A. The governing body of the municipality shall adopt by ordinance a citizen review process that applies to all rezoning and specific plan applications that require a public hearing. The citizen review process shall include at least the following requirements:
1. Adjacent landowners and other potentially affected citizens will be notified of the application.
2. The municipality will inform adjacent landowners and other potentially affected citizens of the substance of the proposed rezoning.
3. Adjacent landowners and other potentially affected citizens will be provided an opportunity to express any issues or concerns that they may have with the proposed rezoning before the public hearing.
B. A zoning ordinance that changes any property from one zone to another, that imposes any regulation not previously imposed or that removes or modifies any such regulation previously imposed must be adopted following the procedure prescribed in the citizen review process and in the manner set forth in section 9-462.04.
Notes of Decisions
Schwarz v. City of Glendale, 950 P.2d 167 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “Section 9-462.03 provides: A zoning ordinance which changes any property from one zone to another, imposes any regulation not previously imposed or which removes or modifies any such regulation previously imposed shall be adopted in the manner set forth in § 9-462.”
Redelsperger v. City of Avondale, 87 P.3d 843 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “¶22 In arguing that the issuance of a conditional use permit should be deemed legislative action, the City and CBA analogize a conditional use permit to a change in zoning and expound on the similarities among the notice and application procedures associated with each.”
Folsom Investments, Inc. v. City of Scottsdale, 620 F. Supp. 1372 (D. Ariz. 1985).
· cites it 4× “If a municipality decides to regulate land use, it must comply with Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 9-462.04 which requires certain procedures such as a hearing before the planning commission, notice of hearing by publication or posting 15 days before the hearing, etc.”
Florence v. Florence Copper, 251 Ariz. 464 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 2× “” That overstates the court’s holding, however, which found (1) Merrill acquired certain vested rights under the Development Agreement as described in the 2003 Plan and (2) the Town could not amend those vested rights without amending the Development Agreement.”
Zajac v. City of Casa Grande, 102 P.3d 297 (Ariz. 2004).
“Thus, by reason of § 9-462.03, a failure to notify the owners of property located within the 200-foot limit results in not only a violation of the City Code but also a violation of state law.”
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.