Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/03/1998

Home

Page 8- . December 24, ~997 Z.B. so Ray couldn't appeal the board's decision to court. Rezoning-- Did citizens group circulate proper materials with its petition? Sherrill v. City of Peoria, 943 P2d 1215 (Arizona) 1997 The city of Peoria, Ariz.', passed an ordinance that rezoned 16 acres of privately owned property from general commercial to planned area development (PAD). Accompanying the ordinance were nine pages of guidelines stating the development would contain multi-family residences. The guidelines also described the development's architectural style and how it would conform to city policies. A citizens group opposed the rezoning. They circulated a petition, plan- ning to challenge the ordinance at the next election. Attached to the petition were a copy of the ordinance, a legal description of the property, and a zoning map of the property and surrounding area. The group collected the required number of signatures and filed the petition with the city clerk. The company that owned the 16 rezoned acres sued the citizens group. It claimed the petition was invalid because it hadn't been circulated with a copy of the guide- lines attached. The court dismissed the case, and the company appealed. Under the Arizona Constitution, referendum petitions had to be circulated with a "full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure," which in this case meant the ordinance. In addition, a state statute listed three items that had to be attached to a petition: the ordinance or resolution, a legal description of the property, and any amendments to the ordinance. (There were none in this case.) The appeals court reversed the dismissal and granted the company judgment without a trial. It said the petition without the guidelines attached was not a "full and correct copy of the title and text of the measure." The court found the guidelines were "an intricate part of the ordinance" and that petition signers couldn't truly understand the nature of the ordinance without reading them. Because PAD'zones allowed for a variety of uses, petition signers wouldn't known which use was planned for the property unless they read the guidelines. The citizens group appealed. DECISION: Reversed; case dismissed. The citizens group filed a valid petition opposing the ordinance. The group circulated with its petition all the materials required under state law: a copy of the ordinance and a legal description of the property. In finding for the company, the appeals court inappropriately established a new standard the law didn't require: that petitioners include not only the listed materials, but all other materials deemed necessary for signers' complete understanding. Under that standard, it would be too difficult for citizens to decide what they had to circulate with their petitions. Moreover, the spirit of the state constitution was to broadly interpret its provi- sions in favor of petitioners like the citizens group. "If there is doubt about require- ments.., concerning only the form and manner in which the power of a referendum should be exercised, these requirements should be broadly construed." see also: Van Riper v. Threadgill, 905 P. 2d 589 (1995).