§ 28-8475 — Appeals; superior court

Arizona § 28-8475

• Jurisdiction: Arizona
• Title 28: Arizona Revised Statutes
• Ch. 25: AVIATION
• Art. 7: Airport Zoning and Regulation

Text

A. A person who is aggrieved or a taxpayer who is affected by a decision of a board of adjustment, or a governing body of a political subdivision or a joint airport zoning board that is of the opinion that a decision of a board of adjustment is invalid, may file a verified petition in the superior court setting forth that the decision is invalid, wholly or partially, and specifying the grounds. The petition shall be filed within thirty days after the decision is filed in the office of the board.

B. On presentation of the petition, the court may allow a writ of certiorari directed to the board of adjustment to review the decision of the board. The allowance of the writ does not stay proceedings on the decision appealed from, but on application and on notice to the board and on good cause shown, the court may grant injunctive relief.

C. The board of adjustment is not required to return the original record acted on. It is sufficient for the board of adjustment to return certified or sworn copies of the record or parts of the record as may be called for by the writ. The return shall concisely set forth other facts that are material to show the grounds of the decision appealed from and shall be verified.

D. The court has exclusive jurisdiction to:

1. Affirm, modify or set aside the decision reviewed, wholly or partially.

2. If necessary, order further proceedings by the board of adjustment.

E. The court shall accept findings of fact by the board as conclusive if they are supported by substantial evidence. The court shall not consider an objection to a decision of the board unless the objection has been urged before the board, or if it was not urged, unless there are reasonable grounds for failure to do so.

F. The court shall not allow costs against the board of adjustment unless it appears to the court that the board of adjustment acted with gross negligence, in bad faith or with malice in making the decision that is appealed.

G. In a case in which the court holds that airport zoning regulations adopted under this article, although generally reasonable, interfere with the use or enjoyment of a particular structure or parcel of land to such an extent or are so onerous in their application to the structure or parcel of land as to constitute a taking of property in violation of the constitution of this state or the United States, the holding does not affect application of the regulations to other structures and parcels of land.