Laserfiche WebLink
g.g. <br /> <br />January 10, 2005 -- Page 7 <br /> <br /> Due Process -- TownShip OrdinanCe requires mobile homes to meet .. <br /> HUD standards . <br /> Older home moved to new location within toWnship <br />Citation: Bunker Hill. Township v. Alien, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No, <br />249353 (2004) <br />MICHIGAN (11/09/04) Bailey owned a mobile home that was built'~n 1984 <br />and complied with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development <br />(HUD) standards at that time. HOwever, due to amendments made to the HUD <br />construction and safetY standards in 1994, Bailey's mobile home was no longer <br />in comphanCe. <br /> Bailey moved the home to atot located within Bunker Hill Township. The <br />move violated the township's zoning ordinances, which required all mobile <br />homes moved witkin the township to comply with HUD requirements. Conse- <br />quently, Bailey could: not obtain! building and occupancy permits. <br /> The township sued to remove the mobile home, and the court ruled in its <br />favor. Bailey appealed, arguing his dUe process rights were being.violated bY <br />the ordinance. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br /> <br /> · There was no violation of B~iley's due process fights. <br /> Substantive· due process protects an individual from the arbitrary depri- <br />vation of property or liberty intei'eSts. In general, when a court analyzed a due <br />process claim, it presumed all local -ordinances to be vali'd. However,' if an <br />ordinance totally exclUded .a particular land use, either expressly or effec- <br />tively, then the township had the burden to show that the ordinance was <br />reasonable. <br /> Since the township permitted-mobile homes on any residential lot, there <br />was no express exclusion of mobile homes as a class. Although Bailey argued <br />the township effectively excluded a Certain subclass of mobile homes, namely, <br />those built before the current HUD regulations, a municipality did not have to <br />permit all mobile homes regardleSS of size, appearance; or quality. In fact, a <br />mobile home could be legally excluded if it failed to satisfy reasonable stan- <br />dards designed to assure faVor~ible comparison of mobile homes with site- <br />built lmusing. <br /> Here, the court determined the ordinance had a rational relationship to <br />safety. Construction standards.Chad improved since the time Bailey's mo- <br />bile home was built, and the ordinance exempted mobile homes that were <br />already situated in the township. Since Bailey's mobile home did not com- <br />ply with current safety standardS, the ordinance did not violate Bailey's <br />due process righ[s. <br />see also: Konynenbelt v. FIagstar Bank. 617 N. W. 2d 706 (2000). <br />~'ee t, tlso: Landon Holdings [nc. v. Grattan Township, 667 N.W. 2d 93 (2003). <br /> <br />,cD 2005 Ouinlan P~iblisi~in§ Group. Any reprodudtioa i~ Prol~ibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />101 <br /> <br /> <br />