I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO
C O U N T Y O F C O C H I SE , a Pol i t i cal Subdi vi s i on of t he St at e of A r i zona,

P lain tiff /C o u n ter d e f

e n d a n t/ A ppel l ee,
v. SEB A STI A O FA RI A a nd M A RI A F. F AR I A d b a F AR I A DAI RY ,

D efen dan t s/ C ou nter cl ai m ants /

A pp el l ants . )

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- C V 2008- 0146

DEPA RTM ENT A O P I N I O N

APPEAL FROM THE SUPERI OR CO UR T OF CO CH I SE COU NTY

C aus e N o. C V 2007- 00716 H onor abl e St ephen M
. D es ens , J udge

AFFI RM ED
E dw ar d G
. R hei nhei m er , C ochi s e C ount yA t t or ney B yB r i t tW
. H ans on

J e n n i n g s Str o u s s & Sa l mon , PLC B yB r i an I m bor noni B i s bee A t t or ney s forPl ai nt i ff/ C ount er defe ndant/ A ppel l ee

P h o e n ix A t t orney s for D efen dan t s/ C o u n ter c laim a n ts/A p p e llan ts

J UN 16 20 09 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2

H O W A R D , Pr es i di ng J udge. ¶1 A ppel l ant s Sebas t i ao Far i a and M ar i a Far i a, dba Far i a D ai r y , appea l fr om t he t r i al cour t ’ s or dergr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favorof appe l l ee C o ch i s e C ount yand enj oi ni ng t he Far i as fr om us i ng a par cel of r eal pr operty to run a hei ferpen- fee di ng oper ati o n. T he Far i as cl ai m t he courterr ed i n rul i ng t hatt hei rus e of the pr oper t yw as not
e x e m p t f ro m c o u n tyz o n in g re g u latio n a s a “ g e n e ra l ag ric u ltu ra l p u rp o se [ ]” p u rsu a n t to A .R .S . § 1 1 -8 3 0 (A )(2 ), an d th a t A .R .S . § 1 1
- 8 2 1 .0 1 (A ) a u th o riz e d th e c o u n tyto re g u late t hei rus e of t he pr oper t y . W e concl ude t hat us es i ncl uded under § 11- 821. 01 ar e not“gene r al
a g r i c u l tu r a l ” u s e s u n d e r§ 1 1
- 8 3 0 , a n d a f f i r m. F a cts ¶2 W e v iew the f ac ts i n the ligh t m o st f

av o rab le to the p arty o p p o sing su m m ary j u d g m e n ta n d d r a w a l l r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s a r i s i n g f

r o m t h e e v i d e n c e i n f

a v o ro f t h a tp a r t y. P r i nce v. C i t

y of Apache J

unct i on , 185 A r i z. 43, 45, 912 P. 2d 47, 49 ( A pp. 1996)
. T he Far i as
ow n r eal pr oper t yon bot h s i des of K ans as Set t l ement R oad i n C ochi s e C ount y . I n 2003, t he Far i as began ope r at i ng a dai r y farm on t he partof t he pr oper t yt hati s l ocat ed ea s tof t he r oad and thati s zoned a s H I ( H eavyI ndus t r y )
. I n 2006, t he Far i as cons t ruc ted fee di ng pens on t he pr oper t yon t he w es ts i de of the r oad, w hi ch i s zoned a s R U
- 4 ( R ur al D i s t r i ct , m i ni m um sit e a re a f

o u r ac res). T h e f

ee d ing p en s co n sisto f tw o p ara ll el row s o f p en s tha t are appr oxi m at el yone- hal f m i l e i n l ength. T r oughs run t hr ough t he pens t o channe l ur i ne,T he fa ct s r el at i ng t o t he s t ructur al des cr i pt i on of t he fe edi ng pens ar e t aken f r om t he 1 county ’ s s t at ement of fa ct s fi l ed w i t h i t s m ot i on for s um m ary j udgm ent . T he Far i as obj ect ed t o t he r el evanc e of and foundat i on for t hes e fac t s and fi l ed a corr es pondi ng m ot i on t o s t r i ke m a ter ials o f

f e re d in su p p o rt o f

th e c o u n ty ’s s tat e m e n t. H o w e v e r, th e F a ria s s u b se q u e n tly w i t hdr ew t hei r m ot i on t o s t r i ke the r el evantm at er i al s and have neverdi s put ed the ac cur acy of t he fa ct s al l eged. 3 m a n u re , fe e d a n d d e tritus in to a d e ten tio n b a sin
. T h e F a ria s b e g a n u sin g th e w e st p ro p e rty 1 to rais e hei fer s bor n on t he dai r yfarm . T he pens ar e us ed fors uppl ement al fee di ng of t he hei fer s and the hei fer s ar e al s o per m i t t ed t o gr aze on appr oxi m at el y 300 acr es of adj oi ni ng land
. M o st h e ifers raised o n the w est p rop ertyare ev en tuallytr an sfe rred b ac k to the d airy farm for us e as m i l k co w s. A pp roxi m at el y3, 00 0 h ei fers are bei ng rai sed on t he w est pr oper t yatanygi ven t i m e. ¶3 T he C o c h i s e Cou n t yp l a n n i n g d e p a r t me n ts e n tt h e Fa r i a s a n o t i c e o f zoni ng vi ol at i on foroper at i ng a comm er ci al fee d l otw i t houta perm i t . I n r es pons e, t he Far i as app l i ed fo r a s pecial use perm i t , w hich w a s denied. T he F ari as appe al ed to t he C och i se C ou ntyB oard of S up ervi sors and con t end ed they did no t need a speci al use perm i tbecau se t he fe edi ng pens fel l w i t hi n t he def i ni t i on of “ge ner al agr i cul tur al purpos e” unde r§ 11- 830( A ) ( 2)
. T he Far i as as s er t ed t hey w er e notw ai vi ng t hi s pos i t i on butt hatt heyal s o w i s hed t o pr ocee d w i t h t he appe al t o t r yt o obt ai n a s peci al us e perm i tand ther ebyavoi d fur t her l i t i gat i on. T he B oar d of Super vi s or s deni ed the appe al
. T he Far i as cont i nued t o oper at e the pen- fee di ng fac i l i t yon t hei rl and. ¶4 Subse quent l y , t he count y s ued t he F ar i as al l egi ng theyw er e i n vi ol at i on of a zoni n g r e g u l a t i o n a n d r e q u e s t i n g a n i n j u n c t i o n . Th e Fa r i a s c o u n t e r c l a i me d , s e e k i n g , i nt er4

al i a, decl ar at or yr el i ef. T h e par t i es fi l ed cr os s - m ot i ons fors um m aryj udgm ent . T he tr i al
cour tdeni ed the F ar i as ’ m ot i on for s um m aryj udgm ent , found t he hei ferfee di ng w as a l i ke bus i nes s under§ 11- 821. 01( A ) , gr ant ed the county ’ s m ot i on, and enj oi ned the Far i as fr om
u s in g th e p ro p e rt ya s a “ p e n f e e d in g o p e ra tio n f

o r i ts h e if

e rs .” D i s cus s i on ¶5 T he Far i as ar gue t he t r i al cour t err ed i n gr ant i ng s um m aryj udgm enti n favor of t he countyand enj oi ni ng t hem fr om us i ng t he pr oper t yforpen- fee di ng. T heycont end the p e n -f e e d in g f a c ili tyis a u se f

o r a ge n e ra l a g ric u ltu ra l p u rp o se a n d th u s e x e m p t f ro m c o u n ty zoni ng r egul at i on pur s uantt o § 11- 830( A ) ( 2)
. T heyfur t her ar gue t hat t he t r i al cour terr ed in co n clud ing the c o u n tyco u ld reg u lat e the iru se o f th e p rop ertyu n d er § 1 1 -82 1
. 0 1 (A ). ¶6 Sum m aryj udgm enti s pr operw hen “ther e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fa c ta nd
. . . t he movi ng pa r t yi s e nt i t l e d t o a j ud gmen t a s a mat t e r of l a w . ” A r i z . R. Ci v. P. 56( c) ( 1)
. W e r evi ew de n o v o w hethert her e ar e anygenui ne i s s ues of m at er i al fac tand
w h e th e r t h e tr ia l c o u rt a p p lie d th e la w p ro p e rl y . B r ookove rv. R ober t s E n ters. , I

nc. , 215 A r i z. 52, ¶ 8, 156 P. 3d 1157, 1160 ( A pp. 2007)
. W e al s o r evi ew de novo quest i ons r egar di ng th e c o n s tr u c tio n o f

s ta tu te s . C anon Sch. D is t
. N o. 50 v. W

. E
. S. C ons tr . C o. , 177 A r i z. 526, 529, 869 P. 2d 500, 503 ( 1994)
. W e re vi ew t he t r i al cour t ’ s deci s i on t o gr anti nj unct i ve r el i ef f o r a n a b u s e o f

d is c re tio n . C ochis e C ount y v. B r oken Arr ow B apt is tC hur ch , 161 A r i z. 406, 408, 778 P. 2d 1302, 1304 ( A pp. 1989)
. A cour tabus es i t s di s cr et i on i f i t s deci s i on i s bas ed
o n a n in c o rr e c t in te rp re ta tio n o f th e la w . See F l

yi ng D i am on d A i rpark, L L C v. Mei enb erg , 2 1 5 A ri z. 44 , ¶ 2 7 , 1 5 6 P
. 3 d 1 1 4 9 , 1 1 5 5 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ).5

¶7 T he pow erof a c ount y ’ s boar d of s uper vi s or s der i ves s ol el yfr om s t at e s t atut e. H ar tv. B ayl es s I

nv. & Tr adi ng C o. , 86 A r i z. 379, 384, 346 P. 2d 1101, 1105 ( 1959)
. W hen a countyenac t s zoni ng r egul at i ons , i tm us t“adhe r e t o t he s t at e s t atut es w hi ch del egat e that pow er . ” Sa nd blom v. C o rb in , 1 25 A r i z. 178, 184, 608 P. 2d 317, 323 ( A pp. 1980)
. T he
s t atut es del egat i ng pow ert o t he c o u n ti es ar e s etfor t h i n T i t l e 11 of the A r i zona Revi s ed S tatu tes . S e c tio n 1 1 -8 2 1 (B ), w h ich is in c h a p ter six

— C o u n ty P lan n in g a n d Z o n in g
— d ire c ts th e c o u n ties to a d o p t co u n typ lan s to p ro v id e z o n in g f o r “ v a rio u s c las se s o f

re sid e n tial, b u sin e ss a n d in d u stria l u se s.” S e c tio n 1 1 -8 3 0 ( A ) ( 2 ) p ro v id e s th a t “[ n ]o th in g c o n tain e d in anyor di nance author i zed byt hi s chapt ers hal l
. . . [p] r event , r es t r i ctorot herw i s e r egul at e t he
us e oroccupa t i on of l and ori m p rov em ent s forr ai l r oad, m i ni ng, m et al l ur gi cal , gr azi ng or gener al agr i cul tur al purpos es , i f t he t r act conce r ned i s fi ve or m or e cont i guous comm er ci al
acr es . ” T he l egi s l atur e di d notdefi ne “ge ner al agr i cul tur al purpos es . ” I tenac t ed §§ 11- 821
a n d 1 1 -8 3 0 (A )( 2 ) i n 1 9 4 9
. See 1949 A r i z. Ses s . L aw s , ch. 58, §§ 7, 16. ¶8 I n 1963, t he l egi s l atur e adde d § 11- 821. 01, ent i t l ed “D ut y t o zone c er t ai n ar ea for canne r i es , fer t i l i zer pl ant s , r efi ner i es , comm er ci al fee d l ot s , m eatpacki ng pl ant s , t al l ow
wo r k s , a n d o t h e rl i k e b u s i n e s s e s . ” 1 9 6 3 Ar i z . S e s s . L a ws , c h
. 9 4 , § 1
. S e c t i o n 1 1
- 8 2 1
. 0 1 ( A) sta tes in re lev a n t p a rt:

T he countypl anni ng a n d zoni ng comm i s s i on s hal l des i gnat e and zone appr opr i at e ar eas of r eas onabl e s i ze i n w hi ch ther e maybe es tabli s hed w i t h r eas onabl e perm anenc ycanne r i es , fer t i l i zer plant s, refi neri es, com m erci al feed l ots, m e atpack i ng plant s, t al l ow w or ks , and otherl i ke bus i nes s es , and the countyboar d of s uper vi s or s s hal l by o rdin an ce a doptatl eas tone of a nys uch pl ans as m ay b e su bm i t t ed byt he comm i s s i on t o t he boar d for t he locat i on of suc h b usi nesses.6

T h e le g is la tu re d id n o t d e f in e o r p ro v id e a te s t f

o r “ o th e r l ik e b u s in e s s e s .” ¶9 W hen cons t rui ng a s t atut e, w e must“det er m i ne and gi ve effec tt o l egi s l at i ve i nt ent . ” C i t

y of P hoeni x v. P hoeni

x Em pl oym ent

R elat i ons B d. , 207 A r i z. 337, ¶ 11, 86 P. 3d 917, 920 ( A pp. 2004)
. W e l ook fi r s tt o t he pl ai n l anguage of t he s t atut e bec aus e thati s t he b e s t in d ic a to r o f

le g is la tiv e in te n t. Me

ja k v . G ra n v ill e , 212 A r i z. 555, ¶ 8, 136 P. 3d 874, 876 (2 0 0 6 ). B e c a u se th e leg isla tu re d id n o t d e f in e “ g e n e ra l ag ric u ltu ra l p u rp o se s,” § 1 1 -8 3 0 is ambi guous . A ccor di ngl y , w e al s o “‘ cons i der the s t atut e’ s cont ext ; i t s l anguage , s ubj ect
m att er, an d h ist o ri ca l b ac k g rou n d ; i ts eff ec ts an d co n seq u en ce s; an d it s sp ir itan d p u rpo se.’” Schee hl e v. Jus t i ces of

the Supr em e C our tof

the Stat e of

A r iz ona , 211 A r i z. 282, ¶ 16, 120 P .3 d 1 0 9 2 , 1 0 9 8 (2 0 0 5 ), quot i ng H ayes v. C ont ’ lI

ns . C o. , 178 A r i z. 264, 268, 872 P. 2d 668, 672 ( 1994 ). “ [ E ]a c h w o rd o r p h ra se o f a sta tu te m u st b e g iv e n m e a n in g so th a t n o p a rt is
r ender ed voi d, s uper fl uous , contr adi ct or yori ns i gni fi cant . ” P i nalV is t a P r op s. , L. L. C

. v. T u rn b u ll , 2 0 8 A r i z. 188, ¶ 10, 91 P. 3d 1031, 1033 ( A pp. 2004)
. W hen i nt erpr et i ng a par t i cul art er m , “‘ w e appl ya pr act i cal and comm ons ens i cal cons t ruct i on. ’ ” C i t y of Tucs on
v. C l ear C hannel

O utdoor, I

nc. , 2 1 8 A ri z . 1 7 2 , ¶ 3 3 , 1 8 1 P .3 d 2 1 9 , 2 3 0 (A p p . 2 0 0 8 ), quot i ng D ougl as s v. G endr on , 1 9 9 A ri z . 5 9 3 , ¶ 1 0 , 2 0 P .3 d 1 1 7 4 , 1 1 7 7 (A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). ¶10 “‘ W e pr es um e the l egi s l atur e i s aw ar e of e xi s t i ng s t atut es w hen i tenac t s new
s t atut es . ’ ” H

om e B ui lders A s s ’ n of

C ent
. A r iz . v. C i t

y of Mar i copa , 215 A r i z. 146, ¶ 15, 158 P .3 d 8 6 9 , 8 7 4 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ), q u o tin g W a sh b u rn v . P im a C o u n ty , 206 A r i z. 571, ¶ 11, 81 P. 3d 1 0 3 0 , 1 0 3 5 (A p p . 2 0 0 3 ). W h e n “ s ta tu te s re late to th e sa m e su b jec t an d a re th u s in pa ri
m a ter ia , t heys houl d be cons t rued t ogetherw i t h ot herr el at ed s t atut es as tho u g h t hey7

cons t i tut ed one l aw . ” P i m a C ount y by C i t y of Tucs on v. Maya C ons tr . C o. , 158 A r i z. 151, 1 5 5 , 7 6 1 P .2 d 1 0 5 5 , 1 0 5 9 (1 9 8 8 ); se e a lso S ta te ex re l. T h o m a s v . D itsw o rth , 216 A r i z. 339, ¶ 1 2 , 1 6 6 P
. 3 d 1 3 0 , 1 3 3 (A p p . 2 0 0 7 ) (pa ri m ateria rule “ ‘ap p li es e v en w h ere the s tatu tes w ere
e n a c te d a t d if

f e re n t tim e s , a n d c o n ta in n o re f e re n c e . . . to [ e a c h ] o th e r’ ” ), quot i ng St at e ex
r el

. Lars on v. Fa rle

y , 106 A r i z. 119, 122, 471 P. 2d 731, 734 ( 1970)
. St atut es gr ant i ng
z o n i n g a u t h o r i t y t o t h e c o u n t i e s , a n d z o n i n g o r d i n a n c e s e n a c t e d p u r s u a n tt o t h a ta u t h o r i t y,
w ill b e s tr ic tly c o n s tr u e d in f a v o r o f p ro p e rt yo w n e rs . R o b in so n v . L in tz , 101 A r i z. 448, 451, 4 2 0 P .2 d 9 2 3 , 9 2 6 (1 9 6 6 ); Jones v. C ount y of C oconi no , 201 A r i z. 368, ¶ 11, 35 P. 3d 422, 4 2 5 (A p p . 2 0 0 1 ). ¶11 A ccor d ing t o i t s pl ai n l anguage § 11- 821. 01 pr ot ect s t he types of bus i nes s es lis te d b y e n s u ri n g th e yh a v e a z o n e w ith in w h ic h to o p e ra te . See Mej ak , 212 A r i z. 555, ¶ 8, 1 3 6 P
. 3 d a t8 7 6 ( s t a tu t e ’ s p l a i n l a ng ua g e b e s ti n d i c a t o ro f l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t ) ; M i l t o n R. S c h ro e d e r, P ubl i c Regul at i on of P r i vat e Land U

s e i n A r iz ona: A n A nal

ys is of i t s Scope and P ot ent i al , L aw & S o c. O rde r 74 7 , 7 8 9 (19 7 3 ) (ob serv ing p rotec ti v e na ture o f § 1 1 -82 1
. 0 1 ). T h e w o rdin g in the ti tl e o f § 1 1 -82 1
. 0 1 , “[ d ]utyto zo n e,” an d the w o rdin g in sub sec ti o n (A ), “[t ] he co u n ty p l anni ng and zoni ng comm i s s i on sh a lldes i gnat e and z one appr opr i at e ar eas of re aso n abl e s i ze . . . w i t h r eas onabl e perm anenc y ” ( emphasi s added) , s how t hatt he l egi s l atur e has cr eat ed an af fir m at i ve dutyon t he partof count i es t o al l ow t he types of bus ines s es l i s t ed t o oper at e s om ew her e i n eac h county . T he r equi r ement t hatcount i es des i gnat e ap p r opr i at e ar eas , and thats uch ar eas be r eas onabl yper m anent , ens ur es t hatT h is an a ly sis is sligh tlyd if f e re n t th a n th a t in t he count y ’ s br i ef. T he countyt r eat ed 2 § 11- 821. 01 as t hough i t s purpos e i s t o gi ve t he count i es t he author i t yt o gener at e r es t r i ct i ons on t he types of bus i nes s es l i s t ed, w hi ch i m pl i ci t l y s ugges t s t hat befor e the s t atut e w as enac t ed t he count i es had no author i t y t o r egul at e t hem. B ut § 11- 821 pr ovi des br oad author i t yt o t he count i es t o r egul at e l and us e and no z oni ng s t atut e othert han § 11- 830 exempt s any p arti cu lar u s e f

rom reg u lat ion
. T h u s, the typ es o f b u sine sses li sted in § 1 1 -82 1
. 0 1 w ere s u b je c t to re g u la tio n b yth e c o u n tie s b e f o re th a t s ta tu te w a s e n a c te d
. See Sc hr oeder , L a w & S o c . O rd e r a t 7 8 9 (§ 1 1 -8 2 1 .0 1 p ro tec tiv e o f a c tiv iti e s liste d ). A t o ra l ar g u m e n t, th e c o u n ty a g re e d th is in ter p re tatio n w a s c o rre c t. 8 count i es cannotenac tor di nance s pr ohi bi t i ng t hes e bus i nes s es i n eac h and eve r ycounty , and t h u s t h e e n t i r e s t a t e , u n d e rg e n e r a l s t a tu t o r y z o n i n g a u t h o r i t y. See § 11- 821. 2 ¶12 If

th e leg isla tu re b e liev e d c o m m e rc ial fe e d lo ts an d lik e b u sin e ss e s fe ll w ith in the c ateg o ryo f “ g en era l agricu ltu ral pu rpo ses” u n d er § 1 1 -8 3 0 (A )(2), then the leg isl ature
w oul d nothave n ee d ed to ext end the pr ot ect i on aff or ded by§ 11- 821. 01 t o comm er ci al f e e d lo ts o r b u s in e s s e s th a t a re “ li k e ” c o m m e rc ia l f e e d lo ts . See Hom e B uilders , 215 A r i z. 146, ¶ 15, 1 5 8 P. 3d at874 ( l egi s l atur e pr es um ed aw ar e of e xi s t i ng s t atut es w hen ena ct i ng
new o n e )
. Su c h b u s i n e s s e s a l r e a d y wou l d b e p r o t e c t e d f r o m z o n i n g r e g u l a t i ons by t he exempt i on i n § 11- 830( A ) ( 2)
. I f t hatw er e true, t hen i ncl udi ng comm er ci al fee dl ot s i n § 11- 8 2 1 .0 1 (A ) w o u ld h a v e b e e n s u p e rf lu o u s . ¶13 A tor al ar gum ent , t he F ar i as pos tul at ed that , beca us e both §§ 11- 830 and 11- 821. 01 w er e des i gned t o pr ot ect comm er ci al fee dl ot s i n s om e w ay , t hes e s t atut es o ffer ed

“ re d u n d a n t p r o te c tio n ” to f e e d lo ts a n d sim ilar u se s. T h e F a ria s f u rth e r su g g e ste d th a t it
w oul d notm ake s ens e t o us e one pr ot ect i ve s ect i on t o r es t r i ctt he pr ot ect i on aff or ded by anotherpr ot ect i ve s ect i on. “R edundant pr ot ect i on” i s one pl aus i bl e orpr act i cal expl anat i on fort he tw o s t atut es . B ut t he Far i as coul d not offe r , and w e have notfound, anyauthor i t yfor9

t he pr opos i t i on t hatt hi s cour tcan i nt erpr ett w o r el at ed s ect i ons as r edundant
. R ather , as p re v io u s ly n o te d , w e a s s u m e th e le g is la tu re k n e w a b o u t e x is tin g la w , s ee H om e B uilders , 215 A ri z . 1 4 6 , ¶ 1 5 , 1 5 8 P
. 3 d a t 8 7 4 , a n d d id n o t e n a c t a re d u n d a n t s ta tu te . See D eerV al l ey U n if i ed Sch. D is t
. N

o. 97 v. H

ous er , 21 4 A ri z. 29 3, ¶ 8, 15 2 P. 3d 49 0, 49 3 ( 2 0 0 7 ) (c o u rts in te rp re t s ta tu te s s o n o p a rt w ill b e re d u n d a n t)
. ¶14 W e al s o acknow l edge the i ni t i al appea l of t he Far i as ’ cont ent i on, emphasi zed ator al ar gum ent , t hatt he gene r al agr i cul tur al purpos es exempt i on i n § 11
- 830( A ) ( 2) i ncl udes t he Far i as ’ us e and pr ecl udes appl i cat i on of anyzoni ng or di nance , i ncl udi ng or di nance s
co n tem p lat ed u n d er § 1 1 -82 1
. 0 1
. T h e F arias co n tend that itis th ere fo re sim p lyu n n ec essa ry to c o n sid e r § 1 1 -8 2 1 .0 1 w h e n d e ter m in in g th e sc o p e o f th e c o u n ty ’s z o n in g a u th o rityin th is
ca se. B u t bec au se th e leg isl ature h as n o t def ined “g en er a l ag ri cu ltu ral pu rpo ses,” w e a re
re q u ir e d to c o n s tr u e th a t s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e . See St ei n v. Sonus U SA , I nc. , 214 A r i z. 200, ¶ 3, 150 P. 3d 773, 774 ( A pp. 2007) ( cour t appl i es rul es of s t atut or ycons t ruct i on t o ambi guous statu te). ¶15 B eca us e “c om m er ci al fee dl ot s ” ar e us es of an a gr i cul tur al natur e of s om e ki nd, t hei ri ncl us i on i n § 11- 821. 01 m eans t hat bot h § 11- 821. 01 and § 11- 830( A ) ( 2) r el at e t o t he
s ame subj ect . A s not ed above , s t atut es r el at i ng t o t he sam e su bject m us tbe cons t rued t ogether “as t hough t heycons t i tut ed one l aw . ” See Maya C on str. , 158 A r i z. at155, 761 P. 2d at1059. T o i gnor e § 11- 82 1
. 01 i n t hi s cas e w oul d es s ent i al l ydi ves tt he i ncl us i on of “comm er ci al fee dl ot s ” and “ ot herl i ke bus i nes s es ” i n § 11- 8 2 1
. 0 1 o f a n yeff ect i venes s , w hi ch
w e c a n n o t d o . See i d.T o t he ext entt hi s deci s i on does noti nt erpret §§ 11- 821. 01 and 11- 830 as t he 3 l egi s l atur e i nt ended, w e not e t hat t he “‘ l egi s l atur e re t ai ns t he pow er t o corr ectus . ’ ” H ancock v. B is nar , 2 1 2 A ri z . 3 4 4 , ¶ 2 2 , 1 3 2 P .3 d 2 8 3 , 2 8 8 (2 0 0 6 ), quot i ng G al l ow ay v. V ander pool , 2 0 5 A ri z . 2 5 2 , ¶ 1 7 , 6 9 P .3 d 2 3 , 2 7 (2 0 0 3 ). 10 ¶16 A ddi t i onal l y , beca us e § 11- 821. 01( A ) does not r efe r t o t he s i ze of t he par cel
us ed, i t s l anguage does not s uppor tt he Far i as ’ ar gum entt hati tw as i nt ended onl yt o pr ot ect
comm er ci al fee d l ot s and l i ke bus i n esse s of l es s t han fi ve comm er ci al acr es . W hen § 11- 8 2 1
. 0 1 wa s e n a c t e d , § 1 1
- 8 3 0 p r o t e c t e d g e n e r a l a g r i c u l tu r a l u s e s o f “ n o tl e s s t h a n t wo
c o n tig u o u s a c re s.” 1 9 4 9 A riz . S e ss . L a w s, c h . 5 8 , § 1 6 . T h e sta tu tes w o u ld n o t co m p o rt w ith
c o mm o n s e n s e i f

t h e yp r o v i d e d f

o rt h e r e g u l a t i o n o f

s ma l l f e e d l o t s o c c u p y i n g l e s s t h a n t wo
acr es , i f s uch us es even e xi s t , butexempt ed much l ar gerfee d l ot s
— that w oul d be of much great er concern t o n ei gh bo ri ng l and ow ners— from al l zon i ng regul at i on s. ¶17 B ec au se w e w il l no t, as n o ted e arli er, co n stru e a statu te i n a w ay that ren d ers
a n yp a rt s u p e rf

lu o u s , s ee P i na lV

ista P rops. , 208 A r i z. 188, ¶ 10, 91 P. 3d at1033, or
n o n s e n s ic a l, s ee Cl earC hannel O utdoor , 218 A r i z. 172, ¶ 33, 181 P. 3d at 230, w e conc l ude t hat§ 11- 830( A ) ( 2) does notpr ot ectcomm er ci al fee dl ot s and l i ke bus i nes s es and that§ 11- 821. 01 w as enac t ed t o do s o. A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude the l egi s l atur e di d noti nt end t he t er m “gene r al agr i cul tur al purpos es ” i n § 11- 830( A ) ( 2) t o i ncl ude comm er ci al fee dl o ts or bu si nesses l i ke co m m erci al feed l ots . 3 ¶18 B as ed upon the for egoi ng anal y s i s , i f t he Far i as ’ us e of the pr oper t ycons t i tut es
a comm er ci al fee dl ot or a bus i nes s t hat i s “l i ke” a comm er ci al fee dl ot , t hen i ti s notexempt from regul at i on un der § 11 -830(A )(2 ). T h e F a ri as di d n ot ar gu e below t hat theirbu si ness11

w as not an “otherl i ke b usi ness” un der § 11 -821.01 and t h e trial courtfou nd t hat i tw as. B eca us e the Far i as di d not fac tual l ydi s put e the cont ent i on t hatt hei rus e w as an “otherl i ke bus i nes s ” bef

or e the tr i al cour t , ori n t hei ropeni ng br i ef on a ppeal , t hatar gum enti s w ai ved. See Brookover , 215 A r i z. 52, n. 2, 156 P. 3d at1162 n. 2 ( appel l at e courtw i l l n o tcons i der
ar gum ent s notpr es ent ed t o t r i al cour tatti m e tr i al cour tcons i der ed s um m aryj udgm ent
m o tio n ); D aw s on v. W

i thycom be , 216 A r i z. 84, n. 11, 163 P. 3d 1034, 1050 n. 11 ( A pp. 2007) (arg u m en ts no t r aised in o p en ing b ri ef w aive d ). C oncl usi on ¶19 I n l i ghtof t he for egoi ng, w e af fi r m t he tr i al cour t ’ s gr antof s um m aryj udgm ent i n fav o rof t he county . W e fur t heraff i r m t he tr i al cour t ’ s or derenj oi ni ng t he Far i as fr om
m a i n t a i n i n g t h e i rp e n f

e e d i n g o p e r a t i o n o n t h e s u b j e c tp r o p e r t y.

____________________________________ J O SE PH W
. H O W A R D , Pr es i di ng J udge

CO NC UR RI NG:

____________________________________ J O H N PE L A N D E R , C hi ef J udge

____________________________________ PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , J udge