## Facts

- William Jachimek and Harvard Square Associates owned property in Phoenix zoned C-2 (commercial), where pawn shops were ordinarily permitted as of right.
- Phoenix adopted an ordinance establishing an “Inebriate District” in a defined downtown area.
- Within the district, the ordinance required use permits for various uses—including pawn shops—that were otherwise permitted outright in C-2 zones elsewhere in the city.
- Jachimek applied for a use permit to operate a pawn shop; the City denied the application.
- Jachimek challenged the ordinance as unlawfully imposing different regulatory burdens on some C-2 parcels than on other C-2 parcels, contrary to A.R.S. § 9-462.01(C).

## Issues

1. Whether Phoenix could require a use permit for pawn shops in an “Inebriate District” while allowing pawn shops as of right on other C-2-zoned property, consistent with A.R.S. § 9-462.01(C)’s requirement that zoning regulations be uniform throughout each zone.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction and reviewed the validity of the ordinance.
- The Court held the ordinance violated A.R.S. § 9-462.01(C) because it imposed more restrictive requirements on certain C-2 properties without creating a separate zoning classification through proper statutory procedures.
- The Court declared the ordinance invalid and reversed the judgment that had upheld it.

## Legal Principles

- Municipal zoning authority is limited by the state zoning enabling act; ordinances inconsistent with statutory conditions are void.
- A.R.S. § 9-462.01(C) requires zoning regulations to be uniform for each class or kind of building or land use throughout each zone; similarly zoned parcels must be subject to the same use conditions and restrictions.
- A city may not impose special, location-based restrictions on a subset of parcels that remain in the same zoning classification by labeling the area a special or overlay district, absent statutory compliance (such as creating a separate zone consistent with required procedures).
- Redevelopment or related municipal powers do not supply an exception to the statutory uniformity requirement unless the legislature clearly provides one.

## Conclusion

Phoenix’s ordinance unlawfully created a non-uniform regulatory pocket within the C-2 zone by conditioning otherwise permitted uses on a use permit only inside the Inebriate District, contrary to A.R.S. § 9-462.01(C); the Arizona Supreme Court invalidated the ordinance.


Jachimek v. Superior Court, 169 Ariz. 317 (Ariz. 1991)