Tag: Michigan Court of Appeals

Legal non-conforming use still subject to junk and nuisance ordinances

Gary Taylor

by Victoria Heldt

Soo Township v. Lorenzo Pezzolesi
(Michigan Court of Appeals, October 25, 2011)

Lorenzo Pezzolesi purchased a piece of property in Soo Township in 1987 when the property was zoned commercial.  He began using it as a junk/salvage yard soon after that.  In 2001, the property was zoned residential and Soo Township passed a nuisance ordinance and a junkyard ordinance.

Subsequently, the Township filed a complaint against Pezzolessi claiming that he was in violation of the ordinances, that the property wasn’t zoned to be a junkyard, and that he did not have a license to operate a junkyard.  The Township’s Supervisor testified that the junkyard did not even classify as “commercial” since no commercial signs were up, the entrance was blocked on a regular basis, and no evidence of commercial activity existed.  Pezzolesi argued that his operation was a salvage yard, not a junkyard.  He claimed to have made sales two weeks prior to the trial and, when asked about employees, he responded that he called “Peter, Joe, and Bob” on the weekends when they were free.  He was unable to provide the last names of his helpers.  The trial court ruled in favor of Pezzolesi.  It found that his salvage yard constituted a commercial operation on property that was zoned commercial at the time of purchase.  The property was rezoned residential after the establishment of the salvage yard; therefore the salvage yard was a legal nonconforming use not subject to the license requirement in the zoning ordinance.  The trial court also found that Pezzolesi was not subject to the nuisance ordinance for the same reason.

The Township appealed, first arguing that the defendant abandoned his right to a nonconforming use when he ceased operating a “commercial” business.  The Court denied this argument, noting that the act of abandonment required “an act or omission on the part of the owner or holder which clearly manifests his voluntary decision to abandon.”  The Court found no such action.  Next, the Township argued that the Pezzolesi’s property was subject to the nuisance ordinance and the junkyard ordinance.  On this issue, the Court agreed.  It distinguished between a zoning ordinance and a regulatory ordinance in that “zoning ordinances regulate land uses, while regulatory ordinances regulate activities.”  It cited a previous case in which it ruled that “a regulatory ordinance can be imposed on a prior nonconforming user, but a zoning ordinance cannot.”  It found that in this case, the junkyard ordinance and the nuisance ordinance constituted regulatory ordinances since they governed people’s behavior regarding the operation of junkyards.  Similarly, the nuisance ordinance “address activity or conditions that could apply to any property, regardless of its location.”  Therefore, the ordinances applied to Pezzolesi’s junkyard/salvage operation.

The Court remanded the decision to the lower court to take further evidence and hear arguments on whether Pezzolesi’s operation in fact violated either of the regulatory ordinances.

Junkyards, Michigan courts, Non-Conforming Uses, Nuisance , , ,
Leave a Comment on Legal non-conforming use still subject to junk and nuisance ordinances

Township ordinance regulating billboards passes constitutional challenges

Gary Taylor

by Victoria Heldt

Township of Blair v. Lamar OCI North Corporation
(Michigan Court of Appeals, October 27, 2010)

Lamar OCI North Corporation (Lamar) leases property along US highway 31 on which it maintains commercial billboards.  Ordinances in the Blair Township Zoning Ordinance (BTZPO), passed in 2005, prohibit billboards exceeding 300 square feet in area, 30 feet in height, and closer than 2,640 feet to another billboard.  One of Lamar’s billboards was in violation of all three of those stipulations, but was allowed as a nonconforming use since it was constructed before the relevant ordinances in BTZPO were passed.  In 2005, Lamar removed a portion of the sign and installed an LED display face on the remaining portion of the board.  This action brought the sign in compliance with the area and height requirements, yet it still violated the distance requirement.

The Township filed suit in district court claiming that the sign constituted a nuisance and Lamar countered with a claim that the spacing requirement between signs violated the First Amendment.  The district court ruled in favor of the Township, but found a portion of the governing ordinance invalid under the First Amendment due to vagueness and removed it.  The court ordered the removal of the billboard unless it appealed the ruling, in which case it could remain until the resolution of the appeal.

On appeal, Lamar first argued that Michigan law prohibited the Township from disallowing modifications to nonconforming uses if they reduce the nonconformity.  The Court acknowledged that the Township has authority to regulate billboards under Article 20 under the BTZO.  Specifically, the Township governs nonconforming uses under Section 20.08 which states that the ordinance may not prohibit alterations to the nonconforming use unless the cost of the alterations exceeds 30% of the cost to replace the sign.   The Court noted that Lamar’s argument was invalid, since it cited cases that were not factually similar.   The changes to Lamar’s sign exceeded 30% of the cost of replacement, so the BTZO had authority to prohibit them.  Lamar failed to show that the trial court lacked authority to eliminate the nuisance.

Lamar next claimed that, since one sentence of the governing ordinance was stricken due to vagueness, the district court should not have been able to find them in violation of the ordinance.  The sentence removed read:  “If the face, supports, or other parts of a nonconforming sign or billboard is structurally changed, altered, or substituted in a manner that reduces the nonconformity, the Zoning Administrator may approve the change.”  The trial court ruled that the phrase gave unbridled and vague authority to the Zoning Administrator.  The Court found that the sentence was able to be removed without altering the goal or effectiveness of the ordinance.  Another question the Court asked itself was whether the ordinance would have been passed in the first place had it been known that the sentence would be stricken.  They found that it would, so the removal of the sentence did not render the clause ineffective.  Lamar claimed that the Court should have eliminated the need for permission from the Zoning Administrator to solve the problem and retain the ability to reduce nonconformities; i.e., that requiring permission constituted prior restraint of speech.  They based their argument on Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham in which the Court ruled against an ordinance requiring a permit to protest.  The Court rejected Lamar’s argument, stating that Shuttlesworth did not apply to the facts in this case because the Township was not trying to restrict the content of the speech.

Lastly, Lamar challenged the constitutionality of the distance requirement found in the ordinance.  The Township claimed the requirement was in place to “enhance the aesthetic desirability of the environment and reduce hazards to life and property in the township.”  When analyzing restrictions on free speech, the Court considers four factors:  1) The First Amendment protects commercial speech only if that speech concerns lawful activity and is not misleading.  A restriction on otherwise protected commercial speech is valid only if it;  2) seeks to implement a substantial governmental interest; 3) directly advances that interest; and 4) reaches no further than necessary to accomplish the given objective.  In this case, the Court found that lawful commercial speech was involved and that “promoting aesthetic desirability of the environment and reducing hazards to life and property in Blair Township are of substantial governmental interest.”  It also found that the ordinances also passed the last two factors of the four-pronged test.  Consequently, the Court affirmed the trial court’s decision.

First Amendment claims, Michigan courts, Signs and billboards , , ,
Leave a Comment on Township ordinance regulating billboards passes constitutional challenges

Demolition is abatement of a nuisance, not a taking requiring condemnation

Gary Taylor 1 Comment

by Victoria Heldt

Hendrix Roosevelt v. City of Detroit
(Michigan Court of Appeals, October 13, 2011)

This case deals with the demolition of a building in Detroit, Michigan.  In 2003, the City sent a dangerous building violation notice to the owners of the building after they discovered it was dilapidated, only had a half roof, and was open to trespass.   After a hearing was held, a demolition notice was sent.  At the time, Roosevelt was not on record as an owner of the building, so he didn’t receive these notices.  In 2005, Roosevelt filed a demolition deferral application and listed the building’s address as the place to send him notice.  The City granted the deferral on the condition that the building not is kept open to public trespass.  If the condition was not met, the building would be demolished without further notice.  A notice was sent to the building addressed to Roosevelt, but it was returned as Roosevelt had moved from the building.  In 2006 the City inspected the building and found it was in violation of the deferral agreement.

Roosevelt filed another deferral request in 2007 and provided 258 Riverside Drive as an address at which to reach him.  The City denied the request and sent notice both to the building’s address and to the alternative address Roosevelt provided.  Both notices were returned in the mail.  In September of 2007 the building was demolished.  Roosevelt filed a claim arguing that the demolition of the building violated the Michigan constitution, violated federal due process, and was the result of gross negligence by two City employees.  The court dismissed the federal claim and remanded the case to the circuit court to resolve the remaining claims.  On both of these claims the circuit court granted summary judgment for the City.  In 2010 the City petitioned to reopen the case in order to present a counterclaim for demolition costs.  The petition was granted, and when Roosevelt failed to oppose the demolition costs, the court awarded demolition costs to the City.  All claims made their way to the Michigan Court of Appeals.

As for the state constitution claim, the Court of Appeals laid out three main reasons why the claim was properly dismissed by the circuit court.  First, monetary damages are reserved for plaintiffs with no other avenue of relief.  Roosevelt’s first line of relief would have been via a federal due process claim, which was alleged and was denied.   The Court also noted that the City’s actions did not constitute a “taking.”  A “taking” occurs when the government confiscates property for public use.  In these instances, the government must go through the proper condemnation process.  An exception exists, however, if the property is causing a public nuisance.  Nobody has the right to use their property as a nuisance; therefore it is not considered a “taking” if the government uses its power to stop a public nuisance.  Roosevelt’s building was considered a public nuisance since it “imperiled the health, safety, and welfare” of the neighborhood.  Thus, the government did not commit a “taking” when it demolished the building.  The Court’s final point regarding this claim was that Roosevelt cannot claim a due process violation if he actually received notice.  The fact that he filed petitions for demolition deferral was evidence that he knew of the demolition plans.  Consequently, there was no due process violation.

In regards to the gross negligence claim against the municipality’s employees, the Court noted that governmental employees are protected from lawsuits if they were “acting within the scope of their authority, were engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function, and their conduct did not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage.”  In this case, the Court focused on the phrase “proximate cause.”  The Court concluded that this phrase is to be interpreted as the “most immediate and direct” cause of the action (in this case, the demolition of the building) and that it refers to one cause.  In this case another cause existed in correspondence with the demolition, namely Roosevelt’s failure to uphold the conditions of the deferral.  As a result of those factors, the employee’s actions are not deemed gross negligence.

Finally, Roosevelt challenged the circuit court’s action in assessing the demolition costs to him since state statute specifies that a judgment lien, and not a personal judgment, should be granted in demolition costs.  The Court agreed with Roosevelt and found that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding the city a personal judgment against Roosevelt.  After affirming the district court’s decisions regarding the constitutional claim and the gross negligence claim, it remanded the case for the granting of a judgment lien.

Condemnation, Michigan courts, Nuisance, Takings , ,
1 Comment on Demolition is abatement of a nuisance, not a taking requiring condemnation

Chelsea’s (MI) failure to provide water to development violated PUD agreement

Gary Taylor

by Gary Taylor

Chelsea Inv. Group, LLC v. City of Chelsea
Michigan Court of Appeals (April 27, 2010)

Chelsea Investment Group (CIG) acquired 157 acres of undeveloped real property located in Chelsea by land contract, for which it paid $5,000,000. CIG then filed a petition to rezone the property to PUD, which the City approved contingent upon CIG meeting all terms in a PUD agreement negotiated between the city and CIG.  The agreement provided, among other things, that the development would contain 352 single-family condos. Under the agreement the city was to provide CIG with access to water for the development in a timely fashion.

CIG made an agreement with Pulte Land Company for the sale and construction of the residential units.  Pulte bought the home sites for $23,000 per lot. The development was to occur in three phases. Pulte’s purchase of the sites was conditioned on governmental approval for each phase.

Eventually, the process ran into a snag when the City determined there was not sufficient water capacity for the project.  When the resulting delays prevented Pulte from proceeding with the project Pulte exercised its option to terminate its contract with CIG.  Pulte also requested a full refund of its $250,000 deposit.

Plaintiff-CIG sued the City alleging breach of the PUD Agreement.  The trial court held that plaintiff had established a breach of the PUD Agreement, but that its damages were limited to Pulte phase two of the development.  It awarded plaintiff costs, attorney fees, and interest.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that the city breached the Planned Unit Development (PUD) Agreement by not timely providing CIG (and Pulte Land Company) access to water for the development.  The damages CIG requested for inability to develop phase two were not too speculative; however, CIG was not entitled to damages as to the lost profits on phase three because development of phase three was too uncertain. The Court of Appeals found that the trial court properly dismissed CIG’s claim against the city manager personally, because his conduct was not grossly negligent, which is the standard a plaintiff is required to prove to overcome a governmental immunity defense.

Thanks to Kurt Schindler, Michigan State University Extension, for this case information. You can visit Kurt’s Land Use page here.

Contracts/Conditional Zoning, Damages, Michigan courts, PUDs , , ,
Leave a Comment on Chelsea’s (MI) failure to provide water to development violated PUD agreement

Subscribe

Archives

Categories

Tags

Admin Menu