Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/2004

Home

Page 6 -- May 10, 2004 Z.B. required variances from the side-yard setbacks and was much larger than any building around it. Elide sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. Elide appealed, arguing the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious and based on insufficient evidence. DECISION: Affirmed. The board's decision that the proposed apartment complex would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood was supported by the evidence. The proposed complex failed to meet the zoning limitations on height, number of habitable stories, and side-yard setbacks. Because of these failures, the board's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Ultimately, the board's denial was justified because Elide's plan failed to conform to local zoning restrictions. see oho: Sasso v. Osgood, 657 N.E. 2d 254. see also: [frah v. Utschig, 774 N.E. 2d 732. Nonconforming Use -- Small-scale farmer seeks special exception permits Neighbor claims this ends nonconforming use Citatiort: Gillette v. Comstock Township, Court of Appeals of Michigan, Nos. 240198 & 240d99 (2004) MICHIGAN (02/03/04) -- Stuck5 acquired property, in 1976 to engage in small- scale farming activities, such as raising goats. At the time, this was a permitted use of the property. In 1977, the zoning ordinance was changed. Under the new ordinance, small-scale farming activities were permitted only as vahd nonconforming uses or through the acquisition of a special exception use permit. Consequendy, Stucks's use of the property became a valid nonconforming use. 'Almost 20 years later, a new owner bought the property neighboring S mcki's was. Stuck. i's new neighbor complained to the township about the goats. Stuck2 removed the goats pending the resolution of the zoning issue. She filed two applications for special exceptions seeksng township approval to keep horses, chickens, and other farm animals on her property. Ultimately, these applications were approved. The neighbor sued, arguing Stucks's nonconforming use ended when she applied for special exceptions. The court ruled in Stucki's favor. The neighbor appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Stuclci's applications did not end her nonconforming use. Until Stucld implemented the special exception permits, the keeping of 84 2004 Quinlan Publisi]ing G~oup. Any reproduction is prol'dbited. For more iniormation please call (617) 542-0048.