Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 6 - October 10, 2006 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />'f " <br /> <br />bile or manufactured home was being placed on the property. In response to the <br />complaints, the zoning administrator issued a stop-work order. <br />Under the town laws, manufactured or mobile homes were moveable homes <br />resting on a "fixed chassis." Modular homes were defmed as factory-fabri- <br />cated, transportable buildings designed to stand alone or to be incorporated <br />with similar units into a modular structure. <br />Taylor sued, and the court ruled in favor of the town. Taylor appealed, ., <br />arguing that since his home met the requirements for both a manufactured <br />home and a modular one, it should be classified under the less restrictive zon- <br />. ing requirements. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />Since Taylor's home met the town's definition of a manufactured home, the <br />town could stop Taylor from affixing it in Norberry Estates even if it also met <br />less restrictive definitions. <br />The town's zoning administrator testified that the home arrived on a "fixed <br />chassis." Since the town's definition of manufactured home was clear and <br />comprehensive, the zoning administrator's testimony provided competent and <br />substantial evidence that the home met the definition of being a manufactured <br />home for zoning purposes. <br />As conceded by the town, the home also met the unrestrictive zoning re- <br />quirements as a modular home, but due to its fixed chassis was a manufactured C .. <br />one. Where more than one interpretation of a definition could apply, the board <br />had broad discretion to decide how to classify the home. <br />The court only would reverse the board's finding if there was a clear error, <br />the decision was arbitrary or capricious, or the board abused its discretion. <br />Finding n~one of those conditions, the lower court's ruling was affirmed. <br /> <br />Planned Urban Development - Planned district designed to protect <br />neighborhood's residential character <br />Neighbor claims restrictions on land use in new district amount to tak!ng <br />Citation: Barlow v. City of Hastings, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 267089 <br />(2006 ) <br /> <br />MICHIGAN (08/01106) - The city of Hastings initiated a zoning amendment <br />creating the Court Street Planned Urban Development (PUD) District. The pur- <br />pose of the PUD was to preserve the residential nature of the neighborhood <br />and to limit traffic for the safety of local residents. It also sought to preserve <br />privacy and property values, while still allowing the expansion of a neighboring <br />central business district. <br />Barlow, an affected property owner, sued, claiming that the new district amounted <br />to an unconstitutional taking. The court ruled in the city's favor, finding that no <br />taking had occurred because Barlow could continue the current use of his property. <br />Barlow appealed. <br /> <br />@ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />44 <br />