Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

December 24, 2003 -- Page 7 DECISION: Reversed. _7~he city did not engage in illegal spot zoning. Be lower court concluded the city engaged m spot zoning by reference to a single finding of fact -- that the city chose only Carrollton's property to rezo6e for the sole purpose of gaining river access. ~owever, this fact was in error. Through the 1982 zoning ordinance, Carr611ton's property was not the only industrial riveffront property rezoned to a development use. Two vacant lots northeast of Carrollton's property were also :~fected by the zoning change. ~he zoning ordinance was enacted after'consideration of the development p lan~and:constituted the elected representatives' decision regarding how the city l~ndScape should be developed in.the future. Consequently, the city's deci- si°n ~vas not made through an isolated zoning amendment or variance that was incmisistent with the overall plan. Citation: City of Esse.wille v. Carrollton Concrete Mix Inc., Court of Appeals of Michigan No. 239807 (2003). see also: Rogers v. City of Allen Park, 463 N. W. 2d 431 (1990). see c~so: Bell River Associates v. Charter Township of China, 565 N. W. 2d 695 (1997). Signs -- City denies permits for billboards Ordinance doesn't include time l#nit for city decisions FLO~LYDA (10/28/03) -- The City of S t. Petersburg had an ordinance regulat- ing tI~e appearance, location, and number of signs within its boundaries. Qranite State Outdoor Advertising Inc. wanted to erect slx billboards in- side the city limits. 2'~e city sign ordinance permitted off-premise signs only in commercial/ indu&rial lots without any other structures and with a valid permit. To obtain a pe~t, an applicant had to submit asign plan demonstrating the proposed sign comp, Lied with city codes. However, the ordinance did not require the city to process an application within any certain amount of time. O. ranite acquired signed lease agreements for slx different parcels of prop- erty. Seventeen days after Granite's permit application was filed, the' city de- nied ithe application because other structures already existed on the. lots and Granite had failed to demonstrate compLiance with applicable height, separa- tion, and setback requirements. Qranite sued. The court ruled in favor of Granite, finding the ordinance was anconstitutional because its failure to specify any time limits gave city ofhc!als undue discretion. The city appealed. DEGIr SION: Reversed. T~me limits were not required to make the ordinance constitutional. Although city officials could potentially delay the processing of certain permit applications and thereby arbitrarily suppress disfavored speech, this was 147