Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson
278 P.3d 314
Ariz. Ct. App.2012Background
- In 1997 Benson amended the zoning regs to §16 governing manufactured home parks, effective 1998, not retroactively applied to existing parks.
- Desert Craft Mobile Home Park became Stagecoach Trails MHC around 2003; permits issued for 34 homes despite §16 minimum space requirements.
- In 2009 Benson announced it would start enforcing §16 against parks previously exempt, but would not apply retroactively to units already installed.
- Stagecoach Trails applied for a permit for space 27 in January 2010; zoning administrator denied for noncompliance with §16 and related site standards.
- Stagecoach Trails appealed to the board of adjustment, which denied the appeal after hearing.
- Stagecoach Trails then filed a two-count special-action in superior court challenging the validity of §16 and seeking mandamus-style relief to issue the permit; the court later invalidated §16 and granted relief directing issuance of the permit, plus fees.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the superior court had jurisdiction to consider supplemental complaints. | Stagecoach Trails asserts court had jurisdiction over new issues raised after §16 invalidation. | City contends supplemental complaints fall outside §9-462.06(K) review once §16 is invalid. | Superior court lacked jurisdiction for those supplemental issues; only original §9-462.06(K) review applies. |
| Validity of §16 (1998) and its notice requirements. | Stagecoach Trails argues §16 is void for improper notice and invalid as applied. | City contends §16 valid and enforceable; retroactive effects not at issue. | §16 (1998) invalid for improper notice; not properly enforceable. |
| Whether mandamus relief was proper in certiorari-like review of zoning decisions. | Stagecoach Trails seeks mandamus directing issuance of permit. | Relief under §9-462.06(K) review is certiorari, not mandamus; no statutory basis for mandamus. | Mandamus relief was improper; action is certiorari under §9-462.06(K). |
| Effect of §16 invalidation on the board of adjustment’s determinations and ongoing permit evaluation. | Stagecoach Trails contends Board’s determinations should be reevaluated under remaining regulations. | City argues post‑invalidation issues fall under board procedures and statutory limits. | Because §16 was invalidated, court should not revisit boilerplate considerations; issues belong to administrative procedures. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sw. Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson, 201 Ariz. 438 (App. 2001) (review de novo in administrative contexts; notice and procedures matter)
- Gannett Outdoor Co. of Ariz. v. City of Mesa, 159 Ariz. 459 (App. 1989) (court reviews board decisions on arbitrariness or abuse of discretion)
- Circle K Convenience Stores v. City of Phoenix, 178 Ariz. 102 (App. 1993) (statutory special actions; distinction from traditional special actions)
- U.S. Parking Sys. v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210 (App. 1989) (certiorari-like review; administrative action by zoning official)
- City of Tucson v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 218 Ariz. 172 (App. 2008) (estoppel and governmental powers in zoning)