The Township and Zoning Commission denied White Oak’s proposal to build a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with 300 multi-family units at 5 units per acre on property districted as Residential because it violated the Intensity of Use provision in the Zoning Resolution. White Oak argued that provisions of the Zoning Resolution were too vague and they permitted arbitrary and unbridled discretionary enforcement. Under the Zoning Resolution, permitted uses in Residential Districts include One Single Family Dwelling subject to lot size requirements, dwelling size requirements, and all other requirements as set forth therein. Section 5 mandates that every lot districted as Residential shall have minimum of three acres if dwelling is connected to an on-site sewage disposal system or minimum of one acre if the dwelling is connected to public sanitary sewer system. White Oak argued the provision did not prohibit multi-unit dwellings as long as each dwelling sits on one or three acres, because the definition of “dwelling” in the Zoning Resolution included multiple family dwellings.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that White Oak’s reliance on the definition of “dwelling” as authorization to construct multiple family dwellings was “misplaced,” since the Permitted Uses “unambiguously restricts dwellings” to single family dwellings, and the definition of dwelling doesn’t indicate the term encompasses both single and multiple family dwellings each time the word appears generally in the Zoning Resolution. The purpose of Section 5(A) is to prescribe minimum acreage for each lot containing a dwelling, and not the specific type of dwelling permitted. The Court found while the provisions of the Zoning Resolution were not very clear, they did not meet the constitutionally required threshold of excessive vagueness to be invalidated. White Oak’s assertion that the Zoning Resolution’s procedures for obtaining approval to construct a new dwelling were vague was dismissed as “nebulous” as the court held the procedures were sufficiently detailed, and White Oak failed to explain adequately how the challenged provisions permitted arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
White Oak’s second claim, that the Township violated the Fair Housing Act, was based on Trustee’s inquiries as to whether the development would contain Section 8 or low income housing, and that subsidized housing was a big issue in the community. The Court dismissed the claim of unlawful discrimination based upon income or race, because the condos did not qualify as low income housing and White Oak did not present any evidence about the minority population near the Township or the possible impact the prohibition on multi-family dwellings would have on them.
The Court dismissed White Oak’s claim that the Zoning Resolution violated the Equal Protection Clause, because they wholly failed to demonstrate that it discriminates on the basis of race and that the rejection of the proposal was motivated by racially a discriminatory purpose.
Regarding the substantive due process claim, the Court found there is a rational relationship between the term of the ordinance (prohibition on multifamily dwellings) and legitimate government purpose (to preserve open space). White Oak’s desire to construct multiple family dwellings contrary to the Zoning Resolution is not a constitutionally protected property interest, because they did not have a legitimate claim of entitlement or justifiable expectation in the approval of the proposal.
White Oak’s claim that their procedural due process rights were violated when Township officials allegedly held secret meetings thereby depriving them of the right to be heard in a meaningful manner was dismissed because White Oak had been afforded adequate opportunity to be heard, and the alleged meetings had occurred after White Oak had presented and had the proposal rejected
White Oak’s final allegations regarding a civil conspiracy were found to be unsupported and insufficient statements, because they had no protected property right.
White Oak Property Development v. Washington Township, 2010 WL 2219945 (6th Cir. C.A., OH 6/2/10)
The opinion can be accessed at: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/10a0158p-06.pdf
