The Klines live on a parcel comprised of two lots. Following complaints by neighbors and questions regarding the legality of the storage of a 37.5 foot motor home on the Kline’s property, the city issued a zoning violation for storing a Recreational Vehicle (RV) exceeding 25 feet in length on residential property and for the connection of the RV to an electrical outlet. The Klines were ordered to remove the RV and were issued a citation when they declined to do so; No citation was issued for the electrical connection.
At trial, the court determined that because of a driveway, walkway and garage-apron on the lot that housed the RV but which served the Klines’ residence on the adjoining parcel, the lot could not be considered vacant. The ruling of the lot as occupied meant that Zoning Ordinance § 4.05(b), allowing a motor home up to 40 feet in length to be stored “on a vacant, separate lot of record than the principal structure,” could not be applied to the Klines’ circumstances. A motion for reconsideration of the matter was denied and the denial was affirmed by the Michigan Circuit Court. The Plaintiff’s then filed this action, alleging, among other things, a violation of their rights under the equal protection clause.
In consideration of the defendants’ various motions to dismiss or for summary judgment the court found that the plaintiff was unable to make a showing that the government treated the plaintiff differently than similarly situated persons and granted summary judgment to the defendants on the plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim. The only evidence of similarly situated persons that was submitted was a set of black and white photographs showing other possible ordinance violations, however, the plaintiffs were unable to provide evidence that the conditions in the photographs had resulted in complaints from neighbors or violation tickets. Because these alleged violations were not subject to complaint or review it was not possible to determine whether those in violation were treated differently than the Klines.
Kline v Rubin, 2010 WL 2089328 (E.D. Mich. 5/24/2010).
