English v. Augusta Township

514 N.W.2d 172 (1994)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P owns a forty-nine-acre parcel of land. In 1989, P filed a petition seeking a change in the zoning classification of their property from AR to MHP for the purpose of constructing a mobile-home park. D denied the rezoning. P filed a lawsuit seeking monetary damages and a writ of mandamus to compel D to rezone their property to MHP. Testimony revealed that D had no existing mobile-home parks, but had zoned a ninety-six-acre area for mobile homes. A former D zoning official testified that that particular area was chosen by the township board for MHP zoning because the board believed that it would never be developed. The township supervisor who owned eighty of the ninety-six acres in the MHP zone intended to have his family continue to operate the parcel as a farm. The MHP zone was located away from available water and sewer systems. A toxic waste landfill was located immediately adjacent to the MHP zone, and a federal prison was just three-quarters of a mile away. The former township zoning official testified that he was pressured by D to keep manufactured housing out of the township, despite inquiries by a number of developers. There was testimony that the building department was under pressure to limit the issuance of permits for low-cost housing in general. The township planner testified that the township considered itself a rural residential and agricultural community, and it did not need a mobile-home park. As for P, there was a nearby water line that could provide adequate pressure and volume for a mobile home park via an extension. The nearby sewer system could handle the additional volume with an expansion of two pump stations. Ps' proposal to the township was for approximately five to seven units an acre over the entire parcel, excluding the wetlands area. The local roads were found sufficient to handle the proposed development. The trial court found that D had, in effect, unconstitutionally excluded mobile-home parks from the township by relegating mobile homes to an undevelopable area. It found that P had demonstrated a demand for their proposed use and that Ps' parcel was suitable for a mobile home park. The court ordered D to rezone Ps' property from AR to MHP. D appealed.