Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/03/2003

Home

goB, March 10,'2003 -- Page 5 Despite the condition; the property owner renewed the billboard's lease. When the township threatened to rescind the variance and forcibly remove the billboard, the property owner sued under the Michigan Highway Advertising Act. He argUed the township could not remove the billboard without Paying compensation first. The township claimed it did not have to pay compensation because the property owner did not own the sign. It also argued the billboard had to be removed immediately. DECISION: In favor of the property owner. The township could not remove the billboard without paying the property owner compensation. - The Michigan Highway Advertising Att clearly, required payment of just compensation to both the owner of the property and the owner of the billboard.. Since removing the billboard without just compensation would result in irreparable harm (in that the sign could not be replaced once removed), the township could not remove the billboard, until it paid the property owner com- pensation. Citation: Lamar Advertising Co. v. Cha~er Township of Clinton, U.S. District Court )'br the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, No. 0]-402]5 (2003). see also: Alma Motor Co. v.' Timken-Detroit A~,~le Co., 329 U.S. 129 (]946). see also: United States v. Miami Universi~., 294 F. 3d 797 (2002): Special Exception -- Neighboring property claims university needs special exception to build dormitory University argues it shouldn't be treated differently than otherproperty owners DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (01/30/03) George Washin~on University bought a former hotel to use as a dormitory for some of its students. Watergate West Inc. owned a cooperative building across the street. The former hotel was in a high-density residential zoning district. The Board of Zoning Adjustment found the universi'ry was entitled to use the building as a dormitory as a matter of right. Consequently, the university did not need to obtain a special exception. Watergate sued the board, arguing university uses were not permitted in residential zones. The court ruled in favor of the board. Watergate appealed. It claimed universities were required to obtain special exceptions to use any buildings in residential zones, it also argued the univer- sity had to demonstrate the proposed use was not hkely to cause offense to neighboring properW because of noise, traffic, number of students, or other objectionable conditions. 211