Plaintiff Mark P. Donaldson filed suit in Roscommon County Circuit Court against Defendants Au Sable Township, Joe Meadows, and Mark Smith. Donaldson’s initial complaint brought eleven state law claims related to violations of the Michigan Freedom of Information Act. These claims arose from an animated billboard which had been placed next to the road Donaldson used to access his home. Don contends that the billboard and nearby firearms range were in violation of local zoning ordinances. When he brought the noncompliance to the attention of the local zoning board, they refused to act. Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued a report recommending that Defendants’ second motion to dismiss be granted, Donaldson’s federal constitutional claims be dismissed with prejudice, his state law claims be dismissed without prejudice, and that all his other pending motions be denied as moot. The court adopted the report and recommendation in part, dismissed Donaldson’s federal claims, and remanded the state claims. Donaldson then filed a motion for reconsideration.
Donaldson argued that the Court’s analysis of his federal claims was erroneous, because the court for failed to take all of his pleaded facts as true. The court rejected this contention, finding Donaldson’s alleged injuries did not give rise to cognizable federal claims. In his motion for reconsideration, Donaldson only referenced the “Michigan constitution and statutes including MCL 125.3815(9) and MCL 125.3601(9)” as the basis of the alleged conflicts of interest. Furthermore, while Donaldson also challenged the court’s denial of his motion to file another amended complaint, the court concluded that jurisdiction would not exist even under the new allegations in the third amended complaint. Accordingly, the court held it would have been futile to allow the amendment.
Finally, as to Donaldson’s due process claim, the court held that while property owners have a right to access their property from the public highways, they are only entitled to “convenient and reasonable access.” Thus, the court concluded that a “distracting billboard” did not deny Donaldson “convenient and reasonable access” to his home. Accordingly, plaintiff Donaldson’s motion for reconsideration was denied, and all state law claims were remanded to state court.
Donaldson v Ausable Township, 2017 WL 2351739 (ED MI 5/31/2017)
Posted by: Patricia Salkin | June 16, 2017
Fed. Dist. Court in MI Denies Motion for Reconsideration of Claims Arising from Animated Billboard and Gun Range
Posted in Due Process, Signs
Categories
- Access to Government
- Accessory Uses
- ADA
- Adequate Public Facilities Ordinances
- Adirondacks
- Adult Entertainment Facilities
- Aesthetics
- Affordable Housing
- Aging
- Agricultural Uses
- Airports
- Alcohol Sales
- Alienation of parkland
- Amending Zoning
- animals
- Annexation
- Antitrust
- Architectural Review Board
- Authority to Zone
- Big Box/Formula Retail
- Book Reviews
- Brownfields
- Building Codes
- Building Permit
- Cemeteries
- Climate Change
- Collateral Estoppel
- Comprehensive Plan
- Condemnation/Eminent Domain
- Conditions on Approval
- Conservation Easements
- Constructive Approval
- Consultants
- Contract Zoning
- COVID
- Current Caselaw
- Current Caselaw – New York
- Density Bonus
- Development Agreements
- Development Rights Agreements
- Discrimination
- Drones
- Dual Zone Parcel
- Due Process
- Easements
- Educational Use
- Endangered Species
- Energy
- Enforcement
- Environmental Justice
- Environmental Review
- Equal Protection
- Equitable Estoppel
- Ethics
- Exactions
- Exclusionary Zoning
- Exemption from Zoning
- Extraterritorial Jurisdiction
- Fair Housing Act Amendments
- Family
- Federal Preemption
- Fees
- FHA
- Financing
- first amendment
- Floating Zones
- Flood Control
- FOIL
- Food Trucks
- Formula Retail
- Fourth Amendment
- Fracking
- GIS
- Growth Management
- Hearings
- Highways and Roads
- Historic Preservation
- Home Occupations
- Homeland Security
- Host Community Agreements
- Hours of Operation
- Housing
- Immunity
- Impact Fees
- Incentive Zoning
- Inclusionary Zoning
- Intergovernmental Conflicts
- inverse condemnation
- Junkyards
- Laches
- Marcellus Shale Gas Drilling
- Mediation
- Medical Marijuana
- Mining
- Mobile Homes
- moratoria
- New Legislation
- Non-Conforming Uses
- Notice
- Nuisance
- Oceans
- official map
- Overlay Zone
- Paper Streets
- Pine Barrens
- Planned Development Districts
- Players in the Land Use Game
- Preemption
- Procedural Issues
- Bonds
- Certiorari
- Consent Decree
- Declaratory Relief
- Estoppel
- Final Decisions
- Findings
- Injunctive Relief
- Intervention
- Judicial Abstention
- Jurisdiction
- Legislative vs Adjudicatory
- Mandamus
- Mootness
- Necessary Parties
- Notice of Decision
- Prior Precedent
- Referral Requirements
- Res Judicata
- Rooker-Feldman Doctrine
- Time of Application Rule
- Property Rights
- Public Trust Doctrine
- Purchase of Development Rights
- qualified immunity
- Redevelopment
- Referenda
- Regional Planning
- Religious Uses – Non-RLUIPA
- Remedies
- Residency Restrictions
- Restrictive Covenants
- Rezoning
- Ripeness
- RLUIPA
- Second Amendment
- Section 1983 Liability
- Senior Housing
- Setback Requirement
- Short Term Rentals
- sign
- Signs
- Site Plan Review
- SLAPP Suits
- Smart Growth
- solar energy
- Special Facts Exception
- Special Use/Exception
- Split Lots
- Spot Zoning
- Standing
- Statewide Planning
- Statute of Limitations
- Straddled Parcels
- Student Housing
- Subdivision Regulation
- Takings
- tatoo parlors
- Transfer of Development Rights
- Uncategorized
- Urbanism
- Utilities
- Variances
- Various Uses
- Vested Rights
- Waivers
- Wetlands
- Wind Development
- Wireless Communications
- Younger Abstention Doctrine
- Zoning – Interpretation
- Zoning Administration
- Zoning Boards of Appeal
- Zoning Map
- Zoning-Adopting/Amending
Leave a comment