Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

Z.B. September 10, 2005 -- Page 3 Ordinance -- ll-unit developments covered by PUD requirements DeveloPer questions choice of 11 as determinative number. Citation: Holwerda Builders LLC v. Township of Gratran, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No.. 260711 (2005) MICHIGAN (07/14/05) ~ Rox LLC split a parcel of land into 10 sites. Holwerda Buildings LLC bought four of the sites with the intention of building four single-family homes. On the remainder of the lots, Rox planned to build a con- dominium site comprised of 12 individual units. Holwerda applied for building permits from the township. However, the township refused to grant the permits, stating Holwerda's plans had to comply with the township's Planned Unit Development (PUD) provisions because of Rox's development on the neighboring lots.. Under the ordi- nance, any development with more than 11 individual units required PUD approval. Between Rox and Hotwerda's plans, the site would have had 16 individual units. Holwerd/t sued, and the court ruled in favor of the township. Holwerda appealed, arguing choosing 11 as the number of units that re- quire PUD approval, as opposed to any'other number, made the ordinance arbitrary, capricious, and unconstitutional. DECISION: A ~rmed. The ordinance was not arbitrary and capricious. Holwerda did not attempt to explain why 11 was unrelated to the township's goals of density regulation for the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens or negate support for using that number. The township enacted the PUD provisions to protect open space, to pro- vide a more desirable living environment, to encourage developers to use a more creative approach to development, .and to promote more efficient and aesthetic use of open areas. Townships had zoning authority to ensure the proper use of natural and public resources, to limit overcrowding, and to promote public health, safety, and welfare. Avoiding overcrowding and preserving open. space were legiti- mate governmental interests. Because the township's PUD provisions advanced these interests by regu- lating denser development while preserving open space, the ordinance provi- sions were rationally related to legitimate governmental interests, and the ordi- nance was constitutional on its face. see also: Preserve the Dunes [nc. v. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, 684 N.W. 2d 847 (2004). see also: Conlin v. Scio Township, 686 iV. W. 2d 16 (2004). 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 2O5