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

Home

ARCADIA OSBORN, et al. v. CLEAR CHANNEL, et al. Opinion of the Court Id. at 420, ¶ 1. And we focused our inquiry on "whether Scenic qualifie[d] as a 'person aggrieved' under A.R.S. § 9-4602.06(K) within the context of the AHBA." Id. at 421, ¶ 5 n.6 (emphasis added). We found that Scenic Arizona's allegations of "claimed interference with the proper use and enjoyment of one of the highways of this state, which are interests within the scope of the AHBA," were sufficient to confer standing. Id. at 424, ¶ 13. We also noted that the loss of "aesthetic enjoyment," "increased safety risk," and other "specific harm[s]" that Scenic Arizona alleged fell 'within the zone of interests the AHBA was intended to protect — the safety and aesthetics of Arizona's highways.' Id. at 424, 425, TT 13, 16. Finally, we found that restricting standing to assert claims under the AHBA to only "neighboring property owners who experience injuries to their own properties would make highway billboards ... virtually immune from judicial review!' Id. at 425, ¶ 16. ¶17 Notably, Scenic Arizona reaffirms the "well -established principles' applied in cases 'involving other land use challenges" that, to establish standing, a plaintiff must generally show (1) particularized harm resulting from the decision, (2) injury, "economic or otherwise," and (3) damages "peculiar to the plaintiff or at least more substantial than that suffered by the community at large." Id. at 424, ¶ 14 (quoting Ctr. Bay Gardens, 214 Ariz. at 358, ¶ 20). ¶18 Thus, the plaintiffs in Scenic Arizona had standing because the billboard at issue in that case was subject to the AHBA. Id. at 425, ¶16. Ordinary zoning ordinances do not create the same special interest. See Phoenix Zoning Ordinance § 102 (2011) (stating that the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to "establish standards and regulations to govern the use of land and structures in the City and for review and approval of all proposed development of property in the City"). Because the billboards at issue in this case are not subject to the AHBA, Scenic Arizona does not provide standing for the Individual Plaintiffs to challenge an ordinary zoning decision absent allegations of a particularized harm, injury, or damages distinct from that suffered by the public. 228 Ariz, at 425, ¶ 16. As noted above, supra ¶¶ 12-13, the Individual Plaintiffs failed to meet this standard, and the superior court correctly dismissed their complaint. C. Constitutional Standing ¶19 The Individual Plaintiffs also claim the superior court erred in finding that they lacked standing to bring their constitutional claims because "they d[id] not allege violations of their own constitutional rights." We disagree. 6