Plaintiffs’ removed a barn on their property and constructed a quonset hut on the barn’s foundations. The property is in the southwest corner lot at the intersection of Highwood and Hay Roads. Their residence faces Highwood Road to the north. The barn was, and the hut now is, accessed from Hay Road to the east. According to the parties, the barn/hut was located 42 feet from the Hay Road right-of-way. Plaintiffs asserted, and defendants did not dispute, plaintiffs’ lot was square, meaning all four of its sides are of equal length. At issue was whether the portion of plaintiffs’ property on Hay Road was a “front yard” or a “side yard.” Defendants contended plaintiffs’ 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. As a result, the hut was too close to the road right-of-way. Plaintiffs 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.
The trial court determined the zoning ordinances were poorly worded and ambiguous, but and resolved the dispute in favor of defendants, primarily because defendants’ interpretation had been adopted by the ZBA several years earlier.
While the appeals court agreed with the trial court the zoning ordinance was poorly written, the Court reversed their resolution, reasoning that according to § 3.04 of the ordinance, a double frontage lot can be a corner lot or a through lot. According to § 3.04(C), a through lot must comply with “front yard” setbacks on both sides fronting on roads. In contrast, § 3.04(A) clearly provides corner lots will have only one “front yard” lot line, to be selected by the zoning administrator if the two road-frontage property lines are of equal length. Because the front yard setback for a corner lot is measured from the front lot line, the lot line designated as the front lot line by the zoning administrator, there cannot be two front lot lines on a corner lot and thus, one of the two sides fronting a road must necessarily be a side lot line. The Court found that the section of the ordinance was unconstitutional since it granted the zoning administrator unfettered discretion to pick one lot line as the “front.” The Court said that a zoning ordinance lacking standards for its application must be held unconstitutional and void.
Richie v. Gladwin County, 2009 WL 693654 (Mich. App. 3/17/2009).
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2009/031709/42171.pdf
