Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2003

Home

Page 2 -- September 10, 2003 108 Conflict of Laws -- Township resists county homeless shelter County contends it is immune from township zoning requirements NLICI-ilGAxN (7/9/03) -- The county owned property within the township in an area designated as I-1 (limited indusmal). The counW intended to construct a homeless shelter on this property, but the township resisted these efforts, claring such a use violated, the local zoning ordinance. It was noted that the I-1 district neither expressly nor conditionally allowed such a use. The county, maintained it did not need to comply with the township's zon- Lng ordinance. The township contended the Township Zoning Act gave zoning priority that the county cannot ignore. The township obtained an order to show cause why a preliminary injunc- tion should not issue to prevent this project. Later, the parties stipulated injunc- tive relief was not needed, and the county was given extensions to respond to the complaint. Finally, the count'/asked for judgment without a thai, contending it was immune from the zoning requirements of the township. The lower court ganted the county plenary, authority to choose sites for buildings. The court also de- cided the county was exempt from the township zoning ordinance. The township appealed, and the court of appeals reversed, determining a statute ~anting a county plenary authority to site buildings had to explicitly state it superseded the zoni.ng ordinance. Further, the court noted that if the legislature meant to say a county's power in such matters was plenary, the le~slamre could have easily and expressly said so. DECISION: Reversed. The county did not need to comply with the township's zoning'ordinance. The statutes at issue indicated that the higher priority was with the'county. In the County Commissioner's Act, the legislature expressly stated only one limitation on the authority of the county to sire buildings. While that limitation was not the relevant issue, it showed that the legislature must have considered the issue of limits and intended no other limitation. Citation: Pittsfield Charter Township v. Washrenaw County, Supreme Court of Michigan, No. JJ9590 (2003). see also: Capital Region Airport Authority v. DeWier Charter Township, 601 N.W. 2d 14I (i999). Rezoning -- Dental offices planned in residential area Permit application not considered when rezoning denied NORTH C)~ROLfiNA (7/15/03) --The Novaks were dental practitioners who owned avo lots of land in an area that was zoned residential single family CRS-9"). In 1997, the same district was rezoned to conditional use-limited office ("CU-LO"). The Novaks intended ro demolish e~sring residences on the lots and build