Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

Page 4 --iMarch 1996 Z.B. She also s~id the township previously issued use and occupancy permits that allowed trOck storage and repair for all nine properties. Wallinland Stone were Copechal's tenants at two separate properties. In August 19~4, both applied for use and occupancy ,p_ ermits to repair and store trucks on t~heir respective properties. The township s code enforcement officer denied the!applications, saying the proposed use was not allowed in the com- mercial district. (The ordinance allowed automobile repair only as an acces- sory use to ~n automobile sales agency; it did not allow truck storage and repair.) He also to~d Wallin and Stone they had a right to appeal to the township's Zoning Hegring Board. Neither appealed to the board. Copect~al sued the township on behalf of herself and her tenants. She asked the court t~ order the township to issue the permits. The township asked the court to di};miss the case, saying Copechal and her tenants failed to exhaust their admigistrative remedies. The township said because of this failure, the court had rio jurisdiction over Copechal's claims. The cogrt dismissed the case, and Copechal appealed. She said state law allowed he~ to request the order she sought even though she could have appealed to the Zonigg Hearing Board. DECISIOI~: Affirmed. The tri~l court properly dismissed Copechal's case. Even if all her allega- tions were ~rue, she did not show she had a clear legal right to an order making the township issue the permits. Withoui first going to the Zoning Hearing Board, Copechal could not seek [ . an order m~k~ng the township issue the permits unless the proposed use com- plied with t~ne ordinance in effect when the tenants filed the applications. She did not sho~ the ordinance gave any clear right to garages used for truck stor- age and repgir. Copech~l may have had a vested right to continue garage use if it was a nonconforming use that preexisted the zoning ordinance. However, the board had to makd. that determination. The question involved factual issues the board was better ~quipped to decide. Lindy I~'~mes h~c. v. SabatDff, 453 A.2d 972 (1982). · Ordinance ~ College Town Ordinance Limits Number of Unrelated People Living Together StegemC{n v. CiO, of Ann Arbor; 540 N. W. 2d 724 (Michiga~0 1995 Stegema~n owned Campus Rentals, a company that rented apartments in Ann Arbor, Nlich., to groups of college students. Part of the. city's zoning ordinance prohibited more than six unrelated people from hvmg ~ogether ~n certain res~dentxal dmtrmts. Functional famdms were allowed if t~ey got a special exception use permit. The ordinance defined a functional f~mily as "a group of no more than 6 people plus their offspring, having a rela[tionship which is functionally equivalent to a family." The defini- tion explicit!y excluded fraternities, sororities, and groups of students "where the common[ living arrangement or basis for the establishment of the house- keeping unitiis temporary."