|
No. 137446, 137447
| Jeffrey Hendee, Michael Hendee, et al, |
|
Roger L. Myers |
Plaintiffs-Appellees, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Livingston - Reader, D.) |
|
|
| Township of Putnam, |
|
Thomas R. Meagher |
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority, and Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Townships Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Real Property Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Jeffrey, Michael and Louann Hendee inherited a 144-acre parcel of vacant land from their mother; the property, located in Putnam Township, was zoned for agricultural use. The Hendees sought to have the land rezoned for residential use and entered into a contingent sale agreement with a development company. The Hendees requested a 95-lot planned unit development. Later, during the rezoning proceedings, the Hendees began contemplating a more intensive 498-unit manufactured housing community, but withdrew an application to rezone the property for that use when told that the township would consider only one rezoning application at a time. The township denied the Hendees’ rezoning request, as well as a request for a use variance that would allow the same development. The Hendees sued the township. The trial court found that the agricultural zoning classification was unconstitutional as applied to the property, and that the township’s total exclusion of manufactured housing communities amounted to unlawful exclusionary zoning. The plaintiffs had established that a manufactured housing community constituted a reasonable use of the property, the court found. The court entered an injunction preventing the township from enforcing the agricultural zoning classification and from interfering with the plaintiffs’ development of a manufactured housing community. The court awarded the plaintiffs taxable costs and expert witness fees, but denied their request for attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC 1983 and 1988. The parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. In a split unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed in part, finding no merit to the plaintiffs’ claims that the zoning classification was unconstitutional as applied to their property. But the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the exclusionary zoning claim and the injunction, as well as the costs and attorney fee rulings. One judge dissented as to the exclusionary zoning claim, stating that the claim was unripe and that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of establishing demonstrated need for a manufactured housing community as required by MCL 125.297a. The township appeals.
Top of Page
|
