Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2005

Home

Page 6 -- September 25, 2005 DECISION:Affirmed. Because the zoning board did not have the authority to enforce the city's zoning ordinance against the board of education's choice of location for the public school, there was no actionable controversy regarding the zoning board's decision. A public body, such as a city board of education, engaging in a governmen- tal function was not subject to a city's zoning ordinances. When a public body exercised its power for the benefit of all citizens, it was considered a govern- mental function. A function was not a governmental function if it was provided only with public compensation, such as supplying water. Here, the public school was provided for the benefit of alt citizens, regardless of compensation. Ultimately, the zoning board had no power to grant the board of education's request for a special exception. Thus, the neighbor's case should have been dismissed. '. see also: Carter v. Hittiard, 838 So.2d 1062 (2002). see also: Sustainable Forests LLC v. Alabama Power Co., 805 So.2d 681 (2001). Ordinance -- Car dealership claims sign ordinance unconstitutionally vague Enforcement officers have discretion in choosing to issue citations Citation: Mr. Clemens Dodge [nc. v. Charter Township of Clinton, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 260623 (2005) · MICHIGAN (08/02/05) -- Mt. Clemens Dodge Inc. was cited twice for violating a township zoning ordinance that prohibited the commercial display of"stream- ers, banners, and flags." Although the township contacted Mt. Clemens Dodge to give it an opportunity to remove the offending advertising material, it failed to do so. Mt. Clemens Dodge sued, and the court ruled in favor of the township. Mt. Clemens Dodge appealed, arguing the ordinance was unconstitution- ally vague because enforcement officers had improper and unlimited diScretion because they could choose whether or not to issue a violation notice. DECISION:Affirmed. The ordinance was not unconstitutionally vague. Mt. Clemens Dodge maintained the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague because it was within an enforcement officer's discretion to issue a violation notice. However, this was not what was meant by improper and unlimited dis- cretion. The language· of the ordinance itself was straightforward, and was along the lines of a strict liability statute. It specifically prohibited streamers, wind- blown devices, spinners, pennants, and balloons. These terms were familiar to the average person. The challenged terms described distinct objects, not con- © 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group, Any reproduction is prohibited, For more inforrnaiion please call (617) 54.2-0048. 216