Wilkerson v. Marks
| Decision Date | 23 July 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,CA-CIV,2 |
| Parties | Harry E. WILKERSON and Malinda Wilkerson, husband and wife, Petitioners, v. Honorable Jack G. MARKS, Judge of the Superior Court, Pima County, Arizona, a body politic and corporate, Glenn Knutson, as Chief Zoning Inspector, Pima County, Arizona, Respondents. 1919. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
Were petitioners improperly denied a building permit for the reason that their property consisted of approximately one-third of a lot in a platted subdivision and such lot and not been resubdivided in accordance with Section 3301 of the Pima County Zoning Plan? That is the sole question presented here. The respondent court, in special action proceedings, upheld the denial of a building permit and petitioners seek relief in this court by way of special action. 1 Since the denial of the building permit has already caused petitioners to lose a mortgage commitment and since a gas permit from Tucson Gas & Electric Company will lapse if the home they plan to build is not completed by December 31, 1975, the remedy by appeal is inadequate. We are of the opinion that expeditious appellate review is necessary and therefore assume jurisdiction. 2
The following facts, as expressly found by the respondent court, are not in dispute. Petitioners, during December 1973, brought approximately 4.1 acres, located in the northeast part of Lot 380 of Oracle Foothills Estates No. 7, a resubdivision of the resubdivision of Oracle Foothills Estate No. 2. Their application for a building permit was denied by the respondent zoning inspector. He stated as the reason for the denial that 'Section 3301 requires the following that Recorded lot cannot be split without resubdividing.' The Wilkersons' application to the Pima County Board of Adjustment was denied, the reason being given that 'Section 3301 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that a lot in a recorded subdivision cannot be split without resubdividing.' Oracle Foothills Estates No. 7 contains approximately 150 gross acres consisting of 83 lots and lot 380 thereof contains approximately 20 acres. That part of Oracle Foothills Estates No. 7 which includes lot 380 was originally subdivided in 1949, resubdivided in 1957 and again resubdivided in 1964 at which time lot 380, as it now exists, was platted, approved as required by law and the plat was duly recorded in the County Recorder's office. Since 1964, lot 380 had not been resubdivided and petitioners, by their application for a building permit, intend to erect buildings of approximately 2,594 square feet in the northwesterly part of the 4.1 acres purchased by them.
From these facts, the court concluded:
'That Lot 380 of Oracle Foothills Estates No. 7, consisting of 20 acres, more or less, is required to be resubdivided by the County Zoning Ordinance, as passed and adopted by the Board of Supervisors of Pima County, Arizona, on August 6, 1952, and as subsequently amended and reprinted during August 1974, before the defendant Glenn Knutson, as Chief Zoning Inspector of Pima County, Arizona, is authorized to issue a building permit pursuant to Section 3301 of the County Zoning Ordinance because Lot 380 is a part of the entire Oracle Foothills Estates No. 7 subdivision and there are 83 lots or parcels within said subdivision and splitting lots within a subdivision, whether or not previously resubdivided, requires subdividing.'
Statutory subdivision controls appear in Articles 1 and 4 of the Real Estate Code (Chapter 20, Title 32, A.R.S.). The definition of a subdivision is found in A.R.S. § 32--2101 (30), as amended:
"Subdivision' or ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ahearn v. Town of Wheatland
...that action does fall under the definition of a subdivision unless the statute provides otherwise. See Wilkerson v. Marks, 24 Ariz.App. 316, 538 P.2d 403, 405 (Ariz.1975); Leeward Realty Holding Corp. v. Zoning Board of Review of the Town of Westerly, et al., 1997 WL 1526513, at *3 (R.I.Sup......
-
Transamerica Title Ins. Co. v. Cochise County
...be applied in construing the extent of the county's regulatory powers under A.R.S. § 11--806.01. We agree. In Wilkerson v. Marks, 24 Ariz.App. 316, 538 P.2d 403 (1975), we were presented with the question of whether the Pima County building inspector could properly refuse to issue a buildin......