LYONS v. PHOENIX

── LYONS v. PHOENIX ── Case No.: 1 CA-CV 25-0299 Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona Date: March 27, 2026 Category: General NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE. IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE CHRISTINE LYONS, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. CITY OF PHOENIX, et al., Defendants/Appellees, v. CFS RETAIL, LLC, et al., Real Parties in Interest/Appellants. No. 1 CA-CV 25-0299 FILED 03-27-2026 Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CV 2023-013529 The Honorable John L. Blanchard, Judge REVERSED COUNSEL Richards & Moskowitz, PLC, Phoenix By William A. Richards Counsel for Plaintiffs/Appellees Phoenix City Attorney’s Office, Phoenix By Cris A. Meyer Counsel for Defendants/Appellees Gammage & Burnham, PLC, Phoenix By Cameron C. Artigue, Jacqueline E. Marzocca, and Sean Krieg Counsel for Real Parties in Interest/Appellants MEMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge Andrew M. Jacobs delivered the decision of the Court, in which Judge Brian Y. Furuya and Judge James B. Morse Jr. joined. J A C O B S, Judge: ¶1 CFS Retail, LLC (“Copperstate”) appeals the superior court’s ruling reversing the Board of Adjustment’s (“Board”) grant to it of a use permit and variance to operate a marijuana dispensary. The Board’s grant of the use permit and variance in turn rested on the Zoning Administrator’s prior informal interpretation of Phoenix Zoning Ordinance § 623(D)(124) (the “Interpretation”). Copperstate argues that plaintiffs Christine Lyons and Heritage Heights Block Watch (“Homeowners”) lack standing to challenge the Interpretation and, regardless of standing, the Board’s decision should be upheld on its merits. Homeowners argue they have standing and that the Board’s decision — which relied on the Interpretation — exceeded its authority. We agree with Copperstate because none of the plaintiffs are “persons aggrieved” under A.R.S. § 9-462.06(K). Accordingly, we reverse and reinstate the Board’s decision. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY A. Copperstate Seeks to Open a New Dispensary Location and Obtains Pre-Clearance from the City of Phoenix. ¶2 Copperstate sought to open a marijuana dispensary near 32nd Street and Shea Boulevard in Phoenix. The proposed site is in an intermediate commercial zoning district, in which marijuana dispensaries are permitted uses. Phoenix Zoning Ordinance § 623(D)(124). Marijuana dispensaries must comply with certain zoning regulations to operate legally. See id. Relevant here, marijuana dispensaries must obtain a use permit and be located more than (a) 500 feet from certain residentially zoned districts and (b) 1,320 feet from a place of worship. Phoenix Zoning Ordinance § 623(D)(124)(a), (f), (h). ¶3 As a preliminary step, Copperstate sought advice about any zoning limitations from the City of Phoenix (the “City”). See Phoenix 2  LYONS, et al. v. PHOENIX, et al. Decision of the Court Zoning Ordinance § 307(A)(4). In January 2023, the City sent Copperstate a letter confirming it was eligible to apply for a use permit to operate its marijuana dispensary at the proposed location. The letter advised Copperstate it would also have to apply for a variance because it is within 500 feet of residential zoning, but that so long as “the use permit and/or variances are approved and the site complies with all other requirements, then the dispensary facility would be permitted to operate.” There is no actual residence within