A. Notwithstanding any other law, all territory within six miles of an incorporated city or town, as the same now exists or may hereafter be established, having a population of five thousand or more persons, and all territory within three miles of any incorporated city or town, as the same now exists or may hereafter be established, having a population of less than five thousand persons is declared to be an urbanized area.
B. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, territory within an urbanized area shall not hereafter be incorporated as a city or town, and the board of supervisors does not have jurisdiction to take any action on a petition pursuant to section 9-101 to incorporate a city or town within such area, unless either:
1. The petitioners for incorporation submit to the board of supervisors, before the petitioners obtain signatures, a resolution adopted by the city or town causing the urbanized area to exist approving the proposed incorporation.
2. The petitioners for incorporation submit to the board of supervisors, before the petitioners obtain signatures, an affidavit stating that a proper and legal petition has been presented to the city or town causing the urbanized area to exist requesting annexation of the area proposed for incorporation and the petition has not been approved by a valid ordinance of annexation within one hundred twenty days after its presentation.
C. If a resolution or affidavit is submitted to the board of supervisors pursuant to subsection B of this section, the board shall take action on the petition pursuant to section 9-101 to incorporate the proposed area.
D. If the area proposed for incorporation has a population of fifteen thousand or more persons and that population is more than the population of the city or town that causes the urbanized area to exist and that opposes the proposed incorporation, the board of supervisors shall take action on the petition pursuant to section 9-101 to incorporate the proposed area without a resolution approving the proposed incorporation and adopted by the city or town causing the urbanized area to exist.
E. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, a portion of the territory of any city or town incorporated before June 20, 1968 shall not be declared to be an urbanized area. If any such city or town is declared to have been unlawfully incorporated by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction after June 20, 1968, all or any portion of the territory of the city or town may be incorporated without regard to this section if petitions praying for the incorporation thereof or petitions praying for the calling of an election for such purpose are filed with the board of supervisors within one year after the date on which the judgment becomes final.
F. If, during the period of declarant control, a planned community association as defined in section 33-1802 notifies the board of its request to be excluded from the petition to incorporate, the board shall exclude from the community proposed to be incorporated the area or portion of the area covered by the planned community association after the petition has been submitted pursuant to section 9-101, subsection C, paragraph 3. The petitioners are not required to resubmit a petition if the remaining area proposed for incorporation meets the population qualifications for incorporation pursuant to this section and section 9-101. If the remaining area proposed for incorporation fails to meet the population qualifications for incorporation pursuant to this section or section 9-101, the board shall reject the petition.
Notes of Decisions
Snyder v. Lena (1985)
arizctapp · cites it 10×
“The critical statute in question here is A.R.S. § 9-101.01. In order that the reader may more easily understand the controversy, the full text of subsections A and B is set out as follows: *585 or town, as the same now exists or may-hereafter be established, having a population…”
Green v. City of Tucson (2001)
ca9 · cites it 3×
“Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 9-101.01 is unconstitutional, a permanent injunction against the statute’s operation, a declaration that Tortolita was validly incorporated in September 1997, and unspecified damages.”
Green v. City of Tucson (2003)
ca9 · cites it 2×
“See Ariz.Rev. Stat. § 9-101.01. The City of Tucson and the Towns of Maraña and Oro Valley (“Defendants”) each has 5,000 or more inhabitants and lies within six miles of the boundaries of Tortolita.”
Jay v. Kreigh (1973)
arizctapp · cites it 4×
“A.R.S. § 9-101.01 prohibits the Board from incorporating any community within six miles of any incorporated city or town having a population of five thousand or more.”
Jay v. Kreigh (1974)
ariz
“The trial judge, after hearing the evidence, on 31 March 1972, entered a minute entry order directing the Board to incorporate, but due to illness of the judge, formal written judgment was not signed until 15 June 1972. In- the meantime, on 24 May 1972, the City Council of the…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-101.01(A) — 4 cases
Green v. City of Tucson (2001)
ca9
“Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 9-101.01 is unconstitutional, a permanent injunction against the statute’s operation, a declaration that Tortolita was validly incorporated in September 1997, and unspecified damages.”
Green v. City of Tucson (2003)
ca9
“See Ariz.Rev. Stat. § 9-101.01. The City of Tucson and the Towns of Maraña and Oro Valley (“Defendants”) each has 5,000 or more inhabitants and lies within six miles of the boundaries of Tortolita.”
Snyder v. Lena (1985)
arizctapp
“The critical statute in question here is A.R.S. § 9-101.01. In order that the reader may more easily understand the controversy, the full text of subsections A and B is set out as follows: *585 or town, as the same now exists or may-hereafter be established, having a population…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-101.01(B) — 3 cases
Snyder v. Lena (1985)
arizctapp
“The critical statute in question here is A.R.S. § 9-101.01. In order that the reader may more easily understand the controversy, the full text of subsections A and B is set out as follows: *585 or town, as the same now exists or may-hereafter be established, having a population…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-101.01(B)(1) — 4 cases
Green v. City of Tucson (2001)
ca9
“Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 9-101.01 is unconstitutional, a permanent injunction against the statute’s operation, a declaration that Tortolita was validly incorporated in September 1997, and unspecified damages.”
Snyder v. Lena (1985)
arizctapp
“The critical statute in question here is A.R.S. § 9-101.01. In order that the reader may more easily understand the controversy, the full text of subsections A and B is set out as follows: *585 or town, as the same now exists or may-hereafter be established, having a population…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-101.01(B)(2) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-101.01(B)(l) — 4 cases
Snyder v. Lena (1985)
arizctapp
“The critical statute in question here is A.R.S. § 9-101.01. In order that the reader may more easily understand the controversy, the full text of subsections A and B is set out as follows: *585 or town, as the same now exists or may-hereafter be established, having a population…”
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.