Laserfiche WebLink
<br />April 1, 20071 Volume 1 I No.7 <br /> <br />In 2005, the township passed a blight ordinance. "Blight" was de- <br />fined in part as "[t]he outdoor storage of mobile homes (other than <br />those actually used and occupied for dwelling purposes), truck bodies, <br />bus bodies, or semitrailers, either as vacant units or storage units." Un- <br />der this new ordinance, the township sued Miller in court, asking that <br />the second mobile be removed. <br />Miller asked the court to find in his favor without a trial, arguing <br />that the unit was a legal structure on his property before the ordinance <br />was enacted. Under general zoning law, a permitted use was allowed to <br />continue as a legal, nonconforming use if a newly enacted ordinance <br />made it illegal. In other words, Miller argued that his second mobile <br />home was a grandfathered, permissible use. <br />The trial court found in favor of the township. Importantly, the court <br />relied on case law that identified zoning ordinances designed to promote <br />the general welfare of the people and property in the township as regu- <br />latory ordinances. Regulatory ordinances did not have to grandfather <br />nonconforming uses, and residents operating nonconforming uses were <br />subjectto the zoning laws from the time an ordinance took effect. <br />Miller appealed the trial court's decision, claiming that he was denied <br />the opportunity to amend his challenge of the blight ordinance as it ap- <br />plied to his particular circumstances. <br /> <br />Decision: Affirmed. <br /> <br />Generally, a trial court had to give parties a chance to amend their <br />pleadings under state law, unless there was sufficient evidence that the <br />amendment would not affect the outcome of the trial. Here, Miller <br />could have amended his complaint, but never asked the court for that <br />opportunity at trial. Because he never asked to amend his pleading, <br />there was nothing for the court to review. <br />In addition, given the case law cited by the trial court, it was unlikely <br />that an amendment would have made a difference. The appeals court <br />found that an amendment "would have been futile." The decision of the <br />lower court was affirmed; Miller had to remove the mobile home from <br />his property. <br /> <br />See also: Casco Tp. v. E. Brame Trucking Co., 34 Mich. App. 466, 191 <br />N. W.ld 506 (1971). <br /> <br />Appeal-Board twice decides against landowner's <br />application <br /> <br />Planning official supported application that met all <br />nonconforming use requirements <br /> <br />Citation: Zweeres v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of City of Milford, 2007 <br />WL 706335 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2007) <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />41 <br />