Summary of a Recent
Judicial Development in
Urbanization & Agriculture

Statutory and Constitutional Exclusionary Zoning Claims
Ripe for Appellate Review

Walt McCarter
National AgLaw Center Research Associate

Summary of Decision

In DF Land Development, L.L.C. v. Charter Township of Ann Arbor, No. 275859, 2008 WL 4684083 (Mich. Ct. App. Oct. 23, 2008), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff's statutory and constitutional exclusionary zoning claims were ripe for appellate review because the plaintiff had submitted rezoning and variance applications to the appropriate government bodies and had exhausted its administrative remedies.

Background

Plaintiff, a land development company, petitioned the Ann Arbor Township Commission to rezone certain property to low density, multiple-family residential status, but the Township was concerned about traffic, site access, utilities, natural features, preserving the character of the area, and injecting a higher density area between areas of low density. Id. at *1. The board also noted that the plaintiff's proposed plans would require variances in the height of buildings and the distance between buildings in the district, and it denied the rezoning application. Id. The zoning board of appeals also denied the plaintiff's request for variance for lack of jurisdiction, and the plaintiff brought an action against the township for unreasonable and exclusionary zoning. Id. The trial court dismissed the case, and the plaintiff appealed. Id.

Arguments

Plaintiff argued that its proposed rezoning would constitute a reasonable use of the property that would serve a demonstrated need, and that it would be consistent with the township's master plan, while the township's denial of the rezoning application was unreasonable, did not advance a legitimate government interest, was arbitrary and capricious, and violated the plaintiff's substantive due process and equal protection rights. Id. at *1-2.

Analysis and Holdings

The court explained that a plaintiff must submit a zoning request for consideration before the proper administrative body and obtain a final determination for its statutory and constitutional exclusionary zoning claims to be ripe for judicial review. Id. at *8-9. The court then held that the plaintiff's statutory and constitutional exclusionary zoning claims were ripe for appellate review because it had filed a rezoning petition and a use variance application, which had been denied, and it had properly exhausted its administrative remedies. Id. Therefore, the court reversed and remanded the case. Id.

The case was decided on October 23, 2008.