This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
Plaintiff Triangle Properties, Inc. and its subsidiary, plaintiff Golf Village North LLC planned to build a “residential hotel” on two parcels of vacant land that comprised about 8.1 acres within “Subarea G” of the Golf Village Community. Liberty Township agreed to rezone the land and Triangle agreed to “plan, develop, and construct the public infrastructure for the Community with private monies.” Ultimately, Golf Village’s efforts in the state administrative system and courts failed because it declined to file an application for a zoning certificate, and the City refused to issue an official land-use determination without one. Golf Village filed this § 1983 action alleging due process violations and seeking declaratory relief; however, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City after holding that Golf Village could not establish a constitutionally protected property interest in developing its land for use as a hotel.
In its motion for summary judgment, Golf Village alleged that the City violated its substantive due process rights by refusing to issue a determination in this case or acknowledge the hotel was a permitted use of the property. The district court declined to consider this argument, determining that Golf Village did not plead a substantive due process claim in its complaint. The court found however, that when combined with the complaint’s numerous factual allegations, the statements in Count Two sufficiently stated a claim under Rule 8, despite not specifying that the due process claim was “substantive” in nature. Moreover, in its reply brief in support of its motion to dismiss, the City argued that it “did not violate Golf Village’s substantive due process rights” because Golf Village did not have a “protected property interest.” The City also included a long quote from a district court case addressing substantive due process claims. Accordingly, the court found that Golf Village’s complaint put the City “on notice” of the substantive due process claim. The court therefore reversed the district court’s dismissal of Golf Village’s substantive due process claim.
As a final matter, the court held that the Concept Plan did not limit the uses of Subarea G, and the limitations that did appear in the Development Plan did not prohibit the use of the property as a residential hotel. Accordingly, the court held that a residential hotel was a permitted use of the property pursuant to the Development Plan and the Liberty Township Zoning Resolution, and that Golf Village had a constitutionally protected property interest (pursuant to the Pre-Annexation Agreement and the CEDA) to that use of the property. As Golf Village was entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to the first element of its due process claims, the court reversed the district court’s holding to the contrary.
Golf Village North, LLC v City of Powell, OH, 2020 WL 5049364 (6th Cir CA 8/27/2020)
Leave a Reply