Appellate Court Affirms Medical Marijuana Variance in Phoenix

Posted on May 13, 2019 by Patrick J. Paul

By:  Patrick J. Paul

On May 2, 2019, the Arizona Court of Appeals in a memorandum decision, upheld a superior court judgment affirming a variance granted by the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment (Board) to allow the operation of a medical marijuana dispensary in North Phoenix.  Dreem Green Inc. v. City of Phoenix, 2019 WL 1959618.

In Arizona, the Arizona Department of Health Services (DHS) is authorized to allocate medical marijuana dispensary registration certificates via population-based geographic areas individually  referred to as a Community Health Analysis Area or “CHAA.”  In this instance DHS granted a medical marijuana registration certificate to prospective facility operators for the North Mountain  CHAA, and those certificate holders sought to open a dispensary near Dunlap Ave and Interstate 17 in Phoenix on property zoned C2. … Read More »

Author: Patrick J. Paul | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Property Owner Entitled to Rely on Zoning Administrator Advice

Posted on April 17, 2018 by Kevin Parker

By:  Kevin J. Parker

In the recent case of In Re Langlois/Novicki Variance Denial, 175 A.3d 1222, 2017 VT 76 (2017), the Vermont court addressed the question of whether a property owner could enforce – by equitable estoppel principles – a representation by a town zoning administrator that no permit or variance was needed for the property owner’s proposed construction.  In that case, a landowner wanted to add a pergola to an existing concrete patio on his land.  During a social visit at the property, the property owner asked the town zoning administrator if he needed a permit.  The town zoning administrator told the property owner that no permit was needed. … Read More »

Author: Kevin Parker | Leave a comment Tagged , ,

Share this Article:

Is the Issuance of a City Use Permit Referable? Not When It Is an Administrative Act

Posted on December 22, 2017 by Adam Lang

By: Adam E. Lang

Arizona’s Constitution gives electors in cities, towns, and counties the ability to refer legislation that was enacted by their local elected officials to the ballot for popular vote. Ariz. Const. art. IV, Pt. 1 § 1(8). But only legislative acts are referable; administrative acts are not. In general, a legislative act makes new law and creates policy, is permanent in nature, and is generally applied. On the other hand, an administrative act is one that executes and implements a law already in place. Wennerstrom v. City of Mesa, 169 Ariz. 485, 489-90, 821 P.2d 146, 150-51 (1991).… Read More »

Author: Adam Lang | Leave a comment Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

Share this Article:

Arizona Supreme Court Clarifies Area Variance Standard; Property Owners May Obtain an Area Variance When Special Circumstances Existed at Purchase

Posted on October 10, 2017 by Ben Reeves

By:  Nick Wood, Adam Lang, Noel Griemsmann, and Brianna Long

In Pawn 1st v. City of Phoenix, the Arizona Supreme Court rejected a Court of Appeals rule that would have unduly restrained alienation of property in Arizona. The Court of Appeals found that the City of Phoenix Board of Adjustment acted beyond its authority when it granted an area variance to a pawn shop where the special circumstances causing a need for the variance existed before the pawn shop purchased the property. Under Arizona law, boards of adjustment cannot grant an area variance where the special circumstances requiring the variance are self-imposed.… Read More »

Author: Ben Reeves | Leave a comment Tagged , , , ,

Share this Article: