Stagecoach Trails MHC, L.L.C. v. City of Benson, 231 Ariz. 366

Stagecoach operates a 50-space manufactured home park in Benson.
City amended zoning rules in 1998 to require larger space sizes and setbacks for parks, but enforcement began in 2009 when a space was replaced.
Stagecoach applied in January 2010 for a permit to install a home on space 27 after it became vacant.
BOA concluded the specific space was the nonconforming use, not the entire park, and denied the permit.
Stagecoach filed a two-count special action alleging invalid amendments and challenging the denial; the trial court held the 1998 amendments void and granted mandamus-like relief.
Court of Appeals reversed, ruling exhaustion was lacking for issues in July and September 2010 letters and held mandamus/fee award invalid; this Court granted review to resolve exhaustion and fee issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exhaustion of administrative remedies was required.	Stagecoach argued exhaustion was satisfied because the BOA had already addressed the core nonconforming-use issue.	City argued exhaustion was required for all issues not previously appealed to the BOA.	Exhaustion not required where further remedies would be futile; remanded to decide park vs. space nonconforming use.
Whether the park as a whole or an individual space constitutes the nonconforming use.	Stagecoach contends the entire park is nonconforming and replacement of spaces within park is permitted.	City contends only the individual space is nonconforming and must meet current setbacks and parking rules.	Remanded to determine whether the park as a whole or a space is entitled to nonconforming-use status.
Whether Stagecoach may recover attorney fees under 12-2030.	Stagecoach sought fees as a prevailing party in a mandamus-style action.	The action is not in the nature of mandamus; no fee under 12-2030 should be awarded.	Not a mandamus action; fee award under 12-2030 denied; remand for potential fees under other authorities if Stagecoach prevails.

Minor v. Cochise Cnty., 125 Ariz. 170 (1980) (exhaustion principle for administrative remedies)
Neal v. City of Kingman, 169 Ariz. 133 (1991) (trial court lacks jurisdiction to review claims not appealed to BOA)
Sw. Soil Remediation, Inc. v. City of Tucson, 201 Ariz. 438 (App. 2001) (trial court lacks jurisdiction over challenges not raised before the BOA)
Circle K Convenience Stores, Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 178 Ariz. 102 (App. 1993) (challenge to zoning permit not mandamus)
U.S. Parking Sys. v. City of Phoenix, 160 Ariz. 210 (App. 1989) (not mandamus for zoning permit denial)
Motel 6 Operating Ltd. Partnership v. City of Flagstaff, 195 Ariz. 569 (App. 1999) (fee awards under 12-2030 not granted for certain zoning challenges)
Estate of Bohn v. Waddell, 174 Ariz. 239 (App. 1992) (exhaustion and administrative remedy considerations)
Fleischman v. Protect Our City, 214 Ariz. 406 (2007) (12-2030 fees not available for certain mandamus-like challenges)
Pedersen v. Bennett, 230 Ariz. 556 (2012) (fees under 12-2030 not mandated when duties clarified by litigation)