Stagecoach Trails Mhc, L.L.C. v. City of Benson
307 P.3d 989
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. sues City of Benson, Benson Board of Adjustment, and Zoning Administrator Brad Hamilton seeking to invalidate amended zoning §16 and to obtain a permit for space 27; issue is whether the park as a whole or individual spaces are the nonconforming use under §9-462.02(A).
- Arizona Supreme Court remanded to determine if a mobile-home park as a whole or an individual space can be the nonconforming use; this court holds the park as a whole is entitled to nonconforming-use status, but the record here is insufficient to decide, so remand to superior court.
- Between 1998 and 2009 Benson amended §16 to increase setbacks and space sizes; while parks operated under older regulations, Stagecoach replaced 34 homes in prior years with nonconforming structures; in 2010 the city denied a permit to replace space 27.
- Board of Adjustment held that individual spaces are the nonconforming uses; superior court reversed and ordered a permit; this court previously held exhaustion of remedies was required, but supreme court clarified futility of return to board and retained jurisdiction.
- The opinion determines the protected nonconforming use is the park as a whole, holds replacement of a mobile home is a reasonable alteration that does not extinguish nonconforming status, but the replacement must comply with the applicable last-conforming zoning regulations, and remands for determinations of which regulations apply and whether space 27 complies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nonconforming use of park vs. spaces | Stagecoach: park as whole is the nonconforming use | City: each space is a separate nonconforming use | Park as a whole is the nonconforming use |
| Replacement of a unit within a nonconforming park | Replacement of a mobile home is a permissible alteration | Replacement could extinguish nonconforming status | Replacement is a reasonable alteration not extinguishing status |
| Applicable zoning regulations after nonconforming status | Park must follow the regulations in effect when it became nonconforming | Regulations in force at time of replacement apply | Apply the last-conforming regulations; remand to determine which version applies and if space 27 complies |
| Record sufficiency and remand scope | Record supports park-as-whole analysis | Record incomplete on when park last conforming and applicable regs | Record unavailable for final determination; remand for determinations consistent with this opinion |
| Judicial bias challenge to presiding judge | City claimed bias based on rulings and extrajudicial factors | No abuse of discretion; no sufficient bias shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Rotter v. Coconino Cnty., 169 Ariz. 269 (Ariz. 1991) (nonconforming-use protections and due-process considerations)
- Outdoor Sys., Inc., 169 Ariz. 301 (Ariz. 1989) (narrow interpretation of nonconforming-use protections;Park as entire parcel)
- Gannett Outdoor Co. of Ariz., 159 Ariz. 459 (Ariz. 1989) (replacement of components within nonconforming use permitted; general principles)
- Whiteco Outdoor Adver. v. City of Tucson, 193 Ariz. 314 (Ariz. App. 1998) (interpretation of statute regarding existing property and nonconforming uses)
- City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 201 Ariz. 106 (Ariz. App. 2001) (alterations to nonconforming billboard permissible; case applied to park context)
- Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 231 Ariz. 366 (Ariz. 2013) (supreme court remand on whether park or spaces constitute the nonconforming use; park as whole protected; record insufficient for final disposition)