Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2004

Home

.Z._B...: January 107 2004- Page 3 occupying each unit. Mid Michigan rented each apartment to three or four unrel~ited, , tenants, pr/madly college students who attended Central Michigan Ur~v~rsity. The city issued several tickets to Mid Michigan because the apartments were pveroccupied. Mid Michigan sued, and the ~ourt ruled in its favor, finding the overoccupancy was acn established, nonconforming use because of its long duration. The city appealed. D RCtSION: Reversed. ~id Michigan did not establish a nonconforming use. TO establish a vested .nonconforming use, Mid lVlichigan, as a successor owne~, had to show a prior owner used the property lawfully and lVlid lVlichi- gan merely continued that use. The city's zoning ordinance was in effect when the apartments were built, and the successor company to Mid Michigan knowingly violated the occu- pancy limits. Mid Michigan continued that violation. Under the ordinance, the act of renting the apartments to unrelated students was illegal. Consequently, no nonconforming use could have been created. There was a good faith requirement for purposes of establishing a vested, noncgnforrmng use. The record clearly showed Mid Nlichigan bought the build- mg ~ith knowledge of the zoning restriction and rented the apartments in know- lng ~iolation of that restriction. Cita~on: Mid Michigan Rentals Inc. v. City of Mount Pleasant, Court of Appeals- of Michigan, No. 240655 (2003). see also: Maiden v. Rozwood, 597 N.W. 2d 8t7 (1999). see also: Belvidere Township v. Heinze, 615 N. W. 2d 250 (2000). NonConforming Use -- Vacation cottage destroyed by fire Property owner decides to take opportunity to expand NEW YORK (10130/03) -- Heitzrnan owned a vacation cottage located in the ToWfl of Lake George. The cottage was destroyed in a f'zre. Pursuant to the toWn's zoning code, a~ noncionformmg use, such as Heitzman's cottage, could be rebuilt on the existing footprint without any variances if the nonconforming use was damaged by fire. However, Heitzman concluded rebuilding the cottage was impractical. He applied for five area variances: rear setback, right Side yard setback, left side yard setback, height, and density. The town denied all of Heitzman's applications. Heitzman applied again, this time requesting less of an increase in height and idensity. ,The sectmd application was also denied. ~eitzman sued, and the court ruled in favor of the town. Heitzman appealed. 151