Pima County v. Clapp
| Decision Date | 30 January 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,2 |
| Citation | 23 Ariz.App. 86,530 P.2d 1119 |
| Parties | PIMA COUNTY, a body politic; Joseph Castillo, James Murphy, E. S. Walker, Ron Asta and Conrad Joyner, duly elected supervisors in and for the County of Pima; James A. Wares, John L. Kromptich, Charles A. Brady, David E. Davies, John M. Harlow, Thomas E. Fitzgerald, Edward B. Jewitt, Jack C. Ledford and John Sudler, duly appointed members of the Pima County Planning & Zoning Commission; Alex Garcia, Pima County Planning Director; Rillito-River Road Association, Inc., an Arizona nonprofit organization; et al., Appellants, v. Walter E. CLAPP and Betty Clapp, husband and wife; George H. Amos and Edna Amos, husband and wife; Albert W. Gibson and Eunice Gibson, husband and wife, Appellees. 1676. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
This appeal challenges the propriety of a judgment directing appellants to process appellees' Villa Mesa Plat for the development of the northeast corner of the intersection of River and Craycroft Roads. Finding no error, we affirm.
The court made extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law. Appellants do not dispute the factual findings.
The subject property lies within what is known as the Catalina Foothills Area Plan, which was adopted by resolution of the Pima County Board of Supervisors on June 5, 1958. The resolution adopted by the Board was as follows:
'Being an amendment of the County Plan, showing proposed zoning and location of community facilities recommended to the Board of Supervisors for official action in whole or in part, on condition that the zoning shall be made effective only after:
1. This Plan is adopted by the Board of Supervisors as presented or as it may be amended.
2. An acceptable subdivision plat conforming to the county plan so adopted shall have been reviewed by the commission and approved by the Board of Supervisors for any part of the area covered by the plat.'
In 1960 the Pima County Board of Supervisors adopted Article 34 of the County Zoning Plan. This article gives the Board authority to create area and neighborhood plans. In order to implement or amend the zoning designated for a particular property under an Article 34 Area Plan it is necessary that there be notice by publication and public hearings before the County Planning and Zoning Commission and before the Board of Supervisors. The Catalina Foothills Area Plan has never been adopted as an Article 34 Area Plan, although other similar zoning plans have been readopted as Article 34 plans. The Catalina Foothills Plan is in fact not an area plan but a zoning plan. There are eight zoning plans in effect in Pima County.
The procedure formulated by the Planning Commission to implement the zoning provided for in a zoning plan has been to request the subdivision to submit the tentative plat, together with an 'application for zoning' form and the requisite fee.
As of June 8, 1972, the Catalina Foothills Area Plan designated CB--1 (local business) and TR (transitional) zoning for the subject property, subject to platting requirements. On that date appellees' engineers initiated the platting procedures to implement the CB--1 and TR zoning set forth on the Catalina Foothills Plan for the subject property by submitting the customary application form and fee to the Pima County Planning Department. By letter dated June 15, 1972, the Pima County Planning Director notified appellees that their request for platting was in order, that it conformed to a valid zoning plan, and that their request would be subject to the submission of the requisite plat maps.
On August 2, 1972, a petition was filed by John Holbrook, et al purportedly pursuant to Article 34, Section 3405 of the County Zoning Plan requesting that the Planning Commission amend the Catalina Foothills Plan. Five days later, the Board of Supervisors' special counsel explained to the Board at a public hearing that the property in question was contained within and subject to a zoning plan and all that remained to be done was for the landowner to fulfill the requirements for rights-of-way, drainage, etc., necessary to effect the zoning. His opinion was that to grant the Holbrook petition would change a longstanding precedent and would lead to holding superfluous hearings. The now associate planning director (E. W. Bambauer) concurred with this opinion. Until that time the Planning Commission and the Board had never imposed a public hearing requirement for plat approval of property subject to a zoning plan.
On August 8, 1972, the Board delayed approval of appellees' plat request and zoning ordinances for the subject property until public hearings could be held.
On August 29, 1972, the Planning Commission, acting on the Holbrook petition, scheduled a public hearing on the petition. The notice for public hearing, which was posted and published prior to the public hearing at the Planning Commission on September 26, 1972, stated:
In a memorandum dated September 26, 1972, the associate planning director pointed out to the Planning Commission that the subject property 'appears on a duly adopted Zoning Plan'. At the public hearing on that date, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Board of Supervisors that the transitional and commercial uses designated for the subject property on the Catalina Foothills Plan be eliminated.
Prior to the public hearing before the Board on October 17, 1972, notice of the hearing was posted and published, and the notice contained the same language ('reconsidering commercial and transitional uses') as the notice preceding the Planning Commission's hearing of September 26, 1972. The County had never before employed this language in amending zoning plans or giving notice of rezoning hearings, the typical form of notice stating that it was proposed to change From Zone 'A' To Zone 'B'.
At the October 17, 1972 hearing, the attorney appearing in support of the Holbrook petition requested an amendment of an 'Area Plan' pursuant to Article 34, Section 3405. The Board was told by the attorneys for appellees that: (i) the appellees' request for plat approval did not require a public hearing prior to passage of the effecting ordinance because the proposed rezoning was in conformity with the Catalina Foothills Plan, a zoning plan; and (ii) proper notice of the hearing on October 17, 1972 had not been made. Notwithstanding this, the Board voted that the Catalina Foothills Plan be amended by deleting the transitional and commercial uses at the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Emmett McLoughlin Realty v. Pima County
...The notice requirements in the Code are additional to those requirements mandated by statute. See Pima County v. Clapp, 23 Ariz.App. 86, 90, 530 P.2d 1119, 1123 (1975). ¶ 13 McLoughlin acknowledges it received notice of all public hearings that occurred in the formal zoning process relating......
-
Nesbit v. City of Albuquerque
...is generally held to be a jurisdictional defect which renders the action taken by the zoning authority void. Pima County v. Clapp, 23 Ariz.App. 86, 530 P.2d 1119 (1975). Although some courts have held that even a minor defect in notice will invalidate an action taken by the zoning authority......
-
McIntyre v. Mohave County
...1109 (1959), and "failure to follow the state statutory notice requirements renders a zoning ordinance void." Pima County v. Clapp, 23 Ariz.App. 86, 89, 530 P.2d 1119, 1122 (1975). In interpreting statutes, this court will "ascertain and give effect to the intent of the legislature." Mardia......
-
Taggart & Taggart Seed Co., Inc. v. City of Augusta
...procedural rules of its own municipal ordinances. Welch v. Niagara Falls, 210 App.Div. 170, 205 N.Y.S. 454 (1924); Pima County v. Clapp, 23 Ariz.App. 86, 530 P.2d 1119 (1975); see 1 R. Anderson, American Law of Zoning, §§ 4.03 & 4.04 (2d ed. 1976). To hold otherwise would encourage the arbi......