Memo in support of Mtn for Entry of Consent Judgment FOR FILING

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 1:10-cv-00210-PLM Doc #135 Filed 07/26/11 Page 4 of 20 Page ID#1757dollars. 3 The dilapidated condition of the building and surrounding acreage isdepicted in Exhibit 1.Adoption of the R-4 AmendmentOne of the principal issues underlying the claims in this case is the Township’sOrdinance Number 2006-02, § 19, known as “R– 4 Lakeshore Open Space ZonedDistrict” (the R – 4 Amendment). 4 The R-4 Amendment is a new zoning classificationthat became effective shortly after Plaintiff closed on its purchase from the DenisonEstate. The R-4 Amendment applies to all of the parcels that make up the formerDenison Property, with the exception of one 41-acre parcel that is farthest fromLake Michigan. The affected parcels are identified on Exhibit A as SD-1, -2, -3, and-4 and consist of approximately 200 acres of land.The R-4 Amendment is a significant change from the prior zoning for parcelsSD-1 – 4. Before the R-4 Amendment, these parcels were in zoning districts R-1,R-2, and R-3B. Within these districts, a range of uses were available as of right orby special approval. In contrast, for Plaintiff’s property under the R-4 Amendment,the only use as of right is to leave the property as greenspace, and the only otheruse that might be allowed is single-family homes, with a density of 1 house per 5acres. 5 Besides restricting all housing to detached, single-family houses, the R-43These expenses are memorialized in a final judgment of the Allegan County CircuitCourt, Singapore Dunes, L.L.C. v. Palm Beach Polo Holdings, Inc., Case No. 08 – 43598–CZ.4The R-4 Amendment was previously filed in this matter. [Dkt. 28-Ex 8]5After this suit was filed, the R-4 Amendment was modified to allow docks and piersalong the Kalamazoo River.4
Case 1:10-cv-00210-PLM Doc #135 Filed 07/26/11 Page 5 of 20 Page ID#1758Amendment also reduced the potential number of permitted dwellings toapproximately one-third of the number available under prior zoning. The R-4Amendment eliminated all special approval uses. And the R-4 Amendment createda unique procedure for Plaintiff to obtain a building permit. Under the R-4Amendment, the issuance of a building permit for any housing is discretionary withthe Township Planning Commission, to be considered solely in connection with aplanned unit development application.B. Nature of the ClaimsThis Court is familiar with the claims in this matter in connection with earlierbriefing. This lawsuit challenges the adoption, terms, and application of the R-4Amendment. Plaintiff contends that Saugatuck Township failed to satisfy theprocedural requirements of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendmentin connection with the adoption of the R-4 Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that theTownship failed to give notice of the public hearing on the amendment to the Estateand to occupants of the Denison Property, and that it otherwise failed to allow ameaningful opportunity for Plaintiff to be heard with respect to the R-4 Amendmentafter Plaintiff made such a request.Plaintiff also contends that the R-4 Amendment fails to satisfy the substantiverequirements of the Due Process Clause, as well as the requirements of the EqualProtection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff alleges that the R-4Amendment impermissibly imposes restrictions and permitting requirements on5
Page 2 and 3: Case 1:10-cv-00210-PLM Doc #135 Fil
Page 20: Case 1:10-cv-00210-PLM Doc #135 Fil

Memo in support of Mtn for Entry of Consent Judgment FOR FILING

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?