Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-808 (2026)

Infrastructure service area boundaries; notice; hearing; adoption

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

11-808. Infrastructure service area boundaries; notice; hearing; adoption

A. The county planning and zoning commission may prepare a plan and provide regulations determining the location of infrastructure service area boundaries consistent with the growth area element of the comprehensive plan beyond which the county may limit or prescribe conditions on publicly financed extensions of water, sewer and street improvements. The plan and regulations shall consider all elements of the comprehensive plan, including the circulation and public facilities elements. For the purposes of this subsection, publicly financed does not include special taxing district financing other than municipal or county improvement district revenues or bonds. The regulations shall also include components that:

1. Assign or delegate administrative functions, powers and duties to county officers and employees.

2. Identify the procedure for determining the initial infrastructure service area boundaries.

3. Identify the methodology and procedures for adjusting the infrastructure service area boundaries.

B. Before recommending the plan and regulations, or any part, amendment, extension or addition, to the board of supervisors, the commission shall hold at least one public hearing on the service area boundaries, after giving at least fifteen days' notice by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the county seat and in a newspaper of general circulation in the area to be affected, if that area is other than the county seat.

C. The board of supervisors shall adopt any such plan and regulations and amendments by resolution.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 18 cases, 1959–2012 · leading case: New Sun Bus. Park, LLC v. Yuma Cnty., 209 P.3d 179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

New Sun Bus. Park, LLC v. Yuma Cnty., 209 P.3d 179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 34× “) Thus, the County established and filled the position of county zoning inspector within the meaning of § 11-808 when it appointed Stansbury. As county planning and zoning director, he alsq; served as the county zoning inspector.”

Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 218 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “Similarly, A.R.S. § 11-808 authorizes a county to establish penalties for the violation of a zoning regulation or ordinance, § 11-808(D), and to appoint a hearing officer to conduct hearings regarding such violations, § 11-808(E), (F).”

Minor v. Cochise Cnty., 608 P.2d 309 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 11-808 provided, as it stood at the time this action was brought: “11-808.”

Lowe v. Pima Cnty., 177 P.3d 1214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “See A.R.S. § 11-808(G). The Board upheld the hearing officer’s “decision that the fence was constructed without a permit and maintained without a valid Zoning Permit.”

Pf West, Inc. v. Super. Ct. of Arizona, 676 P.2d 665 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 7× “A.R.S. § 11-808. Under the administrative scheme created by the legislature, anyone seeking to build a structure must first obtain a building permit from the county zoning inspector, who is charged with enforcing compliance with the zoning ordinance and may not issue a permit…”

Minor v. Cochise Cnty., 608 P.2d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 10× “§ 11-808 provides for enforcement of a county zoning ordinance, and subsection (D) thereof states: “If any building or structure is or is proposed to be erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, maintained or used or any land is or is proposed to be used in violation of this…”

Davis v. Hidden, 606 P.2d 36 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 4× “In fact, in the context of zoning regulations, A.R.S. § 11-808(B) 4 states expressly that the building permit may be withheld for noncompliance.”

Hart v. Bayless Inv. & Trading Co., 346 P.2d 1101 (Ariz. 1959). · cites it 2× “18; now A.R.S. § 11-808); (2) mandamus was asked to compel the Zoning Inspector and his deputy to forthwith issue to plaintiff a building permit for the erection of a shopping center on Lot 1 of section 30, Township 2 North, Range 2 East, herein referred to as the “Bayless…”

Rotter v. Coconino Cnty., 818 P.2d 704 (Ariz. 1991). · cites it 2× “§ 11-821 (mandating adoption of comprehensive plan that districts according to use); A.R.S. § 11-808 (granting broad enforcement powers).”

Jones v. Cnty. of Coconino, 35 P.3d 422 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “(1990) (Arizona Administrative Review Act); see A.R.S. § 11-808(G) (1990). The trial court ruled that the fact that the Joneses had moved the hay trailers did not cause the loss of the legal nonconforming-use status be *370 cause the sales still were made from the store.”

Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Cochise Cnty., 548 P.2d 416 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 11-808(A) and (B) provide for the enforcement of the county zoning ordinance by the withholding of building permits.”

Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Bd. of Adjustment, 268 P.3d 370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “§ 11-808(D), which permits a judicial challenge to a county board of adjustment decision only by an “adjacent or neighboring property owner who is specially damaged,” and finding no such restrictive language in statute allowing appeal to a county board of adjustment); see also…”

Show all 18 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-808(A) — 2 cases

New Sun Bus. Park, LLC v. Yuma Cnty., 209 P.3d 179 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “) Thus, the County established and filled the position of county zoning inspector within the meaning of § 11-808 when it appointed Stansbury. As county planning and zoning director, he alsq; served as the county zoning inspector.”

Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Cochise Cnty., 548 P.2d 416 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). “A.R.S. § 11-808(A) and (B) provide for the enforcement of the county zoning ordinance by the withholding of building permits.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-808(B) — 2 cases

Davis v. Hidden, 606 P.2d 36 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “In fact, in the context of zoning regulations, A.R.S. § 11-808(B) 4 states expressly that the building permit may be withheld for noncompliance.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-808(C) — 3 cases

State v. Jones, 865 P.2d 138 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).

Cochise Cnty. v. Broken Arrow Baptist Church, 778 P.2d 1302 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1989).

Caldwell v. Pima Cnty., 837 P.2d 154 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-808(D) — 7 cases

Grosvenor Holdings, L.C. v. Figueroa, 218 P.3d 1045 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009). “Similarly, A.R.S. § 11-808 authorizes a county to establish penalties for the violation of a zoning regulation or ordinance, § 11-808(D), and to appoint a hearing officer to conduct hearings regarding such violations, § 11-808(E), (F).”

Pf West, Inc. v. Super. Ct. of Arizona, 676 P.2d 665 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “A.R.S. § 11-808. Under the administrative scheme created by the legislature, anyone seeking to build a structure must first obtain a building permit from the county zoning inspector, who is charged with enforcing compliance with the zoning ordinance and may not issue a permit…”

Minor v. Cochise Cnty., 608 P.2d 309 (Ariz. 1980). “A.R.S. § 11-808 provided, as it stood at the time this action was brought: “11-808.”

Minor v. Cochise Cnty., 608 P.2d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “§ 11-808 provides for enforcement of a county zoning ordinance, and subsection (D) thereof states: “If any building or structure is or is proposed to be erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, maintained or used or any land is or is proposed to be used in violation of this…”

Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Bd. of Adjustment, 268 P.3d 370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2012). “§ 11-808(D), which permits a judicial challenge to a county board of adjustment decision only by an “adjacent or neighboring property owner who is specially damaged,” and finding no such restrictive language in statute allowing appeal to a county board of adjustment); see also…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-808(E) — 3 cases

Caldwell v. Pima Cnty., 837 P.2d 154 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).

Grosvenor Holdings v. Pinal Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-808(G) — 4 cases

Lowe v. Pima Cnty., 177 P.3d 1214 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008). “See A.R.S. § 11-808(G). The Board upheld the hearing officer’s “decision that the fence was constructed without a permit and maintained without a valid Zoning Permit.”

Jones v. Cnty. of Coconino, 35 P.3d 422 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2001). “(1990) (Arizona Administrative Review Act); see A.R.S. § 11-808(G) (1990). The trial court ruled that the fact that the Joneses had moved the hay trailers did not cause the loss of the legal nonconforming-use status be *370 cause the sales still were made from the store.”

Lowe v. Pima Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2008).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.