Robert Christians v. Township of Clark
327519
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 20, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs own a single lakefront parcel with a year‑round main cottage (a dwelling unit) and an uninsulated guesthouse (an accessory building).
- Since 1998 plaintiffs occasionally rented one or both structures short‑term; township enforcement in 2013 treated simultaneous rentals to two families as "resort" use requiring a special land use permit.
- Plaintiffs applied to the zoning board of appeals for a special‑use permit; the board denied the application because the ordinance permits resort special uses only for expansion of existing resorts and plaintiffs’ property was not previously classified as a resort.
- Plaintiffs appealed to the circuit court, arguing the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague/as‑applied because terms like "resort," "dwelling," and "accessory" were ambiguous and misled them into seeking a permit.
- The circuit court affirmed the board, finding the ordinance unambiguous as applied: plaintiffs’ guesthouse is an accessory building (not a dwelling), their property was never a resort, and the board’s decision did not rest on vague language.
- Plaintiffs appealed to this Court of Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ordinance is unconstitutionally vague as applied | Terms ("resort," "dwelling," "permanent occupancy," "tourist oriented commercial") are ambiguous, so plaintiffs lacked fair notice and were misled into seeking a permit | Ordinance’s clear definitions e.g., "dwelling unit" and "accessory building" controlled; board acted on that unambiguous framework | Ordinance not vague as applied; board and circuit court properly applied definitions and denied permit |
| Whether plaintiffs’ simultaneous rentals constitute a permitted single‑family use or an unpermitted resort | Plaintiffs: renting both structures to two unrelated families is equivalent to permitted hosting/guest arrangements and should be allowed | Township: two unrelated families equals departure from single‑family residential purpose and may be a resort requiring special use permit | Court: distinction matters—unassociated families depart from single‑family character; hosting by a single family is different and consistent with accessory use |
| Whether the zoning board’s denial implicated arbitrary/enforcement based on vague language | Plaintiffs: board’s direction to seek special permit shows reliance on ambiguous terms and invites arbitrary enforcement | Township: board applied ordinance definitions and historical classification; denial did not rest on vague phrasing | Held: no arbitrary enforcement shown; decision did not require applying vague terms, so no as‑applied vagueness violation |
| Whether the circuit court exceeded its review scope by not reclassifying other properties or probing past resort classifications | Plaintiffs: circuit court should have addressed broader vagueness and prior classifications that led to differing treatment | Township: circuit court properly limited review to board’s decision and did not substitute its judgment | Held: circuit court correctly confined review to the board’s decision and declined to second‑guess prior classifications |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. Almena Twp., 284 Mich. App. 50 (discussing appellate review of circuit court review of zoning board findings)
- John’s Corvette Care, Inc. v. Dearborn, 204 Mich. App. 616 (vagueness challenges invoke due‑process principles)
- Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (explains vagueness standards: notice and risk of arbitrary enforcement)
- Paragon Props. Co. v. Novi, 452 Mich. 568 (definition of an as‑applied challenge in zoning context)
- C & W Homes, Inc. v. Livonia Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 25 Mich. App. 272 (appellate courts must not substitute their judgment for zoning boards)