Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2008

Home

86 Zoning Bulletin The district court granted the township's motion for summary r': judgment, finding there were no material issues of fact and decid- '-' ' ing the matter in favor of the township on law alone. The district court concluded that the Brauns first needed to seek and be denied just compensation in state court before it could consider their takings clause claim. The district court also held that the Brauns' related con- stitutional claims were also not ready for review because they were secondary to the takings clause claim. The Brauns appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The court concluded that the Brauns' taking clause claim was not ready for review because the Brauns did not fulfill their obligation to seek just compensation in state court. The court went on to coIisider the Brauns' four related constitutional claims, assuming each was not secondary to the takings clause claim. The court concluded that the Brauns' procedural due process 'claim failed because the Brauns had no protected property interest iIi rezon- ing or variance for use of the property as a trailer park. The court noted that individuals were en~tled to procedural due process-in- cluding a notice and opportunity to be heard-before they were de- prived of any property interest. The court said that in order to estab- lish a property right in a future, rezoned land use, the Brauns had to point to some policy, law, or understanding that gave them such a rezone right and limited the township's discretion to deny the right. The court found that the Brauns were unable to point to any such policy, .law or understanding that created the rezoning benefit they were seeking. Because the Brauns had no protected property interest in rezoning or variance for use of the property as a trailer park, they had no right to procedural due process protections, said the court. Accordingly, the Board had the discretion to deny their rezone re- quest, the court concluded. The court also concluded that ,the BJ;auns' substantive due process claim failed because, even assuming that the Brauns had a protected property interest in a future, rezoned use of the property as a trailer park, the township's rezoneAeIiial was clearly not arbitrary and ca- pricious. The court noted that to succeed on a substantive due pro- , cess claim, the Brauns had to establish they had a constitutionally protected interest that had been deprived through arbitrary and ca- pricious action. The court found that the Board provided numerous justifications for its denial, including increased costs for things, such as additional schools and public safety concerns such as traffic flow, and therefore the deIiial was not arbitrary and capricious. 6 , '. ~ :.:,,,::' \ : ~ ~:.-..-' ~- ("", " . ~ ~/ C:'. '. , "'-1."",'"