Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

January 25, 2006-- Page 7 Subdivision-- Condominium developer seeks to combine parcels Neighbors oppose plan, claim due process violation Citation: Williarr~ v. City of Troy, Court of Appeal,~ of Michigan, No. 263366 (2005) MICHIGAN (12/I3/05) -- Freund wanted to develop three parcels of vacant land into condominiums. The parcels had been part of an earl/er subdivision of land. According to the zoning code, no home could be built on lots smaller than one half-acre. However, Freund planned to combine the parcels into a single condominium unit to create enough space for the proposal. The city's planning commission conducted a preliminary re¥iew and deter- mined that Freund's proposed development complied with the requirements for the zoning classification. Althougfi one condominium unit included less than one half-acre of Iand, the commission determined that the average parcel area in the development exceeded the minimum requirement. The commission specifi- cally noted that the members had reviewed plans for several adjacent subdivi- sions and considered the rural nature of the area before reconunending the city approve Freund's proposal. The city ultimately approved the proposal. W'fll/ams, a neighboring landowner, sued to stop the development, claiming that the combined parcels violated the city's zoning ordinance. The court ruled in Freund's favor. Williams appealed, arguing that the proposal violated neighboring prop- erty owners' due process fights. DECISION:Affirmed. The city did not violate W'flliams' due process fights. The city's zoning ordinance allowed for the development of condominiums as an alternative to standard housing, but mandated that .these developments comply with the requirements for the zoning district where they were con- structed. The city evaluated whether Freund's proposed development was "consis- tent and compatible with other one-fam/ly residential, developments in the com- munity, and not detrimental to the orderly development of the area." The city also reviewed the documentary evidence provided by the parties regarding the character of the area and the proposed developments. The evi- dence revealed that the lot sizes in adjacent subdivisions were much smaller than those in this subdivision and were consistent with Freund's proposed development. Furthermore, the ordinance did not require that a new develop- ment be consistent and compatible with the immediate subdivision. see also: Eggleston v. Bio-Medical Application of Detroit Inc., 658 N.W..2d 139 (2003). see also: $oupal v. Shady ~ew [nc., 672 N.W. 2d 17] (2003). © 2006 Cuinian Pul3iishing Gfou~. Any reproduction is prolqlbitetL For more information please call (61~ 542-0048. 137