Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/2006

Home

Page 4-- February 10, 2006 The township asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing Allen failed to exhaust its administrative remedies because.it did not give the township an opportunity to reach a decision on Allen's proposal before. Allen sued. The court ruled in favor of the township, finding Allen's constitutional rights had not been violated. Allen appealed, again arguing its constitutional rights had been violated, and as such, it didn't have to exhaust administrative remedies. DECISION: A ~rmed. Allen failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. Judgment without a trial was appropriate if the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject. Mich/gan law clearly required that~ before challengSng the application of a local zoning ordinance in court, Allen had to pursue administra- tive remedies until it obtained a final nonjudicial determination on the permitted uses of its property. Importantly, because Alien's constitutional claims were decided by the lower court on their merits in the zoning appeal, this court denied application for leave to appeal that decision for lack of any appropriate reason to challenge the decision. Claims could not be re-litigated over and over again until the claimant received a desired decision. Allen did not contend it had exhausted its administrative remedies. Rather, it contended its facial challenge to the ordinance was not subject to the exhaus- tion of remedies requirement. Since its constitutional claims had been decided already by the lower court, to the extent Allen's action sought a determination of whether the township should approve the proposed use of the property under the brdinance, Alien failed to exhaust its administrative remedies by going to court too soon. see also: Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter Township, 683 N.W.2d 755 (2004). see also: Conlin v. Scio Township, 686 N.W. 2d 16 (2004). Appeal-- Zoning board fails to send area variance application to county planning board Sign company claims it has continued right to erect sign Citation: Lamer Advertising of Penn, LLC v. V~llage of Marathon, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 3rd Dept., No. 98315 (2005) NEW YORK (12/15/05) -- La.mar Advertising of Perm, LLC obtained a building permit to erect a billboard on land adjacent to a h/ghway. After the billboard construction was underway, a stop order was issued because the size and height of the proposed billboard violated a local zoning ordinance. Lamer then applied for an area variance. Ultimately, the zoning board of appeals denied the application. In malting its decision, the board failed to sub- © 2006 Qumlan Put~lishing Group. Any reproauction is prohibiteQ. For more information please call (6/7) 542-0048. 142