Tue 15 Sep, 2009
Case Summary: Defend the Plan?
Comments (0) Filed under: Development, General, Law, Planning, Rural, The Zoning Guru, ZoningTags: Master Plan, Regulatory Takings
The following case summary was adapted from one prepared by Kurt Schindler at MSU-Extension; excerpts reprinted with permission from the author. The Zoning Guru chose this case because it answers the $Million question elected officials face when confronted with a development-related lawsuit:
“Do we defend our master plan?“
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished No. 280921, December 23, 2008)
Case Name: Leduc, Inc. v. Charter Twp. of Lyon
Background:
“Plaintiff-Leduc is a real estate developer… of a nearly 202 acre parcel located in the township, which is:
- utilized as a golf course and is
- zoned… for low-density exurban housing… and agricultural endeavors.
Due to recent competition, (the property owner) entered into an option contract with Leduc for the sale of the land contingent on rezoning to… permit single-family homes and other high-density uses….”"When suit was filed, none of the surrounding property had a similar classification. Plaintiffs began developing plans to build single-family homes (and) filed an application to rezone…, which (Lyon Twp.) subsequently denied for various reasons.
Plaintiffs filed a three-count complaint alleging:
- they were entitled to rezoning as a matter of law…,
- (Lyon Twp.)’s refusal to rezone deprived them of procedural and substantive due process, and the
- denial… constituted an unconstitutional regulatory taking.”
Court decisions:
“The Appeals Court held the plaintiffs:
- failed to… establish a violation of due process, (and)
- did not… show a regulatory taking.
The (appeals court found that the) trial court properly granted summary disposition to the defendant-township.”
“(T)he township decision to adhere to its Master Plan was reasonably related to its stated interest.”
Affirmed.
(Source: State Bar of Michigan e-Journal Number: 41400, January 7, 2009.)
Full Text Opinion: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2008/122308/41400.pdf
An up-to-date Plan is a strong foundation upon which to build a community’s future. Vigorous and continuing use of the Master Plan as part of day-to-day local government decision-making on land use and development issues is important for the future of the community.
However, it is when that Plan is tested, usually by incompatible development proposals or land development litigation, that the true worth of an up-to-date Plan becomes apparent. The Charter Township of Lyon prevailed in this case in large part because their Plan was regularly reviewed and updated as needed.
More importantly, the Township officials understood that vigorous defense of such a Plan was essential to ensure that the community’s vision for itself in 10 to 20 years can be realized, and will not be stymied or hobbled by inappropriately located or out-of-character development. Their answer to the question of whether to defend the Plan was a resounding “Yes!”