11-816. Boards of adjustment; powers; appeals
A. There shall be one or more boards of adjustment in each county. The board of supervisors may establish one board of adjustment that has jurisdiction countywide and that is composed of one member who is a resident of each supervisorial district or one board of adjustment in each supervisorial district that has jurisdiction in that supervisorial district and that is composed of not less than three nor more than five members, each of whom is a resident of that supervisorial district. The members of each board shall be appointed for staggered terms of four years each.
B. The board of adjustment may:
1. Interpret the zoning ordinance if the meaning of any word, phrase or section is in doubt, if there is dispute between the appellant and enforcing officer or if the location of a district boundary is in doubt.
2. Allow a variance from the terms of the ordinance if, owing to peculiar conditions, a strict interpretation would work an unnecessary hardship and if in granting the variance the general intent and purposes of the zoning ordinance will be preserved.
3. If authorized by the board of supervisors, review decisions by a hearing officer who hears and determines zoning violations pursuant to section 11-815 and render a final decision. Subsections C and D of this section do not apply to this paragraph. Judicial review of the final decision by the board of adjustment shall be pursuant to title 12, chapter 7, article 6.
C. Appeals to a board of adjustment may be taken by any person who feels that there is error or doubt in the interpretation of the ordinance or that due to unusual circumstances attaching to the person's property an unnecessary hardship is being inflicted on the person. The appeal shall state whether it is a plea for an interpretation or a variance and the grounds for the appeal.
D. Any person aggrieved in any manner by an action of a board of adjustment may appeal within thirty days to the superior court, and the matter shall be heard de novo.
Notes of Decisions
Shea v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
· cites it 17× “” ¶6 The court found that “[t]here [wa]s no dispute that [the Sheas] did not proceed under [the Act],” as required, and that they had proceeded under the incorrect subsection of § 11-816. Nonetheless, it denied the County’s motion to dismiss and granted the Sheas leave to file…”
Jd's River v. maricopa/lcr (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 7× “But whether a condition is properly defined as “peculiar,” or more generally falls within the scope of Section 11-816(B), is inherently a legal question because it involves the interpretation and application of a statute.”
Trotter v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 6× “” A.R.S. § 11-816. The Directive expressly provided it was interpreting the relevant section of the MCZO as silent to halogen lights.”
Shea v. Maricopa (Ariz. 2023).
· cites it 6× “Third, the complaint was not titled as a “notice of appeal” and failed to cite A.R.S. § 11-816(B)(3), which permits judicial review of Board decisions according to Arizona’s Administrative Review Act (the “Act”).”
Shea v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 5× “See A.R.S. § 11-816(C) (allowing appeal to a board of adjustment "by any person who feels that there is error or doubt in the interpretation of the ordinance").”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-816(A) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-816(B) — 3 cases
Jd's River v. maricopa/lcr (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“But whether a condition is properly defined as “peculiar,” or more generally falls within the scope of Section 11-816(B), is inherently a legal question because it involves the interpretation and application of a statute.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-816(B)(2) — 1 case
Jd's River v. maricopa/lcr (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“But whether a condition is properly defined as “peculiar,” or more generally falls within the scope of Section 11-816(B), is inherently a legal question because it involves the interpretation and application of a statute.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-816(B)(3) — 3 cases
Shea v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“” ¶6 The court found that “[t]here [wa]s no dispute that [the Sheas] did not proceed under [the Act],” as required, and that they had proceeded under the incorrect subsection of § 11-816. Nonetheless, it denied the County’s motion to dismiss and granted the Sheas leave to file…”
Trotter v. Maricopa Cnty. (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“” A.R.S. § 11-816. The Directive expressly provided it was interpreting the relevant section of the MCZO as silent to halogen lights.”
Shea v. Maricopa (Ariz. 2023).
“Third, the complaint was not titled as a “notice of appeal” and failed to cite A.R.S. § 11-816(B)(3), which permits judicial review of Board decisions according to Arizona’s Administrative Review Act (the “Act”).”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-816(C) — 1 case
Shea v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“See A.R.S. § 11-816(C) (allowing appeal to a board of adjustment "by any person who feels that there is error or doubt in the interpretation of the ordinance").”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 11-816(D) — 4 cases
Shea v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2022).
“” ¶6 The court found that “[t]here [wa]s no dispute that [the Sheas] did not proceed under [the Act],” as required, and that they had proceeded under the incorrect subsection of § 11-816. Nonetheless, it denied the County’s motion to dismiss and granted the Sheas leave to file…”
Shea v. Maricopa (Ariz. Ct. App. 2020).
“See A.R.S. § 11-816(C) (allowing appeal to a board of adjustment "by any person who feels that there is error or doubt in the interpretation of the ordinance").”
Shea v. Maricopa (Ariz. 2023).
“Third, the complaint was not titled as a “notice of appeal” and failed to cite A.R.S. § 11-816(B)(3), which permits judicial review of Board decisions according to Arizona’s Administrative Review Act (the “Act”).”
Jd's River v. maricopa/lcr (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“But whether a condition is properly defined as “peculiar,” or more generally falls within the scope of Section 11-816(B), is inherently a legal question because it involves the interpretation and application of a statute.”
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.