Board took formal action. This, he claimed, was a violation of Arizona’s open meeting law, cited as ARIZ. REV STAT. § 33-1803 and later § 33-1804.

2. The Respondent acknowledged taking two actions by consent but argued that no meeting actually occurred. Their defense was that they acted under the authority of ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821, which explicitly allows a board of directors to take action without a meeting if it is done via unanimous written consent of all directors.

3. The two decisions made via unanimous consent related to issues Mr. Burnes had raised about lot 7, which abuts his property. The first action was to honor a waiver of the construction deposit for lot 7, and the second action was regarding the placement of the home on lot 7.

4. The ALJ reasoned that the statutes are not in conflict because they apply to different situations. Respondent may take action without a meeting as allowed by § 10-3821, but if a meeting is held, Respondent must follow all the requirements of the open meeting law, § 33-1804.

5. Mr. Burnes requested a rehearing, alleging that the initial ALJ decision’s findings of fact were not supported by evidence or were contrary to law. The rehearing was granted to review these legal issues, but the outcome was the same: the ALJ once again concluded that no violation had occurred and dismissed Mr. Burnes’s petition.

6. Section 3.5 of the Association’s bylaws, titled “Action Without a Meeting,” explicitly provides the directors with “the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting, which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written consent of all the directors.” This directly supported the Respondent’s claim that its actions were permissible under its own governing documents as well as state law.

7. Mr. Burnes argued that the ALJ’s jurisdiction is limited to Title 33, Chapter 16, and therefore the ALJ had no jurisdiction to consider section 10-3821 as a defense because it is not found in that title. The ALJ rejected this, stating that jurisdiction was proper because the complaint was about a violation of Title 33, and nothing prohibits a respondent from raising defenses from outside that title.

8. The standard of proof is a “preponderance of the evidence.” The Petitioner, Mr. Burnes, bore the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred.

9. The ALJ found several flaws in this assertion: Mr. Burnes did not cite evidence from the record proving a discussion occurred on May 3rd, he conflated prior meetings with the events of May 3rd, and he provided no legal authority showing that prior discussions are pertinent to whether a meeting occurred on that specific day.

10. Mr. Burnes requested that the Respondent be ordered to rescind the consent actions, comply with the open meeting law, pay his filing fee, and be assessed a civil penalty.

——————————————————————————–

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the central conflict between ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1804 (“Open meetings”) and ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821 (“Action without meeting”) as presented in this case. Explain the ALJ’s reasoning for concluding that the statutes do not conflict and can both be given effect.

2. Describe the timeline of events leading up to the May 3, 2020 unanimous written consent. How did the meetings and communications in April 2020 between Mr. Burnes and the Board influence the context of the dispute, even though they were not the subject of the final legal violation claim?

3. Evaluate the six specific legal arguments Mr. Burnes raised in his request for rehearing. For each, summarize his point and the ALJ’s counter-argument or legal conclusion.

4. Discuss the concept of “preponderance of the evidence” as defined in the case documents. Explain why the ALJ concluded that Mr. Burnes failed to meet this standard of proof in both the initial hearing and the rehearing.

5. Examine the relationship between state statutes and an association’s governing documents (like bylaws) in this case. How did the ALJ address Mr. Burnes’s argument that § 33-1804 should apply “notwithstanding any provision in the…bylaws”?

——————————————————————————–

Glossary of Key Terms

Term / Statute

Definition

Action without meeting

A procedure allowed by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821 and the Association’s Bylaws (Section 3.5) where a board of directors may take action if it is evidenced by one or more written consents signed by all directors. The consent has the effect of a meeting vote.

Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)

The official, in this case Thomas Shedden, assigned to adjudicate complaints and ensure compliance with relevant statutes for the Office of Administrative Hearings.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821

The state statute titled “Action without meeting” that permits a board of directors to take action without a meeting if all directors provide written consent, unless the articles of incorporation or bylaws provide otherwise.

ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 33-1803 / § 33-1804

The state’s “Open meetings” law for planned communities. It requires that all meetings of an HOA board be open to all members, who shall be permitted to attend and speak at an appropriate time.

Burden of Proof

The obligation of a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will prove the claims they have made against the other party. In this case, the Petitioner (Mr. Burnes) bore the burden of proof.

Clifford (Norm) Burnes

The Petitioner in the case, a member of the Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association.

Petitioner

The party who files a petition or brings an action; in this case, Clifford (Norm) Burnes.

Preponderance of the evidence

The standard of proof in this case, defined as “The greater weight of the evidence…sufficient to incline a fair and impartial mind to one side of the issue rather than the other.”

Respondent

The party against whom a petition is filed; in this case, Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.

The Respondent in the case; a planned community governed by a Board of Directors.

Unanimous Written Consent

The method used by the Respondent’s Board of Directors on May 3, 2020, to take action. It involved each board member signing written consent forms, as permitted by ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 10-3821.

Blog Post – 21F-H2121051-REL-RHG

Your HOA Board Can Legally Make Decisions in Secret—Here’s How One Homeowner’s Lawsuit Proved It

1.0 Introduction: The Expectation vs. The Reality

For most homeowners living in a planned community, the principle of transparency is paramount. The common expectation is that all significant decisions made by the Homeowners Association (HOA) board of directors will happen in open meetings. These are forums where members can attend, listen to the deliberations, and, at the appropriate time, make their voices heard before the board takes a formal vote. This commitment to openness is often seen as a cornerstone of fair governance.

But what if a board could make a decision without ever holding a meeting at all? This question was at the heart of a legal dispute in Arizona, where a homeowner named Clifford (Norm) Burnes took his HOA, Saguaro Crest, to court. Mr. Burnes alleged that his board violated the state’s open meeting law when it took action on two separate issues without convening a meeting. The case worked its way through an administrative law court, and the final decision sided with the HOA, establishing a critical legal precedent that boards can, under specific circumstances, bypass open meetings entirely.

2.0 Takeaway 1: Boards Can Legally Act “Without a Meeting”

The central facts of the case were not in dispute. On May 3, 2020, the Saguaro Crest HOA board made two formal decisions concerning a neighboring lot, specifically regarding a construction bond waiver and home placement—issues that Mr. Burnes himself had previously raised. Instead of calling a meeting, the board used a procedure known as “unanimous written consent.” The Board President, Ms. Martinez, drafted two consent forms, personally brought them to the homes of the other board members, and had each director sign them.

This action, while sidestepping an open meeting, was found to be perfectly legal. The board was operating under the authority of a specific Arizona state law, ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 10-3821, titled “Action without meeting.” This statute explicitly allows the board of a non-profit corporation to take action without a meeting, provided the action is taken by all directors and is documented by written consent.

Furthermore, this power was not just granted by state law; it was also written directly into the HOA’s own governing documents. Section 3.5 of the Saguaro Crest HOA’s bylaws, titled “Action Without a Meeting,” explicitly grants its directors “the right to take any action in the absence of a meeting, which they could take at a meeting by obtaining the written consent of all the directors.”

3.0 Takeaway 2: A Legal Puzzle—When Two State Laws Seem to Conflict

Mr. Burnes’s case created a compelling legal puzzle by highlighting two state laws that appeared to be in direct opposition. On one side was Arizona’s Planned Community law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 33-1804), which strongly mandates open meetings for HOA boards and includes a policy statement that any interpretation of the law should be construed “in favor of open meetings.”

On the other side was the state’s Nonprofit Corporation law (ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 10-3821), which, as noted, expressly permits a board to act without a meeting. Mr. Burnes argued that the open meeting law should take precedence.

The Administrative Law Judge, however, made a crucial distinction. Applying a standard legal principle that courts must try to give effect to both laws if possible, the judge determined the two statutes do not actually conflict. The judge’s reasoning clarifies how both can exist and be applied legally.

In this case, both sections 10-3821 and 33-1804 can be given effect in that Respondent may take action without a meeting as allowed by section 10-3821, but if a meeting is held, Respondent must follow the requirements of section 33-1804.

This interpretation is the core of the decision. The open meeting law, with all its requirements for notice and member participation, only applies if a meeting is held. By using the “action without meeting” statute, the Saguaro Crest board legally sidestepped the requirement to hold a meeting in the first place, thereby rendering the open meeting law inapplicable to their actions on that day.

4.0 Takeaway 3: Legislative Intent Can Be Read in a Law’s Silence

Mr. Burnes also advanced a more sophisticated legal argument: that in any conflict, the specific laws written for HOAs (found in Title 33 of the state code) should overrule the more general laws for non-profit corporations (found in Title 10).

The judge’s response to this provided a fascinating lesson in how courts interpret legislative intent, not just from what a law says, but from what it doesn’t say. The judge noted that the section of law governing general membership meetings does contain a specific clause stating that in the case of an inconsistency, the HOA laws control.

Crucially, the section of law governing board meetings, where the “action without meeting” statute is found, has no such clause. The judge interpreted this difference not as an oversight, but as a deliberate choice by lawmakers. This “silence” in the statute was read as a “legislative intent to allow boards latitude to act by consent.” In other words, if the legislature had intended for the open meeting law to always override the board’s ability to act by written consent, it would have explicitly said so, just as it did for membership meetings.

5.0 Conclusion: Efficiency vs. Transparency

While homeowners understandably value and expect open meetings as a tool for transparency and participation, the law also recognizes the need for boards to operate efficiently. The unanimous written consent procedure provides a legal mechanism for boards to make decisions, particularly on straightforward matters, without the time and expense of convening a formal meeting.

This case is more than a legal curiosity; it’s a practical lesson for every homeowner. The power wielded by the Saguaro Crest board is not unique to Arizona. If you want to understand the true scope of your own board’s authority, take these two steps:

1. Review your HOA’s bylaws. Look for a clause titled “Action Without a Meeting” or similar language that grants the board the right to act via written consent. This is the internal authorization.

2. Check your state’s Nonprofit Corporation Act. Search for a statute similar to Arizona’s § 10-3821. This is the ultimate source of the board’s power, and it likely exists in some form in your state, defining the boundary between efficiency and transparency for your community.

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Clifford (Norm) Burnes (petitioner)
Appeared on his own behalf
Ms. Burnes (spouse of petitioner)
Wife of Clifford (Norm) Burnes; raised issues with the Board

Respondent Side

John Crotty (HOA attorney)
Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood
Esmerelda Sarina Martinez (board member)
Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Board president and witness
Madill (board member)
Saguaro Crest Homeowners Association, Inc.
Referred to as 'Mr. Madill'
Jennifer Elias (HOA attorney)
Law Offices of Farley, Choate & Wood

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Office of Administrative Hearings
Judy Lowe (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressee of original decision
Miranda Alvarez (clerk)
Transmitted original decision and final rehearing decision (By Miranda Alvarez/Miranda A.)
Louis Dettorre (ADRE Commissioner)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Addressee of documents relating to the rehearing
c. serrano (clerk)
Transmitted Order Concluding Matter

Other Participants

Jamie Argueta (researcher/staff)
Conducted research regarding issues raised by Petitioner

Susan L Jarzabek v. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2

Posted on November 19, 2021 by [email protected]

Case Summary

Case ID	22F-H2221008-REL
Agency	ADRE
Tribunal	OAH
Decision Date	2021-11-19
Administrative Law Judge	Thomas Shedden
Outcome	loss
Filing Fees Refunded	$500.00
Civil Penalties	$0.00

Parties & Counsel

Petitioner	Susan L Jarzabek	Counsel	—
Respondent	Hillcrest Improvement Association #2	Counsel	Haidyn DiLorenzo, Esq.

Alleged Violations

CC&R Article 1, Section 10; Enforcement, Fines and Appeals Policy ("Policy")

Outcome Summary

Petitioner's complaint regarding the wrongful assessment of attorney's fees was dismissed because she failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the HOA violated its Policy regarding pre-attorney notification requirements.

Why this result: Petitioner failed to meet her burden of proof; the ALJ found the Policy does not require the two notices prior to attorney escalation, as Petitioner had alleged.

Key Issues & Findings

Alleged violation of Policy concerning attorney's fees assessment and required pre-litigation notices.

Petitioner alleged the Association wrongfully assessed attorney's fees, arguing the Policy required providing the owner two warning notices and a certified letter before escalating a matter to attorney involvement.

Orders: Petitioner's petition is dismissed.

Filing fee: $500.00, Fee refunded: No

Disposition: respondent_win

Cited:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Analytics Highlights

Topics: attorney fees, HOA policy enforcement, notice requirements, CC&Rs, due process

Additional Citations:

ARIZ. REV. STAT. Title 32, Ch. 20, Art. 11
ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 32-2199.02(A)
Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association, 205 Ariz. 485, 73 P.3d 616 (App. 2003)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.02(B)
ARIZ. REV. STAT. section 32-2199.04
ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)

Video Overview

Audio Overview

Decision Documents

22F-H2221008-REL Decision – 926455.pdf

Uploaded 2026-01-23T17:40:13 (93.9 KB)

Study Guide – 22F-H2221008-REL

{
“case”: {
“docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”,
“case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek, Petitioner, vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2, Respondent”,
“decision_date”: “November 19, 2021”,
“tribunal”: “OAH”,
“agency”: “ADRE”
},
“individuals”: [
{
“name”: “Susan L Jarzabek”,
“role”: “petitioner, witness”,
“side”: “petitioner”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Haidyn DiLorenzo”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Counsel for Respondent”
},
{
“name”: “Thomas Shedden”,
“role”: “ALJ”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “Robert Cody”,
“role”: “board president, witness”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”,
“notes”: null
},
{
“name”: “John Jarzabek”,
“role”: “spouse”,
“side”: “unknown”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Petitioner’s husband, named on certified letter sent by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Louis Dettorre”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission”
},
{
“name”: “AHansen”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “djones”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “DGardner”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “vnunez”,
“role”: “ADRE staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: “Arizona Department of Real Estate”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission (via email)”
},
{
“name”: “Beth Mulcahy”,
“role”: “HOA attorney”,
“side”: “respondent”,
“affiliation”: “Mulcahy Law Firm, PC”,
“notes”: “Recipient of transmission; firm engaged by Association”
},
{
“name”: “Miranda Alvarez”,
“role”: “OAH staff”,
“side”: “neutral”,
“affiliation”: null,
“notes”: “Transmitter of Decision”
}
]
}

{ “case”: { “docket_no”: “22F-H2221008-REL”, “case_title”: “Susan L Jarzabek vs. Hillcrest Improvement Association #2”, “decision_date”: “2021-11-19”, “alj_name”: “Thomas Shedden”, “tribunal”: “OAH”, “agency”: “ADRE” }, “questions”: [ { “question”: “Can my HOA send a violation directly to their attorney without sending me warning letters first?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, if the community’s enforcement policy allows for immediate escalation to legal counsel.”, “detailed_answer”: “In this case, the ALJ ruled that the HOA did not violate its policy by involving a lawyer without prior notices, because the policy contained a provision stating that the standard notice procedure ceases to apply once a matter is escalated to an attorney.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy also provides in pertinent part that the Association may escalate a matter to its attorney for further action, if a matter is escalated to the attorney, the notice-procedure will no longer apply”, “legal_basis”: “HOA Enforcement Policy / Contract Law”, “topic_tags”: [ “enforcement process”, “attorney referral”, “notice requirements” ] }, { “question”: “If the HOA sends my violation to a lawyer, do I have to pay the attorney’s fees?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, generally, if the CC&Rs and enforcement policy state that the owner is responsible for enforcement costs.”, “detailed_answer”: “The decision notes that the governing documents (CC&Rs) specifically allow the Association to recover enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees, from the owner. Additionally, the specific policy noted that upon escalation, the owner becomes responsible for these costs.”, “alj_quote”: “CC&R Art. VIII, Section 1, Enforcement, provides that the Association may recover from an owner its enforcement costs, including attorney’s fees.”, “legal_basis”: “CC&Rs Article VIII, Section 1”, “topic_tags”: [ “attorney fees”, “fines and penalties”, “collection costs” ] }, { “question”: “Who has to prove that the HOA did something wrong in a hearing?”, “short_answer”: “The homeowner (petitioner) filing the complaint bears the burden of proof.”, “detailed_answer”: “When a homeowner petitions the Department of Real Estate alleging a violation by the HOA, it is up to the homeowner to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the violation occurred.”, “alj_quote”: “Ms. Jarzabek bears the burden of proof to show that the alleged violation occurred.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “burden of proof”, “legal procedure”, “hearing standards” ] }, { “question”: “Is an HOA’s enforcement policy legally considered a binding contract?”, “short_answer”: “Yes, the policy is treated as part of the contract between the HOA and the homeowners.”, “detailed_answer”: “The Administrative Law Judge affirmed that community policies are part of the contractual agreement between the parties, meaning both the homeowner and the HOA are legally required to follow the terms written in that policy.”, “alj_quote”: “The Policy is part of contract between the parties and the parties are required to comply with its terms.”, “legal_basis”: “Contract Law; Johnson v. The Pointe Community Association”, “topic_tags”: [ “contract law”, “governing documents”, “policy enforcement” ] }, { “question”: “Can the Administrative Law Judge cancel the specific debt or fees I owe the HOA?”, “short_answer”: “Not necessarily; the tribunal’s jurisdiction may be limited to determining if a violation of documents occurred, not the validity of the debt itself.”, “detailed_answer”: “The ALJ explicitly noted in a footnote that while they can determine if the HOA violated its policy, they did not have the jurisdiction to decide if the specific attorney’s fees charged constituted a valid debt.”, “alj_quote”: “it is not within this tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine whether the attorney’s fees levied against Ms. Jarzabek are a valid debt, and the tribunal offers no opinion on that issue.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 41-1092.07(F)(6)”, “topic_tags”: [ “jurisdiction”, “debt validity”, “tribunal limitations” ] }, { “question”: “What standard of evidence is used to make a decision in an HOA dispute?”, “short_answer”: “Preponderance of the evidence.”, “detailed_answer”: “The standard is ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ which means the evidence must show it is more likely than not that the claim is true. It is described as the greater weight of the evidence.”, “alj_quote”: “The standard of proof on all issues in this matter is that of a preponderance of the evidence.”, “legal_basis”: “ARIZ. ADMIN. CODE § R2-19-119”, “topic_tags”: [ “legal standards”, “evidence”, “administrative hearing” ] } ] }

Blog Post – 22F-H2221008-REL

Case Participants

Petitioner Side

Susan L Jarzabek (petitioner, witness)

Respondent Side

Haidyn DiLorenzo (HOA attorney)
Counsel for Respondent
Robert Cody (board president, witness)
Hillcrest Improvement Association #2
Beth Mulcahy (HOA attorney)
Mulcahy Law Firm, PC
Recipient of transmission; firm engaged by Association

Neutral Parties

Thomas Shedden (ALJ)
Louis Dettorre (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission
AHansen (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission (via email)
djones (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission (via email)
DGardner (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission (via email)
vnunez (ADRE staff)
Arizona Department of Real Estate
Recipient of transmission (via email)
Miranda Alvarez (OAH staff)
Transmitter of Decision

Other Participants

John Jarzabek (spouse)
Petitioner's husband, named on certified letter sent by Association