Bloom Sluggett

In Forner v Allendale Charter Township Supervisor, an unpublished decision decided on March 21, 2019 (Case No. 339072, 2019 WL 1302094), the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the application of Allendale Charter Township’s zoning escrow fee policy pursuant to a zoning board of appeals case.  The township required the plaintiff to pay a $1,500 zoning escrow fee pursuant to an appeal to the township’s zoning board of appeals.  The plaintiff alleged that the township lacked statutory authority to charge the fee.  Both the district court and the circuit court held that the township had the right to charge a zoning escrow fee pursuant to MCL 125.3406(1) because plaintiff’s request related to a legal question regarding land use.  The Court of Appeals determined that MCL 125.3406(1) applies only to zoning permits and does not authorize a zoning escrow fee for appeals to the administrative zoning board of appeals.  However, the Court of Appeals upheld the zoning escrow fee for the appeal to the zoning board of appeals based on the jurisdiction of the township’s zoning board of appeals pursuant to MCL 125.3603 and the Allendale Charter Township Zoning Ordinance, which provides that fees may be charged for an appeal to the zoning board of appeals.  The Court held that township ordinance authority is to be broadly construed.  Furthermore, the township had in place a resolution which both authorized fixed fees and also variable zoning escrow amounts.  The Court noted that the zoning escrow fees in the case were only used to reimburse the township for actual costs incurred for the services necessarily incurred by the township for the zoning board of appeals to carry out its duties.    Read More

In Woodcreek of Ann Arbor Association, et al. v City of Ann Arbor, et al., unpublished decision dated March 12, 2019 (Case No. 342848; 2019 WL 1140261), the City of Ann Arbor approved a site plan to allow a developer to develop a condominium complex.  Neighboring property owners and a nearby property owners association filed a lawsuit in the Washtenaw County Circuit Court to overturn the zoning approval.  The circuit court dismissed the neighbors’ lawsuit as untimely, which decision was upheld by the Michigan Court of Appeals.    Read More

On April 1, 2019, Cliff Bloom will make a presentation on Water Law in Michigan to attorneys attending the Michigan Townships Association Legal Institute for Municipal Attorneys at the annual convention in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Bloom Sluggett, PC and Cliff are honored to have been chosen to be part of this esteemed program.   Read More

Cliff Bloom will be teaching seminars on May 3 and 4, 2019 at the annual Michigan Lake & Stream Associations Convention at Crystal Mountain in Northern Michigan. The topics will include water/riparian law, buying and selling waterfront property, local government regulation of the waterfront, easements and similar issues.  Read More

A recent decision of the federal U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has reaffirmed the authority of municipalities to require owners of vacant property to register the property with the municipality and permit municipal entry and abatement if it becomes dangerous.  
At issue in Benjamin v Stemple, Case No. 18-1736, was a City of Saginaw ordinance requiring owners of vacant property to register the property with the city clerk and to agree that city personnel may enter and make safe the premises if it is found to be “dangerous.”  A number of property owners in the city challenged the ordinance as unconstitutional on Fourth Amendment search and seizure grounds.
In finding for the city, the Sixth Circuit stated that the property owners were not surrendering any Fourth Amendment rights in registering their properties.  While the Fourth Amendment generally protects a person’s right to be free from unreasonable warrantless searches and seizures, an exception applies which permits administrative searches designed to assure compliance with building codes, including codes intended to prevent buildings from becoming dangerous to tenants or neighbors.  However, the Court emphasized that the “administrative search” exception is narrowly applied; it is only valid when procedures are in place that permit property owners to challenge before a neutral decision maker a building official’s request to enter a property suspected of being dangerous.  Accordingly, municipalities must provide property owners with a hearing at which both parties may make testimony, call witnesses, introduce evidence, and conduct cross examination.  Because Saginaw’s vacant building registration form and ordinance did provide for such an administrative process, the Court found that the property owners were not forced to waive any Fourth Amendment rights.
This court decision will likely be considered hereafter as a fairly limited exception to constitutional search and seizure safeguards.  Read More

Michigan recently enacted new legislation that expands local governments’ authority to regulate the ignition, discharge, and use of consumer fireworks.  Under the new law, municipalities may enact ordinances limiting the time and days when residents may ignite fireworks.  Any such ordinances may not regulate the use of consumer fireworks between 11 a.m. and 11:45 p.m. on specified holidays, such as New Year’s Day, Memorial Day, the Fourth of July, and Labor Day.  Further such ordinances may not regulate the use of consumer fireworks between 11 a.m. and 11:45 p.m. on the Saturday and Sunday immediately preceding Memorial Day and Labor Day.  Failure to comply with the new restrictions could result in a fine of $1,000 for each violation. Under the prior statute, municipalities could not enact ordinances regulating the ignition, discharge, and use of consumer fireworks on the day preceding, day of or day after a national holiday.   Read More

MCNA Insurance Company v. Department of Technology, unpublished decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals, No. 342646, 2019 WL 206417 (January 15, 2019).  Read More

Township of Fraser v. Haney, unpublished decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals, No. 337842, 2018 WL 6711290 (December 20, 2018).  Read More

As 2019 commences, there are a number of statutes that will begin to take effect (and that have already taken effect) as a result of legislation passed during Michigan’s 2018 lame duck legislative session.  The following is a brief summary of legislation passed during 2018 that may affect a number of our clients, as well as a number of House and Senate bills we were tracking that failed to become enacted.  Read More

In general, municipal zoning administrators should not render advisory zoning decisions to applicants or property owners or answer detailed zoning hypotheticals.  Why not?  There are several reasons.  First, that can monopolize a zoning administrator’s time.  While most applicants have generally done their homework before applying for a zoning approval, others have not and attempt to rely upon the zoning administrator to “educate” them.  They almost rely on the zoning administrator as their de facto personal planner or zoning attorney.  Second, given that no zoning or application fee has yet been paid, a municipality is subsidizing the inquisitor.  Third, most zoning administrators are busy and do not have the time to allow a handful of property owners to monopolize their time.  Fourth, in many cases, the landowner often does not tell the zoning administrator all of the relevant facts and circumstances involved (or is mistaken regarding those matters) and the zoning administrator renders zoning advice based upon bad information.  Later, if anything goes wrong, the landowner will invariable blame the zoning administrator for bad advice.  Finally, the zoning administrator is taking on a potential additional liability for the municipality, which need not be.    Read More