*1 Joyce McINTYRE and McIn- Daniel E. wife, Plaintiffs-Appellees,
tyre, his COUNTY, body politic,
MOHAVE
Defendant-Appellant. No. 14999-PR. Leek, Paul by Terrence S. Leek & Lee Arizona, Supreme Court City, plaintiffs- for Lenkowsky, Bullhead In Banc. appellees. 7, 1980.
Oct. H. P. Weisberg, & Sheldon Bruno Atty., King- Sp. Deputy County
Weisberg, man, defendant-appellant. CAMERON, Justice. Joyce McIntyre’s
We Daniel and Review of a decision and Petition for ion of the in their reversing the trial court’s jurisdiction pursuant favor. We have Rule Arizona 12-120.24 and A.R.S. § Procedure, 17A Appellate Rules of Civil appeal on is whether sole the Mohave the notice re- complied with Commission prior to en- quirements acting change property. The Mo- dispute.
The facts are not in of 1965 have Ordinance Each into five areas. divided the distinct separate and area was considered planning prob- from the others because that area. The unique lems while Bullhead Kingman, was in Area No. 3 Valley were included in City and Mohave planning Area No. the river area. On County Planning March the Mohave Resolution property No. 68-69 involved appeal (agricultural-residential). A-R Commission, Reso- On June property lution No. rezoned 68— (residential-recreational). R-E hearings on the Notices of exclusively in resolutions were time County Miner. At that weekly newspaper publish- the Miner was a *2 318 newspa- the notice shall be in Kingman
ed in a circulation in the a area City-Mohave Valley of two Bullhead per in area to of circulation the reporter to three hundred. One Miner lived thereto, if the or helped prepare in the a Mohave and county than the area affected is other ” * * * “Colorado Riv- paper section of the entitled (em- seat. Chronicle,” er which contained news and phasis supplied) the The advertising Valley. from compliance statutory “with re Strict of circula- “newspaper Miner was a quirements concerning zoning aspect the of county pursuant in seat” to A.R.S. the Bay v. power” required, the is Hart police 11-801(5). Trading 86 less Investment & time, At the same 390, 1101, 379, (1959), 346 P.2d 1109 Ariz. weekly paper published in Bull- was a statutory and to the “failure follow state Valley. head served the Mohave City and renders a ordi requirements notice 1,600 The a of about News had Clapp, v. 23 mailed nance void.” Pima newspapers being to sub- 600 being 86, 89, 1119, Ariz.App. (1975). scribers the remainder distribut- 530 P.2d 1122 major part ed retail outlets. The through statutes, interpreting will In court advertising of the news in the “ascertain and effect to intent of the City-Mohave Valley was from the Bullhead the legislature.” Mardian Construction area. Court, 489, 113 Superior v. Ariz. Company 1975, acquired In the to McIntyres title 492, 526, (1976). 557 P.2d 529 question the land in and constructed a is inform goal The of notice statutes to land a soft building on the that served as the public: facility. building water the service After constructed, was the refused issue county to requiring gener- “It is the aim statutes a commercial use building permit because al the circulation of a that incompatible of the with R-E land was publication generally read that the so McIntyres the re- zoning. Subsequently, brought to contents of the notice be home quested request but this change, omitted) (citation public generally, the was denied. at outset Consequently, we assume the in the Superi- The suit Mclntryes brought requires where the circula- that statute claiming or that Court of Mohave area, particular the aim is tion within a were in- the notice to be the contents of valid. The case was tried to the court portion gen- home of the brought jury. The was found without v. area.” Wahl public within that eral valid, in favor of the was Hart, 196 85 McIntyres. Michaels, 14 Shulansky see and the County appealed (1971). Ariz.App. and re- reversed leg the Applied to the matter trial court for manded the to the 11-822 was objective islative further the proceedings. We the in the area affected public, make the for review of the petition county seat zoning ordinance Appeals. ion and decision the Court held, aware of the hearing was where the part: in in reads statute “ zoning changes. * Publication * * proposed plan Before adoption brings this notice to seat county amendment, any extension or addi- part, hearings are where the public the area tion, hold least shall at the commission was to be affected the area held. Since thereon, hearing giving one after seat,” also “other than days at thereof one least fifteen gen had to be publication in a cir- addition, area. In eral culation in the re- We conclude phrases Words and in statutes shall be “given meaning their ordinary quires unless it Com- appears from the otherwise context or notice in a mission to publish meaning different is intended.” State v. general circulation Miller, 288, 296, is other the area affected county seat. If (1966). meaning ordinary of the words than a second notice must *3 “In legislative Addition” evidences the in general tent in a publishing notice the “area to general circulation in the seat is not affected, thereto.” something sufficient and that more is re In the quired. Planning Interpretation legislative of this intent is By failing only by comparing reinforced A.R.S. 11-822 § in a publish a second notice 11-823. 823 requires Section § general in the area Supervisors Board of to fulfill the notice re- Commission failed 15 days Therefore, quirements of A.R.S. 11-822. ap- circulation in the seat before are void. resolution proving the City of v. Scottsdale Associated Scottsdale Commission. Merchants, Inc., an requirement, 11-822 contains identical (1978); Bayless & Trad- Hart v. Investment but “In require- also the addition” notice ing supra. ment for the area to be affected. We be- decision Court of lieve that legislative this evidences the opinion is reversed and its tention the County and Zon- vacated. The of the trial court is ing publish do solely Commission more than affirmed. “in a newspaper circulation in the county seat.” STRUCKMEYER, J., and HAYS however, County, asserts that the GORDON, JJ., concur.
above construction
impossibility,
leads to an
plain meaning
therefore the
Justice,
HOLOHAN, Vice Chief
dissent-
should not be followed. See Rob-
ing.
Lintz,
inson
101 Ariz.
fact that in 1968 the
was a newspaper published,
circulation, affected,” in the “area to be nor
has respondent presented any evidence that
other counties lack two newspapers.