Laserfiche WebLink
<br />( <br /> <br />/ <br />I. <br />", <br /> <br />( <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />September 25, 2006 - Page 3 <br /> <br />to operate in' the village of Amana. The restaurant's sign was designed by <br />Schuerer-' s grandfather somt;: 30 years earlier. As part of a historic restoration <br />project, the village enacted a zoning ordinance that restricted the size, appear- <br />ance, and placement of signs, When the ordinance took effect, the Brick Haus <br />sign was nonconforming. <br />Brick Haus applied for and was issued a nonconforming sign permit. The <br />permit allowed the sign to remain nonconforming for a period of seven years. <br />Before the permit was set to expire, BrickHaus filed a special exemption <br />request with the board of adjustment seeking permission to keep its existing <br />sign. Brick Haus claimed that the signwas a landmark which "represent[ed] the <br />culture and history" of the village. However, the request was denied and the <br />board recommended that a conforming sign be erected. <br />Brick Haus appealed the board's decision to court.on the grounds that the <br />decision was improper, constituted a taking, and was arbitrary and capricious. <br />After a trial, the court found in favor of the board. <br />Brick Haus appealed. <br />DECISION: Affinned. <br />. The appeals court determined that there was substantial evidence to sup- <br />port the lower court's decision. The lower court had found that the Brick Haus <br />sign was one-and-a-half times taller and two-and-a-half times larger than al- . <br />lowed by the zoning ordinance: The court also found that the removal of the old <br />sign and placement of a new' sign would not impose a financial hardship on <br />Brick Haus. <br />A zoning regulation could be construed as a taking if it was too intrusi~e <br />and/or restrictive. The point at which a zoning regulation became so oppres- <br />sive that it rose to the level of a taking was determined on a case-by-case basis. <br />However, a zoning regulation was presumed to be valid if it had a substantial <br />relationship to public health, comfort, safety and welfare - including the main- <br />tenance of property values. . --. - .. <br />Preservation of the character of the neighborhood was a purpose sufficient <br />to support the validity of a zoning ordinance. In this case, the court ruled that <br />the sign ordinance was a valid exercise of police power, not a taking. <br />The decision of the lower court was affirmed. <br /> <br />Nuisance - Newly constructed barn blocks lake view <br /> <br />Neighboring property owner sues for public nuisance <br />Citation: Gawrych v. Rubin, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 267447 (2006) <br /> <br />MICHIGAN (07/20/06) - Rubin owned lots 3, 4, and 5 of a subdivisioIl; in <br />A1cona Township. Rubin built a barn on lot 3, and Gawrych, a neighboring <br />property owner, believed that the barn trespassed on his property. Gawrych <br />also claimed that the barn violated subdivision restrictions, blocked his view of <br />Lake Huron, diminished the value of his property, and disrupted the residential <br /> <br />@ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group; Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />87 <br />