|
No. 132329
| City of Detroit, |
|
Linda D. Fegins |
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Wayne - Rashid, J.) |
|
|
| Ambassador Bridge Company, a/k/a Detroit |
|
Jeffrey T. Stewart |
| International Bridge Company, |
|
Catherine Sevcenko |
| Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Counter-Plaintiff-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Michigan Municipal League, Bagley Housing Association, Bridgewatch Detroit, Mexicantown
Community Development Corporation, Ste. Anne's Catholic Church, Southwest Detroit Business
Association, Inc., and People's Community Services for Metropolitan Detroit's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Background
Detroit International Bridge Company (DIBC) began three construction projects within the enclosed area forming a part of the approach to the Ambassador Bridge on the Detroit side of the Detroit River (the “sterile zone” or “bridge complex”). DIBC did so without first obtaining building permits and zoning variances required under Detroit ordinances; the city denied DIBC’s applications for permits and variances when DIBC did apply later. The city’s zoning ordinances do not allow toll booths and other uses ancillary to the operation of the Ambassador Bridge as a matter of right. DIBC claimed that its projects were not subject to the local ordinances, and that federal preemption applies because the projects were within the “sterile zone” of the enclosed bridge plaza that is “maintained under contract with the federal government for the essential governmental purposes of conducting customs, naturalization and border control functions.” Alternatively, DIBC claimed that the projects complied with a special zoning ordinance enacted by the city to control construction and maintenance activities concerning the bridge. The circuit court found that a trial was necessary on the issue of federal preemption. After a 12-day hearing, the court issued an interim order in DIBC’s favor, finding that the bridge was a federal instrumentality, and that the city’s zoning ordinances did not prevent DIBC from using property within the bridge complex for lawful purposes. Over three years later, the trial court issued a final order of declaratory judgment and injunctive relief in DIBC’s favor. The city appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished opinion. Federal law did not preempt the city’s enforcement of its zoning ordinances, the Court of Appeals stated. DIBC appeals.
Top of Page
|
