Laserfiche WebLink
Page 6 -- August 10, 2003 ~ Z.B. <br /> <br />134 <br /> <br />dancing. These procedures were for general application and were not directed <br />at protected speech nor were they a form of censorship. <br /> The court also noted state !aw provided remedies fl0r long delays on zoning <br />applications. <br /> The court also reiecred the arguments that the new ordinance was vague <br />and overbroad by finding it could reasonably accept the ciry:s proffered inter- <br />proration of the ordinance and the definition of the word "nightclub." <br />Citation: ~. ~/iS. LLC ,2. The Cip~ o/"Roc/gbrd. U.S. Die,icl Cou~/br the No~he.m <br />~ar~c: ot'fZiinoi~~. ~/V. Di'.~., /Vd. Oa C Y0048/0003) <br />gee ala'o.' FW/PB~ v. Cip? ~hf Datiao*, 493, U.,~. 2j5 (1990). <br /> <br />Manufactured Housing ~ Special use permit required for <br />manufactured housing <br /> Owner questions vatidi~ O/' ordinance <br /> <br />MICI,-YlGAN (6/I 7/05) ~ Os born owned a 200-acre parcel of land that Landon <br />P~.otdings mc. intended ~o purchase and deveiop for manufactured housing. <br />The applicable zomng ordinance at the dme required the developer to obtain a <br />special ese permit 7or such a use. <br /> Landon and Osborn challenged the ordnance, and the lower court decided <br />that the special use per-mit requirement was invalid. Tqereafren the township <br />amended the ordinance to create a manufactured housing disrr,-ct. <br /> Landon and Osborn sued, alleging that the zoning ordinance ~/iolated the <br />Township Zoning Act and the Manufactured Housing Commission Act <br />(MHCA), as well as due process and equal protection guarantees. ~2e ordi- <br />nance allowed manu~'acmred housing as long as the owner acquired a special <br />use permit and the area was located in ~eas zoned R-R residential. <br /> The subject property was located in an agricultural area, necessitating <br />Landon's acquisition of a special use permit and rezoning. <br /> The township had not recei,/ed any such requests during the previous i2 <br />years until 1999, when the township started updating irs master plan. The pro- <br />posed plan would allow 20 percent o~' irs dwelling units rd be moderate density, <br />including either multifamily or manufactured housing, as long as there was <br />adequate land and interest. <br /> The township asked the court to dismiss the matter. The tower court deter- <br />mined the statute applied to mobile home parks and the special use permit <br />requfl'ement amounted to an improper highez standard. The township again <br />asked for dismissal, contending that with the amended ordinance, the claims <br />were moot. <br /> While the case was pending, the owners applied for rezoning but continued <br />with the/~' claim that the ordinance was invalid because there were still no ~eas <br />designated as MHCA. <br /> <br /> The court granted judgment in the town's favor, and the owners appealed, <br />contending the ~ownship mtended ~o exclude manufactured housing kommuni- <br /> <br /> <br />