Agenda - Council - 10/14/2025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ARCADIA OSBORN, et al. v. CLEAR CHANNEL, et al. Opinion of the Court conversion of the billboards would violate the City of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance. The superior court dismissed the petition after finding that the Individual Plaintiffs and AONA both lacked standing to challenge the Board's decision. We affirm because we agree with the superior court that the Individual Plaintiffs do not have a sufficient particularized palpable injury to confer standing and AONA has neither representational nor organizational standing. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ¶2 Appellee Clear Channel owns and operates three static billboards located on property owned by J & R Holdings VI, LLC ("J & R") at the northwest corner of Thomas Road and Central Avenue in Phoenix ("Property"). Clear Channel's billboards are located on a tower within a "perpetual, exclusive easement" that encumbers the Property. ¶3 Although Clear Channel's easement does not expressly forbid development of the Property, both Clear Channel and J & R determined that Phoenix zoning law made it practically impossible to do so without encroaching on the easement. In 2019, Clear Channel and J & R devised a solution which would allow J & R to construct a new mixed -use tower on the Property by relocating Clear Channel's billboards and easement to the facade of the tower. 114 In October of that year, Clear Channel applied for five use permits and a variance, which would allow it to relocate the three billboards and to convert two of the signs from static to digital. The City's Zoning Adjustment Hearing Officer ("ZAHO") held a public hearing on Clear Channel's application. Following the hearing, the ZAHO approved the relocation of the billboards but denied the request to convert two of the three signs to digital. ¶ Clear Channel appealed the ZAHO's denial of the digital conversion to the Board. And AONA, along with the Urban Phoenix Project Network ("UPP"), appealed the ZAHO's approval of the relocation. After a hearing on the merits, the Board upheld the ZAHO's relocation decision but reversed the denial of Clear Channel's request for digital conversion. ¶6 In response, Appellants and others filed this special action in superior court challenging the Board's decision. Appellees moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that all plaintiffs lacked standing under A.R.S. § 9-462.06(K). 3