Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

Z.B. March 15, 1996 -- Page 5 home parks in limited industrial and light limited industrial districts. The limitations that applied to uses in limited industrial districts would not have barred mobile home parks, so they were allowed there. Likewise, because mobile home parks were not specifically permitted or prohibited in limited light industrial districts, they were allowed as conditional uses in those zones. Bakerstow~ Container Corp. v. Richland Township, 500 A.2d 420 (1985). £idler v. Zoning Board of Adjustment, 182 A.2d 692 (2962). Ordinance -- Opponent Says Nonconforming Lots Must Be Combined to Meet Frontage Kalinoff v. Columbus Township, 542 N.W. 2d 276 (Michigan) 1995 LCS Homes Inc. acquired five residential lots in Columbus Township, Mich. It wanted to build on the lots, which did not meet minimum lot size and frontage requirements. However, the lots existed before the township enacted /ts zoning ordinance, so the ordinance's provisions regarding non- conforming lots applied. For single lots that did not meet area or width requirements but that pre- existed the ordinance, the nonconforming lot provisions allowed construc- tion of single-family homes and accessory buildings. However, another part of that section said if two or more lots did not meet area or width require- ments, had continuous frontage, were owned by the same person, and were "of record at the time of passage or amendment of this ordinance," they had to be considered one parcel. In that case, "no portion of said parcel [could] be used or occupied which [did] not meet lot width or area requirements ... nor [could] any division of the parcel be made which [left] remaining any lot width or area below the requirements." Kalinoff sued the township, claiming the nonconforming lot provisions prohibited LCS Homes from building. Kalinoff and the township both asked the court for judgment without a trial. The court granted Kalinoff's request. It said the ordinance section regarding commonly owned lots with continuous frontage was meant to reduce the number of nonconforming lots on which single-family homes could be built. The court held, "once any owner owns more than two lots with which he can conform to the ordinance, then he is required to do so." The township appealed, saying the commonly owned lot provision did not apply to lots that were platted before the ordinance was adopted. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly granted Katinoff's request. The ordinance clearly said commonly owned lots with continuous frontage that were "of record" when the ordinance was passed had to be considered one lot to conform to area and frontage requirements. The section that allowed single-family homes and accessory structures on preexisting lots applied to only si~gle lots that did not have continuous frontage and common ownership.