Scenic Arizona v. City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment
228 Ariz. 419
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- The City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment granted a use permit to American Outdoor Advertising for an electronic billboard adjacent to Interstate 17.
- Scenic Arizona and the Neighborhood Coalition of Greater Phoenix challenged the permit, claiming it violated the AHBA, A.R.S. § 28-7903.
- The superior court found Scenic had standing to challenge but denied relief on merits.
- This appeal contends Scenic has standing and the billboard violates the AHBA due to intermittent lighting.
- The court analyzes standing under A.R.S. § 9-462.06(K) and the statutory prohibition on intermittent lighting in the AHBA.
- The court ultimately holds Scenic has standing and the billboard violates the AHBA, remanding for judgment in Scenic’s favor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of Scenic as 'person aggrieved' | Scenic has members harmed by billboard aesthetics and safety. | Scenic’s members are not sufficiently aggrieved to sue. | Scenic qualifies as a 'person aggrieved' under § 9-462.06(K). |
| Intermittent lighting violation of AHBA | Billboard lighting is intermittent and falls within AHBA prohibition. | Lighting is not intermittent or is permitted by regulatory interpretations. | Billboard uses intermittent lighting and violates AHBA. |
| Effect of eight-second change frequency | Change every eight seconds is non-intermittent and permissible. | Any intermittent lighting is prohibited regardless of frequency. | Arizona law bars intermittent lighting even with eight-second intervals. |
| Binding effect of ADOT/FHWA guidance and agency interpretations | ADOT/FHWA guidance or interpretations support digital billboards. | Those interpretations are not controlling or longstanding. | Court-definitively rejects deference to ADOT/FHWA guidance as controlling; statutory text governs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970) (standing breadth under 'person aggrieved' in statutory review)
- Center Bay Gardens v. City of Tempe, 214 Ariz. 353, 153 P.3d 374 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007) (standing and injury-in-fact in land-use challenges)
- Buckelew v. Town of Parker, 188 Ariz. 446, 937 P.2d 368 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1996) (property-related standing in zoning decisions)
- Mendelsohn v. Superior Court, 76 Ariz. 163, 261 P.2d 983 (1953) (scope of standing and aggrieved party concept)
- Libra Group, Inc. v. State, 167 Ariz. 176, 805 P.2d 409 (1991) (AHBA context and state regulatory authority)
- City of Scottsdale v. McDowell Mountain Irr. & Drainage Dist., 107 Ariz. 117, 483 P.2d 532 (1971) (statutory interpretation and public policy considerations)
- Town of Paradise Valley v. Gulf Leisure Corp., 27 Ariz. App. 600, 557 P.2d 532 (1976) (standing principles in regulatory challenges)
- Spahn v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment, 602 Pa. 83, 977 A.2d 1132 (2009) (comparator on standing framework (not controlling here))
- Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43 (1994) (signs and First Amendment concerns in zoning)
- Camp, Ass'n of Data Processing Serv. Orgs., Inc. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150 (1970) (agency action and standing under enabling statutes)