Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/11/2007

Home

June 1, 20071 Volume 1 I No. 11 necessity or public use is overwhelming." The court noted that the condemning authority had the burden of showing that condemnation was necessary, but it noted also that "[t]here need be no showing of absolute necessity, and the mere suggestion of possible alternatives [did] not, in itself, support a finding of arbitrariness". Brandon Square did not argue that the taking of the land was not necessary, but rather that the :MAC had not exercised the least restric- tive action necessary to serve the public purpose. However, the court found that "[a]lthough some public policy arguments might be made to support a requirement that a condemning authority take only the smallest interest in property that is necessary to serve the public pur- pose, the legislature has not enacted that requirement." Here, the :MAC showed that it was necessary to take the land by submitting and environmental impact statement that showed the ne- cessity for the absence of residential uses in the airport buffer zone. Because the MAC's necessity for condemnation needed only to be rea- sonable or convenient, the court found that condemnation of Brandon Square was permissible. See also: City of Duluth y, State, 390 N. W.2d 757 (Minn. 1986). Certificate of Occupancy-City denies certificate to mayor's neighbor Mayor had' previously sued neighbor over setback requirement Citation: Door v. City of Eearse, 2007 WL 1308684 (E,D. Mich. 2007) MICHIGAN (05/03/07)-Door owned a home in the city of Ecorse neXl to the city's mayor, Door made several repairs to the property over the course of owning it, including the addition of a 16-foot by 22-foot addition to his garage. Door's home was a nonconforming use when he bought it, but the renovations that he made brought the building up to code. The addition was also approved by the city and met all zoning regulations. In 2003, Door decided to sell his house. To do so, he had to obtain a certificate of occupancy first. He applied for the certificate, and, de- spite passing all of the necessary inspections, Door's application was denied, Door believed that his neighbor, Salisbury, influenced the deci- sion, and he appealed to the zoning board of appeals. The board denied Door's appeal, and Door was unable to sell his home. He sued the city and Salisbury in court, claiming that the con- 9 93