This post originally appeared on the Dalton Tomich blog and is reposted with permission from Dan Dalton, Esq, – https://daltontomich.com/the-importance-of-zoning-notice-requirements-under-michigan-law/
in Montrief v. Macon Township Board of Trustees, the plaintiffs-landowners filed suit against the Township alleging an amended zoning ordinance was invalid and unenforceable based on a failure to comply with certain notice requirements.
Under the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act, an enforcing authority, which in most cases is the local government, must provide notice with respect to certain actions taken in zoning matters. Generally, among the most common actions requiring notice are the following:
Authorities must provide notice for public…
This post was authored by Amy Lavine, Esq,
A recent decision from the Suffolk County Supreme Court, Matter of Save Sag Harbor v Village of Sag Harbor, involving the village’s adoption of a local law that expanded the definition of an apartment building in order to allow more affordable housing. The village attorney had drafted a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA, which was given to the village board members at the public hearing, but there was no discussion by the board members or public commenters about the law’s potential environmental impacts.
After closing the public hearing, the board simultaneously adopted…
Opening the Floodgates: Axon Enterprises, Inc. v. FTC and the Weakening of Public Power
Keenen McMurray
In November of 2022, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on a pair of consolidated cases including Axon Enterprise, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission[1] and Securities and Exchange Commissionv. Cochran.[2] These cases concern whether challenges to the adjudication processes of administrative agencies can properly be heard in a federal district court, without first going through the agencies’ respective processes.[3] This administrative agency adjudication process is established by the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), which is a federal act that governs the procedures of administrative law.[4]…
This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
In 2018, the City of Puyallup adopted the Puyallup Municipal Ordinance (PMO) 3179, which established a new chapter of the Puyallup Municipal Code—chapter 20.72 (PMC 20.72). This new code chapter restricted the sites of day use centers and overnight shelters serving people experiencing homelessness within the City. The ordinance permitted such centers and shelters only in industrial zones in a small corner of the City that was distant from any services and had almost no access to transit. Siting anywhere else in the City required approval from a majority of Puyallup’s city…
This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
Charlestown Township, a municipality in Chester County, enacted a zoning ordinance that permits outdoor, off-premises advertising signs in a particular district. A statewide regulation concerning roadside billboards promulgated by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”) had the practical effect of barring that use. The property owner Charlestown Outdoor, LLC appealed the decision of the township zoning board, which denied the property owner’s challenge to the validity of the township’s zoning ordinance that permitted the construction of billboards in the zoning district. The Court of Common Pleas, Chester County, affirmed the zoning board’s…
This post was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.
Appellants, Douglass Ebner, 2253 Cedar Point LLC, and 2243 Cedar Point LLC appealed the judgment of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which granted summary judgment in favor of appellee, the City of Sandusky, on Ebner’s counterclaims that Sandusky Ordinance Nos. 12-107 and 17-088 were invalidly enacted and were unconstitutional. The litigation at issue was initiated on October 31, 2017, when Ebner’s neighbor, Judith Kinzel, filed a complaint against Ebner seeking injunctive relief and damages. Specifically, Kinzel alleged that Ebner’s use of the properties for short-term rentals was in violation of…
Sokoloff Lawyers are committed to protecting your privacy. This Privacy Policy outlines how we handle your personal information to protect your privacy.
Privacy Legislation:Since January 1, 2004, all Canadian organizations engaged in commercial activities have been required to comply with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) and the Canadian Standards Association Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information incorporated by reference into PIPEDA . These obligations extend to lawyers and law firms, including Sokoloff Lawyers.
As a services firm, we have professional and ethical obligations to keep confidential the information we receive in the context of…
Sokoloff Lawyers are committed to protecting your privacy. This Privacy Policy outlines how we handle your personal information to protect your privacy.
Privacy Legislation:Since January 1, 2004, all Canadian organizations engaged in commercial activities have been required to comply with the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (“PIPEDA”) and the Canadian Standards Association Model Code for the Protection of Personal Information incorporated by reference into PIPEDA . These obligations extend to lawyers and law firms, including Sokoloff Lawyers.
As a services firm, we have professional and ethical obligations to keep confidential the information we receive in the context of…
