Mon 18 May, 2009
Case Summary: Get to Know Your Zoning Ordinance
Comments (0) Filed under: General, Law, Rural, ZoningTags: Brevity and Clarity, Zoning Ordinance
The following case summary was adapted from one prepared by Kurt Schindler at MSU-Extension; excerpts reprinted with permission from the author. For the Zoning Guru, this case raises an important question for planners and zoning administrators:
“Do you know what’s in your zoning ordinance?“
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals (Unpublished No. 283202, March 17, 2009)
Case Name: Richie v. Gladwin County
Background:
Mr. Ritchie (the plaintiff) removed a barn from his square (four sides of equal length), corner lot at Highwood and Hay Roads in Gladwin County, and constructed a quonset hut on the barn’s foundations.
“At issue was whether the portion of plaintiffs’ property on Hay Road was…
…a “front yard” or a “side yard.” (Gladwin County) contended (Mr. Ritchie’s) property had two front lot lines, one on Highwood Road and one on Hay Road, so the property was subject to a 50-foot setback on both sides.”
His residence faced Highwood Road, but the barn and hut were accessed from Hay Road. The barn/hut was determined to be located 42 feet from the Hay Road right-of-way.
- “(The County’s position was that) the hut was too close to the road right-of-way.”
- “(Mr. Ritchie) contended their property had only one front lot line, on Highwood Road, so the hut was in a side yard and more than the required 25 feet from Hay Road.”
Court decisions:
The County’s position was based upon a County Zoning Board of Appeals’ (ZBA) interpretation (of the zoning ordinance text) that such lots must comply with two (2) 50-foot front yard setbacks.
“The trial court determined the ordinances were poorly worded and ambiguous, and resolved the dispute in favor of Gladwin County, primarily because county-defendants’ interpretation had been adopted by the ZBA several years earlier.” “However,…§3.04(A) clearly provides corner lots will have only one “front yard” lot line, to be selected by the Zoning Administrator (ZA) if the two road-frontage property lines are of equal length.”
The appeals court agreed with the trial court that the ordinance was poorly worded, and further found that the ZBA’s interpretation and trial court action conflicted with the plain wording of the zoning ordinance:
“(I)n the absence of a legitimate basis in the ordinance for resolving (whether the Highwood or Hay Road frontage was the “front” yard), the (appeals) court resolved it in favor of the free use of property.”
“Further, the (appeals court ruled that the County zoning) ordinance was unconstitutional under the circumstances where it granted the ZA the unfettered discretion to pick one lot line as the ‘front.’ A zoning ordinance lacking standards for its application must be held unconstitutional and void.
(Source: State Bar of Michigan e-Journal Number: 42171, March 23, 2009.) Full Text Opinion: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2009/031709/42171.pdf.