Michigan Supreme Court Rejects Exclusionary Zoning Claims Since Developer Did Not Seek Rezoning Or A Variance

The Michigan Supreme Court recently held that a township’s denial of an application for rezoning at a proposed lower-density level does not automatically establish that its exclusionary zoning challenge to the township’s ordinances is ripe, or that it would be futile for the developers to apply for a higher-density use. Hendee v Putnam Twp, 486 Mich 556, 560-61; 786 NW2d 521 (2010). There, the township denied a rezoning request for a 95-unit PUD. The developers then sued, claiming the township unlawfully excluded mobile home parks and sought permission to build a 498-unit mobile home park. The Supreme Court ruled that the claim was not ripe, siding with the township. The Court emphasized that the complaint is not ripe since the developers did not submit any rezoning request for a 498-unit mobile home park to the township. The Court rejected the claim that the futility exception to the ripeness doctrine should apply. The developers argued it would have been futile to seek permission to develop a 498-unit mobile home park because the township had already denied their rezoning request for the 95-unit PUD. But because they did not pursue an application for rezoning from for a mobile home park, they could not show that the futility doctrine applied. Foster Swift attorney Thomas Meagher successfully represented the Township.