Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/11/2004

Home

February 10, 2004 -- Page 5 conveyance increased the nonconformance of Lingeman's lot, and Greet was endtled to jud~mment in his favor. DECISION: Affirmed. The new home did not violate the zoning ordinances, and thus could not be removed. But more importantly, Greet waited too long to state his complaints. Greer received a notice of public hearing concerning the planned house. In fact, his wife wrote to the township, asking for further information regarding whether the new house would obstruct her view. Greer did not follow up on this note or seek any other information for several months. It was clear Greet knew or should have known a home was going to be built on the neighboring lots and failed to use due diligence sufficient to ascer- rain what the plans were for the new residence. In the meantime, Lingeman experienced a substantial change in condition, having constructed the home on the property at a cost of $290,000 excluding the real estate. Clearly, Lingeman would be prejudiced if she was forced to move or raze the home. Consequently, ir wouldn't be fair to enforce Greer's claims that the home could not be built as it was on that location. Citation: Greer v. Lingeman, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 239560 (2003). see also: Hosre v. Shanty Creek Management Inc., 592 IV.W. 2d 360 (1999). see also: Roberts v. Mecosta County General Hospital, 642 X W. 2d 663 (2002). Vested Right -- Landowners claim recording of parcel created vested right Argue county cannot keep thorn from developing land FLORIDA (12/10/03) -- Ambrose was one of a ~oup of landowners who owned undeveloped land that had been platted and recorded in the county between 1924 and 1971. In 1979, the county was designated as an area of critical state concern. Since then, the government has approved new development regulations for these areas. Ambrose sued, asserting these new land regulations limited or modified her fight to develop her land. The court ruled in her favor, finding Ambrose had a vested fight to build a single-family home, solely by virtue of recording the parcel before the regulations were enacted. It ruled this vested fight was superior to and preempted any state or local comprehensive plan or land use regulation. The county appealed. DECISION: Reversed. Only some of the landowners had vested fights in their properties. The theory behind vested rights was a citizen was entitled to rely on the assurances and commitments of a zoning authority. If he or she did so, the zoning authority was bound bv [ts representations. 119