Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06

Board of adjustment

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

A. The legislative body, by ordinance, shall establish a board of adjustment, which shall consist of at least five but no more than seven members appointed by the legislative body in accordance with provisions of the ordinance, except that the ordinance may establish the legislative body as the board of adjustment. The legislative body may, by ordinance, delegate to a hearing officer the authority to hear and decide on matters within the jurisdiction of the board of adjustment as provided by this section, except that the right of appeal from the decision of a hearing officer to the board of adjustment shall be preserved.

B. The ordinance shall provide for public meetings of the board, for a chairperson with the power to administer oaths and take evidence, and that minutes of its proceedings showing the vote of each member and records of its examinations and other official actions be filed in the office of the board as a public record.

C. A board of adjustment shall hear and decide appeals from the decisions of the zoning administrator, shall exercise other powers as may be granted by the ordinance and adopt all rules and procedures necessary or convenient for the conduct of its business.

D. Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by persons aggrieved or by any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality affected by a decision of the zoning administrator, within a reasonable time, by filing with the zoning administrator and with the board a notice of appeal specifying the grounds of the appeal. The zoning administrator shall immediately transmit all records pertaining to the action appealed from to the board.

E. An appeal to the board stays all proceedings in the matter appealed from, unless the zoning administrator certifies to the board that, in the zoning administrator's opinion by the facts stated in the certificate, a stay would cause imminent peril to life or property. On the certification proceedings shall not be stayed, except by restraining order granted by the board or by a court of record on application and notice to the zoning administrator. Proceedings shall not be stayed if the appeal requests relief that has previously been denied by the board except pursuant to a special action in superior court as provided in subsection K of this section.

F. The board shall fix a reasonable time for hearing the appeal, and shall give notice of hearing by both publication in a newspaper of general circulation in accordance with section 9-462.04 and posting the notice in conspicuous places close to the property affected.

G. A board of adjustment shall:

1. Hear and decide appeals in which it is alleged there is an error in an order, requirement or decision made by the zoning administrator in the enforcement of a zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to this article.

2. Hear and decide appeals for variances from the terms of the zoning ordinance only if, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, including its size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance will deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property of the same classification in the same zoning district. Any variance granted is subject to conditions as will assure that the adjustment authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in which the property is located.

3. Reverse or affirm, in whole or in part, or modify the order, requirement or decision of the zoning administrator appealed from, and make the order, requirement, decision or determination as necessary.

H. A board of adjustment may not:

1. Make any changes in the uses permitted in any zoning classification or zoning district, or make any changes in the terms of the zoning ordinance provided the restriction in this paragraph shall not affect the authority to grant variances pursuant to this article.

2. Grant a variance if the special circumstances applicable to the property are self-imposed by the property owner.

I. If the legislative body is established as the board of adjustment, it shall exercise all of the functions and duties of the board of adjustment in the same manner and to the same effect as provided in this section.

J. In a municipality with a population of more than one hundred thousand persons, the legislative body, by ordinance, may provide that a person aggrieved by a decision of the board or a taxpayer who owns or leases the adjacent property or a property within three hundred feet from the boundary of the immediately adjacent property, an officer or a department of the municipality affected by a decision of the board, at any time within fifteen days after the board has rendered its decision, may file an appeal with the clerk of the legislative body. The legislative body shall hear the appeal in accordance with procedures adopted by the legislative body and may affirm or reverse, in whole or in part, or modify the board's decision.

K. A person aggrieved by a decision of the legislative body or board or a taxpayer who owns or leases the adjacent property or a property within three hundred feet from the boundary of the immediately adjacent property, an officer or a department of the municipality affected by a decision of the legislative body or board, at any time within thirty days after the board, or the legislative body, if the board decision was appealed pursuant to subsection J of this section, has rendered its decision, may file a complaint for special action in the superior court to review the legislative body or board decision. Filing the complaint does not stay proceedings on the decision sought to be reviewed, but the court may, on application, grant a stay and on final hearing may affirm or reverse, in whole or in part, or modify the decision reviewed.

 

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 46 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix (2013) arizctapp · cites it 26× “¶ 7 Pawn sought review of the Board’s decision by filing a complaint for special action with the superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-462.06(E). The complaint alleged that Jaehimek could not prove any of the four requirements for a variance.”
Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix/jachimek (2017) ariz · cites it 17× “06(G)(l). Primarily, the boards determine whether “special circumstances” exist to relieve owners of property with unique characteristics from strict application of zoning laws.”
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale (1988) arizctapp · cites it 22× “In deciding whether the trial court ruled correctly, the issues to be determined are (1) whether A.R.S. § 9-462.06, the statute governing municipal boards of adjustment, grants authority to the board to rehear a matter decided previously and, (2) whether, even if a board has…”
Lane v. City of Phoenix (1991) arizctapp · cites it 42× “As a result, there was no reported committee consideration in either house. See, Senate Journal, 38th Legislature, p.”
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment (2012) arizctapp · cites it 21× “2006) (citing A.R.S. § 9-462.06(C)). In resolving matters before it, the Board may receive evidence and take testimony from witnesses who are placed under oath.”
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix (2016) arizctapp · cites it 18× “Pawn argues that Jachimek’s request for a variance is not an “area” variance as found by the superior court, but an unauthorized “use” variance because it allows the Property to be developed for an impermissible use; namely, the operation of a pawn shop within 500 feet of a…”
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson (2001) arizctapp · cites it 6× “06(0(1), a board of adjustment is directed to “[h]ear and decide all appeals in which it is alleged there is an error in an order, requirement or decision made by the zoning administrator in the enforcement of a zoning ordinance.” Cities of a certain size can establish an…”
Thomas v. City of Phoenix (1991) arizctapp · cites it 13× “During the 1988 session, the Arizona legislature amended A.R.S. § 9-462.06 to change the appeal process for decisions of *71 boards of adjustment in cities with populations of more than 100,000.”
Neal v. City of Kingman (1991) ariz · cites it 11× “As stated in the petition, that issue is: Whether a municipal board of adjustment must consider a matter not specified in the notice of appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-462.06(D). DISCUSSION We agree with the court of appeals in several important particulars.”
Winner Enterprises, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1988) arizctapp · cites it 8× “NOTES [1] A.R.S. § 9-462.06(D) provides: Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by persons aggrieved or .”
Book Cellar, Inc. v. City of Phoenix (1983) arizctapp · cites it 8× “" [2] However this statutory provision was not enacted until 1982, after this petition was filed in superior court.”
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson (2013) ariz · cites it 7× “It therefore held that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the letters of July and September 2010 outlining additional reasons for denying the permit because those issues had not been administratively exhausted under § 9-462.06. Id. at 540-41 ¶ 19, 287 P.3d at…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(0) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(A) — 4 cases
Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix/jachimek (2017) ariz “06(G)(l). Primarily, the boards determine whether “special circumstances” exist to relieve owners of property with unique characteristics from strict application of zoning laws.”
Lane v. City of Phoenix (1991) arizctapp “As a result, there was no reported committee consideration in either house. See, Senate Journal, 38th Legislature, p.”
Son Silver v. Sedona (2018) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(B) — 1 case
Lane v. City of Phoenix (1991) arizctapp “As a result, there was no reported committee consideration in either house. See, Senate Journal, 38th Legislature, p.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(C) — 6 cases
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale (1988) arizctapp “In deciding whether the trial court ruled correctly, the issues to be determined are (1) whether A.R.S. § 9-462.06, the statute governing municipal boards of adjustment, grants authority to the board to rehear a matter decided previously and, (2) whether, even if a board has…”
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment (2012) arizctapp “2006) (citing A.R.S. § 9-462.06(C)). In resolving matters before it, the Board may receive evidence and take testimony from witnesses who are placed under oath.”
Levine v. phoenix/suns (2016) arizctapp
Houser v. Phoenix (2020) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(D) — 6 cases
Winner Enterprises, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1988) arizctapp “NOTES [1] A.R.S. § 9-462.06(D) provides: Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by persons aggrieved or .”
Neal v. City of Kingman (1991) ariz “As stated in the petition, that issue is: Whether a municipal board of adjustment must consider a matter not specified in the notice of appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-462.06(D). DISCUSSION We agree with the court of appeals in several important particulars.”
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment (2012) arizctapp “2006) (citing A.R.S. § 9-462.06(C)). In resolving matters before it, the Board may receive evidence and take testimony from witnesses who are placed under oath.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(E) — 4 cases
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix (2013) arizctapp “¶ 7 Pawn sought review of the Board’s decision by filing a complaint for special action with the superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-462.06(E). The complaint alleged that Jaehimek could not prove any of the four requirements for a variance.”
Winner Enterprises, Ltd. v. Superior Court (1988) arizctapp “NOTES [1] A.R.S. § 9-462.06(D) provides: Appeals to the board of adjustment may be taken by persons aggrieved or .”
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment (2012) arizctapp “2006) (citing A.R.S. § 9-462.06(C)). In resolving matters before it, the Board may receive evidence and take testimony from witnesses who are placed under oath.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(F) — 1 case
Lane v. City of Phoenix (1991) arizctapp “As a result, there was no reported committee consideration in either house. See, Senate Journal, 38th Legislature, p.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(G) — 4 cases
Neal v. City of Kingman (1991) arizctapp
Neal v. City of Kingman (1991) ariz “As stated in the petition, that issue is: Whether a municipal board of adjustment must consider a matter not specified in the notice of appeal pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-462.06(D). DISCUSSION We agree with the court of appeals in several important particulars.”
Son Silver v. Sedona (2018) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(G)(1) — 1 case
Red Mountain v. Cobblestone (2021) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(G)(2) — 3 cases
Haynes v. City of Tucson (1989) arizctapp
Warner v. Phx Board (2017) arizctapp
Adams v. Giguere (2017) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(G)(3) — 1 case
Son Silver v. Sedona (2018) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(G)(l) — 2 cases
Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix/jachimek (2017) ariz “06(G)(l). Primarily, the boards determine whether “special circumstances” exist to relieve owners of property with unique characteristics from strict application of zoning laws.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(H) — 2 cases
Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix/jachimek (2017) ariz “06(G)(l). Primarily, the boards determine whether “special circumstances” exist to relieve owners of property with unique characteristics from strict application of zoning laws.”
Son Silver v. Sedona (2018) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(H)(1) — 2 cases
Neal v. City of Kingman (1991) arizctapp
Levine v. phoenix/suns (2016) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(H)(2) — 1 case
Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix/jachimek (2017) ariz “06(G)(l). Primarily, the boards determine whether “special circumstances” exist to relieve owners of property with unique characteristics from strict application of zoning laws.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(H)(l) — 3 cases
Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix/jachimek (2017) ariz “06(G)(l). Primarily, the boards determine whether “special circumstances” exist to relieve owners of property with unique characteristics from strict application of zoning laws.”
Neal v. City of Kingman (1991) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(J) — 12 cases
Boyce v. City of Scottsdale (1988) arizctapp “In deciding whether the trial court ruled correctly, the issues to be determined are (1) whether A.R.S. § 9-462.06, the statute governing municipal boards of adjustment, grants authority to the board to rehear a matter decided previously and, (2) whether, even if a board has…”
Book Cellar, Inc. v. City of Phoenix (1983) arizctapp “" [2] However this statutory provision was not enacted until 1982, after this petition was filed in superior court.”
Lane v. City of Phoenix (1991) arizctapp “As a result, there was no reported committee consideration in either house. See, Senate Journal, 38th Legislature, p.”
Southwest Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson (2001) arizctapp “06(0(1), a board of adjustment is directed to “[h]ear and decide all appeals in which it is alleged there is an error in an order, requirement or decision made by the zoning administrator in the enforcement of a zoning ordinance.” Cities of a certain size can establish an…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(K) — 25 cases
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix (2013) arizctapp “¶ 7 Pawn sought review of the Board’s decision by filing a complaint for special action with the superior court pursuant to A.R.S. § 9-462.06(E). The complaint alleged that Jaehimek could not prove any of the four requirements for a variance.”
Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment (2012) arizctapp “2006) (citing A.R.S. § 9-462.06(C)). In resolving matters before it, the Board may receive evidence and take testimony from witnesses who are placed under oath.”
Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson (2013) ariz “It therefore held that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the letters of July and September 2010 outlining additional reasons for denying the permit because those issues had not been administratively exhausted under § 9-462.06. Id. at 540-41 ¶ 19, 287 P.3d at…”
Jones v. Paniagua (2009) arizctapp
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 9-462.06(K)(1996) — 1 case
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.