Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Z.B. <br /> <br />October 10, 1997 - Page 7 <br /> <br />/~\ <br /> <br />Before buying the property, Sandstone asked the township torezone-.it from <br />agricultural to multifamily residential. <br />The township refused. Under the township ordinance, agricultural zones <br />were so designated because their poor soil characteristics couldn't support on- <br />site sewage disposal. This was the case with the property Sandstone wanted to <br />buy. In addition, the property was miles from existing public sewer and water <br />services, schools, and hospitals. <br />Sandstone bought the property despite the township's denial of the rezoning. It <br />assigned its interest in the property to its partner, Bell River Associates (developer). <br />The developer sued the township to get the property rezoned. It claimed <br />the property's agricultural classification unreasonably restricted its property <br />and therefore violated its due process rights. The classification permitted, among <br />other uses, rental of the property to farmers and single-family residential uses. <br />According to the developer, it could profit from neither use: Rental to farmers <br />would generate only property taxes, and the cost of building single-"familyhomes <br />would outweigh the economic benefit. The developer claimed the agricultural <br />classification was a taking of its property. <br />The developer also claimed the zoning ordinance violated a state law that <br />prohibited ordinances from totally prohibiting a land use within the township, <br />"unless there [was] no location" where the use was appropriate. <br />The court found in favor of the township, pointing to "the unavailability of <br />public utilities, the [in ]compatibility with surrounding uses, the remoteness of <br />the site, and the impact of a relatively large population on township resources." <br />The developer appealed. <br />DECISION: Affirmed in part. <br />The township properly denied the developer's rezoning request. The case <br />was returned to the lower court for other reasons. <br />The township had a legitimate government interest in the property's agricl}ltural <br />designation. The mobile home park's 1,000 residents would be far from public <br />utilities and emergency services. The park also would increase the township's <br />population by 40 percent - an increase for which the township wasn't prepared. <br />The uses permitted in the agricultural zone were reasonable, because the <br />township's agricultural zones weren't designed to accommodate the needs of a <br />dense population. Further, the developer failed to demonstrate how its proposed <br />use was reasonable. To prove the ordinance illegally excluded mobile home <br />parks, the developer had to prove its park was a reasonable use and.that there <br />was a need for a mobile home park. It proved neither. <br />The agricultural designation wasn't a taking of the developer's property. <br />The developer didn't prove a mobile-home park was the only viable use of the <br />property. Moreover, the developer's partner knew about the zoning restrictions <br />but bought the property anyway. <br />The case was returned to the lower court because certain parts of the <br />township's ordinance applied only to mobile home parks. This violated state <br />law, but didn't affect the outcome of the case. <br /> <br />40 <br />