Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/04/2003

Home

Z.B. '. August 10, 2003 -- Page 7 ties. The township responded by claiming the owners were required to e,'d'iaust all of the available remedies before bnngmg this claim. Here, the. township noted the owners never actually applied for a special use permit and had not heard the results of their rezoning application. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly found m favor of the township. The fact that the township amended irs zoning ordinance to allow manu- factured housing communities as a permitted use indicated that the township did not intend to exclude such communities. The ~ownship's failure ro desig- nate specific areas for manufactured housing did nor mean r, he ordinance was illusory or that the township had no intention of ail'oWing such fac~ties. Rather, it ,;vas very logical for the township to wait umil there was an application filed Lo rake such action. The court, however, disagreed with the notion that the owners were re- quired r.o e:d-iausz local available remedies. ~he court noted that the owners could bring a facial due process challenge r. hat claimed arbitrariness or capri- ciousness and need nor e,'daaust all available remedies. Nonetheless, the township ,;vas property ;rranred judgment. Citation: Landon Holdings fnc. ,2. Orarran Township, Court ofA ppeais of Mi,;hi.ycm, No. 232406 (2003). see also: Bell River Aa'sociarion v. China Charter Township, 56.5 N. 7v:hd ~95 (1997). .. 3'ee also: Country. walk Condommiums: Jnc. 403* ( i 997). Variance ~ Lot was exempted as a' lawful nonconforming use Owner seeks to sell adjacent lot without sufficient frontage MISSOURI (6/i7/03) -- In 1959, Trower purchased a parcek located at 1659 Dearborn. This prope~y was referred to as the principal lot. In ~940, the city, enacted a zoning ordinance, which included minimum lot area and width re- quu'ements. Since the pnncipal lot did not meet the mimmum area and width requirements for residential dwellings, it was exempted as a lawful noncon- fonmng use. In 19a5, Mr. Trower purchased another lot adjacent to the principal lot, a.k.a, the side [or. Ar. the time of Mr. Trower's death, title of the pnncipaI lot and the side [or passed to ,:vks. Trower. [n 1997, Mrs. Trower applied for a zoning variance from the board of ad- justment, which would allow her to sell the side lot to a homebuiiden The board denied the variance request, noting the side iot did not have enough area or frontage. Also, the board believed that Mrs. Trower created the practical difficulty by not selling the side lot with the princeal lot. Mrs. Trower ap- pealed, but the circuit court affLrmed the board's decision. 135.