Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/04/2004

Home

Page 8 -- October !0, 2004 Z.B. Travis still had the right to challenge the ordinance. ;-Vthough Travis was ~enera[1 / altec[ting the text of the ordinance itself. ils application to ti~e particular circumstances of an individual, Travis was also objecting to its application to his second dwelling unit permit. Travis was not complaining the mere enactment of the ordinance was illegal, he was complain- lng the. county demanded illegal exactions as a condition of issuing the permit. If a zoning ordinance could only be challenged within 90 days of its enact- ment, a property owner subjected to it would be without remedy unless the owner had the foresight to challenge the ordinance when it was enacted, pos- sibly years or even decades before ir was used against the property. 'Although the rule was intended to provide certainty to local governments, this could not be done at the expense.of a fair and reasonable opportunity to challenge an invalid ordinance when [t was enforged against one's property. Based on the above, Travis's suit was timely. see ah~o: z¥1T. Hill Inc. v. Ci'~ of ~re~ao, 72 C~I. Ap£.4rh 977 (lPPP). Appeal -- Developer immediately sues township over land use decision Town,ship argues developer had to go through administrative channels first Citation: Wohers Realr,? Ltd. v. Saugaruck To~vnshi~?, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 247228 (2004) MICHIGAN (08/03/04) -- Wokers Realty Ltd. owned a 20-acre parcel of land. The majority of the parcel was zoned agricultural, although two kregular por- tions were zoned commercial. Wolrers wanted to build a travel plaza on its property. However, because it thought the irregular portions were too small to contain the plaza, it sought to have the entire property rezoned to commercial. Wolters filed a special use application with the township to rezone the property. The township denied Wolters's application. Without seeing a variance, or any other administrative redress, Wolters sued. The court ruled in its favor, finding the proposed use was a reasonable use of the property. The township-appealed, arguing Wolters could not sue because it had not exhausted all available administrative remedies. DE CISION: Revers ed. Wolters could not sue because it failed to exhaust administrative remedies. [t was undisputed c/biters never sought a variance fi~om the township. C/biters argued [t would be futile to seek redress through the township because the ro,,vnship clearly indicated ir would not allow rezoning of .:he area or a variance. However, a landowner st/It had ro seek all administrative remedies before commencing [eaai action, Because Wolters did not do so. the lower court did P~O~ ......a~, ~ ok,,~sdtc~t.~{ ,4 .,-" ,,;.~ ~0 [~ear W'oiters" ;air. h.2,.d to be dismissed. 148