Case Details
– Petitioner: Will Schreiber
– Respondent: Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association
– Case Number: H020-19/003
– Date and Time of Hearing: January 30, 2020
– Judge’s Name: Antara Nath Rivera
– Whether the petitioner was successful: No, the petition was dismissed.
Case Description
This case arose from a dispute between Will Schreiber (the Petitioner) and the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association (the Respondent), following the emergence of issues concerning the installation of a glass viewing fence at Schreiber’s property.
Will Schreiber owned a residence situated at 11551 East Caribbean Lane in Scottsdale, Arizona, which was part of the Cimarron Hills community governed by its Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements (CC&Rs) and specific Design Guidelines. On July 2, 2019, Schreiber filed a petition with the Arizona Department of Real Estate, asserting that the Respondent had violated community guidelines regarding his glass viewing fence.
The crux of the dispute was initiated when Schreiber installed a glass fence without prior approval from the Respondent’s Design Review Committee (DRC), which went against community regulations. Although Schreiber applied for a retroactive variance on January 24, 2019, his request was denied, primarily because he failed to seek approval before the installation, which was a violation of the stipulated Design Guidelines.
During the original hearing held in January 2020, Schreiber presented his argument, emphasizing that his fence did not draw complaints from neighbors and arguing that the glass fence was not substantially different in visibility and functionality from a wrought iron fence, which was the alternative permitted by the community’s regulations.
In contrast, the Respondent, represented by Whitney Bostic, articulated their grounds for disallowing the glass fencing, underscoring concerns regarding aesthetic consistency within the community, maintenance liabilities, and safety issues stemming from the potential hazards of a shattered glass structure.
The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), Antara Nath Rivera, after reviewing the evidence from both sides—including the absence of prior approval for the glass fence—concluded that Schreiber had not demonstrated entitlement to the requested approval. The Judge noted that the Respondent had adhered to the governing documents and acted within their rights to deny the installation of the glass fence.
Consequently, the ALJ dismissed Schreiber’s petition, affirming the DRC’s denial as reasonable and consistent with community standards. The case underscores the importance of compliance with homeowners association regulations regarding property modifications to ensure aesthetic and safety standards within residential communities. A judgment was formally rendered on March 16, 2020, following the administrative hearing.
Legal Advice & Recommendations
In this case, Will Schreiber, the Petitioner, lost his dispute against the Cimarron Hills at McDowell Mountain Homeowners Association (Respondent) due to his failure to comply with the community’s Design Guidelines regarding fence modifications. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that Petitioner did not establish a valid argument or sufficient evidence demonstrating that Respondent’s denial of his glass viewing fence was unreasonable.
Analysis
1. Failure to Obtain Approval Before Installation: The main reason for Schreiber’s loss was his installation of the glass fence without prior approval from the Design Review Committee (DRC). As outlined in Section HH of the Design Guidelines, he was required to submit a detailed application for any modifications to existing fencing. The Governing Documents emphasize the importance of maintaining community standards and uniformity, which Schreiber violated by acting unilaterally.
2. Compliance with Guidelines: The ALJ highlighted that Schreiber did not meet the burden of proof required to show that his glass fence complied with the architectural and neighborhood characteristics necessary for granting a variance. The Respondent effectively argued that maintaining consistency across the subdivision is essential and that allowing one homeowner to deviate from the established norm could set a precedent that undermines the Guidelines.
3. Preventative Measures for Safety and Liability: Respondent articulated safety concerns regarding the glass fence (i.e., broken glass posing a risk). The ALJ deemed the Respondent’s reasons for denial—safety and liability—as legitimate concerns, providing grounds for the decision.
4. Comparison to Neighbor’s Fence: Schreiber’s argument that his neighbor did not have a wrought iron fence was not sufficient to justify his installation of the glass fence. The community documents specifically mandated approval for such changes, and it is irrelevant whether adjacent properties are compliant.
Recommendations For Petitioner
1. Pre-Approval Process: Schreiber could have avoided this situation by ensuring he followed pre-approval procedures before making any changes to his property, as required by the CC&Rs and Design Guidelines.
2. Documentation: Maintaining comprehensive documentation of all communications and approvals, as well as adhering to the aesthetic requirements set forth in the community guidelines, would strengthen his case in any future disputes.
3. Engagement with the HOA: Engaging in dialogue with the HOA, seeking clarification on design guidelines, and addressing any proposed changes proactively rather than reactively would be beneficial.
4. Legal Input: Consulting with an HOA attorney prior to taking any unilateral actions regarding property modifications could help in understanding potential outcomes and adhering to regulations.
Advice For Similar Cases
– Future petitioners in similar situations should meticulously follow their community’s procedural requirements before attempting alterations. This includes obtaining all necessary approvals and ensuring modifications align with existing design guidelines.
– Understanding and documenting the rationale behind community guidelines—validating both safety concerns and aesthetic continuity—can be pivotal in negotiations or disputes with HOA.
– Being aware of the appeals process as outlined in A.R.S. § 12-904(A) and ensuring timely filing of any appeals post-decision is crucial for those who wish to contest HOA decisions based on the outcome of the initial hearing.
Overall, it highlights the importance of adhering to community regulations and the potential pitfalls of disregarding established procedures when dealing with homeowners associations.