Brody v. City of Mason

No. 99-1188 (250 F.3d 432) (6th Cir. May 17, 2001)

ELR Digest

The court affirms a district court decision holding that a city did not violate property owners' procedural and substantive due process rights when it granted a neighboring property owner a special use permit allowing the operation of a beauty salon and the paving of a yard. The court first holds that there was no violation of the complaining property owners' procedural due process rights. Although the complaining property owners dispute the overall conclusion that the city reached, the evidence in the record indicates that the decision to issue the special use permit was the result of an impartial inquiry. Moreover, the complaining property owners have not demonstrated that any actions of the city planning commission, the city's zoning board of appeals, or the zoning administrator were the result of favoritism or special treatment. Further, the complaining property owners were afforded the opportunity to speak at a hearing. The court next holds that there is no violation of substantive due process. The approval of the special use permit came only after significant consideration of the arguments for and against issuance. Thus, the city had a sufficient factual basis so that the issuance of the special use permit was a rational and legitimate state action.

The full text of this decision is available from ELR (7 pp., ELR Order No. L-372).

Counsel for Plaintiffs
Curtis R. Hadley
Willingham & Cote
333 Albert Ave., Ste. 500, E. Lansing MI 48826
(517) 351-6200

Counsel for Defendants
Marcia L. Howe
Johnson, Rosati, LaBarge, Aseltyne & Field
34405 W. 12 Mile Rd., Farmington Hills MI 48334
(248) 489-4100

[31 ELR 20692]

[OPINION OMITTED BY PUBLISHER IN ORIGINAL SOURCE]