Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. -- December 24, 2004 -- Page 5 <br /> <br /> Ordinance -- Real estate ComPany argues sales agents are <br /> independent contractors · .. <br />Consequently, not 'employees' .barred under the Zoning ordinance' <br />Citation: Windsor Charter TownShip v. Remsing, Court of Appeals of Michigan, <br />No. 249688 (2004) <br />MICHIGAN'(10/28/04) -- Rems?g allOwed non-occupant sales agents ~0 work <br />from his home-based teal estate Company. Under the local zoning ordinance, a <br />homeowner was not allowed to hay6· an employee Working from the home un- <br />less he or she also occupied the dwelling. <br />Windsor Charter Township sued; and the court ruled in its favor. <br />Remsing appealed, arguing !the sales agents were not "employees" be- <br />cause they were independent contractors. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. .. <br />The independent sales agents were employees under the ordinance. <br />R'Remsing was correct, ~ere Would be absolutely no limit on the number of <br />agents who could work out of hisihome. Allowing such usage would obliterate <br />the distinction between commerCial zoning districts, residential uses, and home <br />occupations. <br /> For purposes of enforcing thc townShip's ordinance, the only reasonable <br />way to interpret and apply the term "employee" was to deem any person who <br />was a non-occupant working out of a home in the area an employ.ee within the <br />meaning of the ordinance, regard!ess: of his or her legally defined- position of <br />employee or independent contractor. <br /> All the township needed to PrqVe was that Remsing employed a non-occu- <br />pant to work in his dwelling.: <br />see also: Van Buren charter Township v. Garret Belt [nc,, 673 N. W. 2d lll (2003). <br />see also: Soupal v. Shady V~ew Inc., 672 N.W.2d 171 (2003). <br /> <br />Nonconforming Use -- Neighb°t~s me easement for close t° 60 years <br />No evidence to the contrary <br />Citation: Hart v. Ward, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 248725 (2004) <br />MICHIGAN (10/26/04) -- Neighboring property owners frequently used a pr/- <br />vate road easement next to HaWs property- to access Mullet Lake for swimming, <br />boating, and other recreational acfivitiesl Although the private road violated <br />Cheboygan County zoning Ordinances, the easement and road existed as a <br />prior nonconforming use. <br /> Hart wanted to stop people from using the easement to access the lake. Hart <br />sued ro stop the use, and the court:ruled in the neighbors' favor. <br /> Hart appealed, arguing the private road violated county ordinances and no <br />nonconfoi'ming use was ever created in the property. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. ' <br /> <br />2004 ©mnlan Publisiqio§ Group. Any reproduction is p[orlibited. For more in/ormalion please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />91 <br /> <br /> <br />