Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/1997

Home

I., Z.B. June 25, 1997 - Page 5 lots in the area did not conform to the minimum requirements, the housing authority's variances would not disrupt the neighborhood's plan. see also: Hacienda Enterprises No. 2, Inc. v. Smarr, 841 S. W2d 811 (1992). Matthew v. Smith 707 S. W2d 413 (1986). Constitutional Claim - Is city's exclusion of multiple-family dwellings unconstitutional? Countrywalk Condominiums Inc. v. City of Orchard Lake Village, 561 N. W2d 405 (Michigan) 1997 Countrywalk Condominiums Inc. owned a 20-acre parcel of land in Orchard Lake Village, Mich. The city zoned the land as single-family residential. The only permitted uses in the city were single-family residential, professional office, and local business. The city had one multiple-family dwelling as a nonconforming use. Countrywalk sued the city. It claimed the exclusion of multiple-family dwellings from the city zoning plan violated its constitutional rights. The city asked the court for judgment without a trial. Excluding multiple- family dwellings from the zoning plan, the city argued, was necessary to address traffic and safety concerns. The city maintained it was a small residential community with overburdened roads. To support its argument, it pointed to a two-lane road with several twists and turns. While the road had a 24-hour capacity of 11,350 vehicles, a traffic study revealed a daily average of 20,200 vehicles traveled on it. The city argued adding multiple-family dwellings would wqrsen the already congested traffic system and compromise traffic safety. The court granted the city judgment without a trial. Countrywalk appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. Excluding multiple-family dwellings didn't violate Countrywalk's constitutional rights. Even though multiple-family dwellings were legitimate uses of land, and ordinances that excluded them carry a strong mark of unlawful discrimination, the city showed its zoning plan had a real and substantial relationship to the public health and safety. Because Countrywalk didn't provide evidence to refute the city's proof, it couldn't show the zoning plan violated its constitutional rights. see also: Ottawa Co. Farms Inc. v. Polkton Township, 345 N.lv.'2d 672 (1983). Kropfv. Sterling Heights, 215 N.lv.'2d 179 (1974). Constitutional Claim - Owner claims statute discriminates against property owners in heavily populated areas City of Mountain Brook v. Green Valley Partners, 690 So.2d 359 (Alabama) 1997 Green Valley Partners owned property in a Mountain Brook, Ala., district zoned for single-family residences. Mountain Brook was located in Jefferson III