Dye v. City of Phoenix
| Decision Date | 13 November 1975 |
| Docket Number | CA-CIV,No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 25 Ariz.App. 193,542 P.2d 31 |
| Parties | Gil DYE and Joanne Dye, his wife, Thomas Bischoff and Judy Bischoff, his wife, Derek Longstaff and Marilyn Longstaff, his wife, Reed Perkins and Carol Perkins, his wife, Appellants, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, a Municipal Corporation; John D. Driggs, Mayor of the City of Phoenix, Ed Korrick, Henry E. Brodersen, Armando de Leon, Calvin C. Goode, Margaret T. Hance and John T. Katsenes, Council Members of the City of Phoenix, A. I. Marshall, Jr., and Jack Ingerbritson, and La Espanada, a limited partnership, Appellees. 2678. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This is an appeal from a judgment which held that the reasonableness of rezoning a parcel of land was 'fairly debatable' and that the rezoning was therefore valid and must be upheld. We agree and affirm the judgment.
In 1961, the City of Phoenix, after conducting hearings concerning the proposed zoning of various areas, comprehensively zoned the entire city. This included 8.7 acres at the southwest corner of 56th Street and Thomas Road in Phoenix, which are the subject of this lawsuit. Various portions of the property were zoned C--2, P--1, R--5 and R1--6. Such zoning would have permitted apartment construction on those parcels zoned C--2 and R--5. The parcel zoned P--1, a classification allowing for parking space to service the commercial zone, would not have permitted any apartment construction, but testimony at the trial indicated that the parcel would be rezoned to allow for such construction if the C--2 and R--5 parcels were developed for apartments. The remaining parcel, zoned R1--6 and consisting of 5.51 acres, would have permitted single-family residential housing up to 4.75 units per acre. On November 18, 1970, the City Council granted an application for a zoning change for the subject property and rezoned the entire property P.A.D.--14, which, under the approvled site plan, allowed for the construction of up to 224 apartment units. This change followed approximately five rezonings of nearby land which took place during the period between 1961 and November 18, 1970, and which resulted in changes from R1--6 zoning to zone classifications permitting extensive apartment construction. These rezonings occurred in the area between 52nd Street and 54th Street and between Thomas Road and Windsor Avenue, the latter forming the southern boundary of the property at issue here. Despite strong protest by neighboring residential property owners which culminated in this lawsuit, the trial court found, among other things, that appellants had failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the rezoning change to P.A.D.--14 was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and that it had no substantial relation to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Palermo Land Co., Inc. v. Planning Com'n of Calcasieu Parish
...666, 506 A.2d 1092 (1986), Citizens Association of Georgetown v. District of Columbia, 402 A.2d 36 (D.C.App.1979), Dye v. City of Phoenix, 25 Ariz.App. 193, 542 P.2d 31 (1975), Willdel Realty, Inc. v. New Castle County, 281 A.2d 612 (Del.1971), and Lum Yip Kee Ltd. v. City of Honolulu, 767 ......
-
Bartolomeo v. Town of Paradise Valley
...was no delegation and no need for standards. Their decision was "fairly debatable" and therefore we affirm it. Dye v. City of Phoenix, 25 Ariz.App. 193, 542 P.2d 31 (1975). Finally, appellants contend that the Town Council abused its discretion in denying them the special use permit. For th......
-
Corrigan v. City of Scottsdale, 1
...reasonableness of the ordinance in question is fairly debatable the courts must uphold the zoning ordinance. Id.; Dye v. City of Phoenix, 25 Ariz.App. 193, 542 P.2d 31 (1975). Corrigan apparently accepts these general propositions but argues that legislative history is a proper method of as......
-
Harvey v. Town of Marion, No. 1998-CA-01659-COA.
...refused to follow the rule or have abandoned or modified it after a period of apparent application of it. Dye v. Phoenix, 25 Ariz.App. 193, 542 P.2d 31, 32 (1975); Willdel Realty, Inc. v. New Castle County, 281 A.2d 612, 614 (Del. 1971); Rock Creek East Neighborhood League, Inc. v. District......