Pawn 1st LLC v. City of Phoenix/jachimek, 242 Ariz. 547

Background

Property: a C-3 zoned corner parcel in Phoenix that had been reduced by a 1973 eminent domain action, leaving a 12,000 sq ft lot with no frontage, limited setbacks, and restricted parking.
Tenant/Applicant: William Jachimek (Central Pawn) leased the property intending to operate a pawn shop, a use permitted in C-3 (via C-2) but subject to a 500-foot residential setback requirement.
Administrative history: Jachimek sought a use permit and a variance from the 500-foot requirement; the zoning administrator denied them and he appealed to the Phoenix Board of Adjustment.
Board action: The Board granted a conditional variance (hours limits, no guns/pornography sales, remodel permits), finding special circumstances tied to the property’s physical characteristics created in part by prior eminent domain action.
Litigation: Pawn 1st challenged the variance. Superior court initially sided with Jachimek; the court of appeals held the variance invalid as ultra vires (finding self-imposed circumstances); the Arizona Supreme Court granted review.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Whether the requested relief is an area variance or a use variance	Pawn: allowing the pawn shop despite the 500-ft rule effectively changes permitted uses	City/Jachimek: pawn shops are a permitted use in C-3 via C-2; 500-ft rule is a technical setback => area variance	Area variance — pawn shop is a permitted use; the 500-ft rule is a technical requirement, not a use restriction
2. Whether special circumstances exist to justify an area variance	Pawn: any difficulty results from applicant choosing the property for a pawn shop (self-imposed)	Board/City: property’s lot size, lack of frontage, setbacks, and parking (from eminent domain) are unique special circumstances	Special circumstances exist tied to physical characteristics caused by prior eminent domain action; Board’s finding upheld
3. Whether the special circumstances were self-imposed by the owner/applicant	Pawn: selecting the property for a pawn shop makes circumstances self-imposed and bars variance	Jachimek/City: self-imposed rule applies when owner’s choices create the hardship; here circumstances arose from prior eminent domain and city growth, not applicant’s actions	Applicant’s selection of property, even with knowledge, does not automatically make circumstances self-imposed; no self-imposition here
4. Whether the Board exceeded authority / acted ultra vires in granting the variance	Pawn: Board violated statute by granting a variance based on self-imposed circumstances, so decision is void	City/Jachimek: Board acted within statutory limits for area variances and considered required factors	Board acted within its discretion; variance valid; superior court judgment affirmed; court of appeals opinion vacated

Key Cases Cited

Ivancovich v. City of Tucson Bd. of Adjustment, 22 Ariz. App. 530 (distinguishes area vs. use variances and standards)
Arkules v. Bd. of Adjustment of Paradise Valley, 151 Ariz. 438 (board has only statutory powers; personal preferences not cognizable hardship)
Burns v. SPA Auto., Ltd., 156 Ariz. 503 (self-created hardships can bar variance where owner’s choices produced the condition)
Rivera v. City of Phoenix, 186 Ariz. 600 (denial of variance where owner created noncompliance by erroneous submissions)
Cardon Oil Co. v. City of Phoenix, 122 Ariz. 102 (boards cannot change uses permitted by zoning)
Mueller v. City of Phoenix ex rel. Phoenix Bd. of Adjustment II, 102 Ariz. 575 (standard for judicial review of board decisions)
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 231 Ariz. 309 (court of appeals decision on standing)
Pawn 1st, LLC v. City of Phoenix, 239 Ariz. 539 (court of appeals decision invalidating the variance; vacated by the Supreme Court)