Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/06/1997

Home

Page 2 -- April 10, 1997 z,g, Rezoning- Can private company inherit public agency's zoning immunity? Nolan Brothers of Texas Inc. v. City of Royal Oak, 557 N. W. 2d 925 (Michigan) 1996 The Michigan Department of Transportation owned property in Royal Oak, Mich., that was zoned industrial. In 1991, the city rezoned the area as multiple- family residential, bringing it in accordance with the city,s master plan. Two years later, Nolan Brothers of Texas Inc. optioned to buy the property with plans to build a mini-warehouse, which the current zoning laws did not permit. Nolan Brothers twice applied to have the area rezoned but was unsuccessful. The city also denied its request for a use variance. Nolan Brothers sued, alleging the city did not have jurisdiction to rezone the property in the first place, and that the rezoning amounted to an unconstitutional taking. According to Michigan law, in some cases state agencies could be immune to local zoning ordinances, because the Legislature had given them preemptive powers. Nolan Brothers also asked the court to declare the zoning ordinance invalid and to have the city enjoined from interfering with the property's development. The court found for Nolan Brothers. The city appealed, arguing the Michigan statute gave it the right to rezone the land. While the city agreed that some state agencies had preemptive power over zoning ordinances, it said that power did not extend to Nolan Brothers, a private company. DECISION: Reversed. State law gave the city authority to rezone the area. There was no dispute over the department's immunity from the zoning or- dinance- public agencies had preemptive powers in such circumstances. The real question was whether Nolan Brothers could inherit these powers by buy- ing the land from the department. Because Nolan Brothers was a private com- pany, it did not have the same status as the department -- as a result, the ordi- nance that didn't apply to the department did apply to Nolan Brothers. Simply buying property from a public agency wasn't enough to shield a company from local zoning ordinances; there was no indication the Legislature ever intended that result. Supporting Nolan Brothers' claim would suggest only that private parties buying government-owned land could choose to disregard zoning ordinances and operate against a municipality's general welfare. see also: Detroit Edison Co. v. Richmo~d Township, 388 N. W. 2d 296 (1986). see also: Detroit v. Volunteers of America, 426 N. W. 2d 743. Agricultural Use-- Developer wants to replace barn with house and stable In re Stowe Club Highlands, 687A.2d 102 (VermonO 1996 Stowe Club Associates, a developer, got a permit to develop a 250-acre parcel of land, which included a 22-acre meadow with a barn on it. The permit '1 I I I I ! I I i Ii, I ! I I ! ! I