Can you Sue a Township?

[taylorjm]

What is the name of your state? Michigan

Ok, long story short, in May, we submitten plans and application for a building permit to add on a single car garage. Plans were approved, permit was issued. June 3rd, at a footing inspection, the township said we were in violation of a zoning ordinance and had to stop construction and get a variance. After three months, and lots of arguing between zoning board of appeals members, they finally granted us a variance to finish construction of the garage.

Now I'm wondering, (after construction is finished), can I sue the township for attorney fees I incurred, construction delays, time I spent on the project, etc, in small claims court? I don't want to take it to circuit court, our attorney fees were about $600. I'm not sure the limit of our small claims court, but anything would be better than getting stuck with the bill.

Thanks

 

[JETX]

Unless you can show that their actions against you were done with malice or due to negligence, you have no cause of action.
Further, as a government entity, they are exempt from any action due to their rightful intentions.

 

[taylorjm]

So, what do you think about this. We submitted site plans of our addition, showing the location of the addition. We proceeded with building that structure after the permit was issued. The problem was that when they came to inspect the footings, they found that our garage would stick out past the front of our neighbors home (we are on a corner lot). They said that we were within the minimum setbacks, but that there was an ordinance that says the line of sight of the neighboring homes creates a new setback. They mentioned this when we applied for the permit, but said it was a "judgement call" as to where the line of sight was and to "use our judgement", then they issued the permit. We feel that before issuing the permit, they should have checked the neighboring homes if there could have been a problem with a zoning ordinance, but they didn't, they just issued the permit anyway. Then after the construction, they visited the site to find it was in violation.

Do you think that it could be neglect on thier part to research the site properly before issuing the permit? That was basically the whole argument with the zoning dept, that they shouldn't have issued the permit if they weren't sure it wasn't going to violate an ordinance. They just said they don't have the manpower to visit every site before issuing permits.. (like that's my problem)

Thanks again.

 

[JETX]

You have already paid your attorney $600.00 for his services. Since you seem intent on trying to find some way to get the township to pay for your problem, even to the extent of ignoring my post, I suggest you contact your attorney and ask him since he is directly familiar with your situation.

Or, I presume you already have and have come here to confirm what he has told you. If correct, you have your 'second opinion'.

 

[taylorjm]

Oh please don't be offended, I didn't ignore your post, I was just asking if you thought our situation would be considered "neglect" on thier part. And yes, we paid our attorney $600, but that was only for him to write a letter to the township with some very lame and stupid threats that wouldn't hold up in court anyway, so I'm not really happy to have paid for that.

I do feel that the township was responsible in some ways, they did issue a permit, so they gave us permission to start construction, then revoked thier permission when they finally inspected the site. Maybe I misunderstood your post, were you saying that the township can't be sued under any circumstances? Or that if it was neglect that they could be sued? I thought you meant that if it was neglect, that we could sue them, that's why I was asking more questions.

Sorry to have offended you.

 

[JETX]

I am not offended by your post. My response was mainly due to your request a 'what if' response that is really unanswerable.

Your statement of "I do feel that the township was responsible in some ways, they did issue a permit, so they gave us permission to start construction, then revoked thier permission when they finally inspected the site" is a misrepresentation of the facts.

Your own post said that the permit was issued with the caveat that there was a requirement that your extension not extend beyond your neighbors. That means it was YOUR responsibility to verify this. They even told you to use 'your judgment'. It is clear (to me) that the permit was contingent on your compliance. You failed in performing YOUR due diligence by either 'line of sight' or survey (or just flat ignored it). The township has no obligation to do this for you.

You cannot now go back and try to recover the damages that you incurred due to your own action (or inaction).

 

[taylorjm]

Ahh, but let me clarify something as well. We were told to "use our judgement" as to where the new setback would be with reference to the neighboring homes along the street. Our addition was built inside an existing 6' high stockade fence. "Our judgement" was that since the addition was being built inside a 6" high fence, there was no line of site that would be further obstructed. Also, here is the exact wording of the ordinance that we so called violated:

CONFORMANCE TO ESTABLISHED SET-BACKS.

Required front yard set-backs shall conform to existing setbacks as established by existing uses in any district.

I feel that this ordinance is very vague. It mentions that the setbacks are established by "existing uses". Nowhere in the ordinance does it define what an "existing use" is. I felt that our existing 6' high fence was an "existing use" since it is goverened by the ordinances as well. Our fence extends past where our garage addition would be, therefore, we felt that the whole "line of sight" issue was mute.

Also, according to the Michigan Act 230 of 1972, also called the Uniform Construction Code which all entities must follow, it is stated that if a permit application conforms with all laws and ordinances, that a permit would be issued. If this is the case, wouldn't they have issued the permit illegally since it did violate one of thier own ordinances? Our permit didn't have any stipulations or conditions on it either.

Your opinions are greatly appreciated. Please understand, that I'm not attacking you or your judgement, but I've had so many expenses, problems and delays from this for the last 3 months, I've been researching this as much as possible to try to get compensated for some of it if possible.

Thanks.

 

[HomeGuru]

Ahh, but let me clarify something as well. We were told to "use our judgement" as to where the new setback would be with reference to the neighboring homes along the street. Our addition was built inside an existing 6' high stockade fence. "Our judgement" was that since the addition was being built inside a 6" high fence, there was no line of site that would be further obstructed. Also, here is the exact wording of the ordinance that we so called violated:

CONFORMANCE TO ESTABLISHED SET-BACKS.

Required front yard set-backs shall conform to existing setbacks as established by existing uses in any district.

I feel that this ordinance is very vague. It mentions that the setbacks are established by "existing uses". Nowhere in the ordinance does it define what an "existing use" is. I felt that our existing 6' high fence was an "existing use" since it is goverened by the ordinances as well. Our fence extends past where our garage addition would be, therefore, we felt that the whole "line of sight" issue was mute.

Also, according to the Michigan Act 230 of 1972, also called the Uniform Construction Code which all entities must follow, it is stated that if a permit application conforms with all laws and ordinances, that a permit would be issued. If this is the case, wouldn't they have issued the permit illegally since it did violate one of thier own ordinances? Our permit didn't have any stipulations or conditions on it either.

Your opinions are greatly appreciated. Please understand, that I'm not attacking you or your judgement, but I've had so many expenses, problems and delays from this for the last 3 months, I've been researching this as much as possible to try to get compensated for some of it if possible.

Thanks.


**A: Halket provided you concrete advice. In addition, you are missing a key point in that the AHJ has every right to pull/revoke/alter an already approved building permit at anytime if in their later opinion, the building does not conform to building and zoning codes.
You have done your research on permit approval and issuance. Continue your research to discover the codes and ordinances with respect to what power the AHJ has after the permit has been issued.

 

[taylorjm]

I wish I could find the information with regards to when a permit can be revoked, but everything I found said that the structure was changed from what the orginal permit approved. Our structure/site plan was approved, and we continued just as the approved site plan, we didn't alter anything.

So are you saying that its ok for a township to approve a permit, allow us to spend $5000 on a foundation, only to have them come out and say "oops, we made a mistake, now you have to stop" and be expected to just eat that cost? And for us to have no recourse in the matter? We were told that if the variance for us to finish the project was not issued, we would have to go to circuit court to sue for either the right to proceed with construction, or for the costs incurred so far. I guess what I want to know is, now that we did get the variance and can proceed, can I still sue them for the attorney expenses they caused us by thier mistake? I've heard that you can't sue a government entity, but I can't find out why we could take them to circuit court then if we didn't get the variance. So there must be conditions that need to be met in order to sue a government entity, and I guess that's what I'm looking to find.

Thanks.

 

[HomeGuru]

I wish I could find the information with regards to when a permit can be revoked, but everything I found said that the structure was changed from what the orginal permit approved. Our structure/site plan was approved, and we continued just as the approved site plan, we didn't alter anything.

So are you saying that its ok for a township to approve a permit, allow us to spend $5000 on a foundation, only to have them come out and say "oops, we made a mistake, now you have to stop" and be expected to just eat that cost?

**A: yes.
********
And for us to have no recourse in the matter?

**A: you could object and sue.
***********

We were told that if the variance for us to finish the project was not issued, we would have to go to circuit court to sue for either the right to proceed with construction, or for the costs incurred so far.

**A: that is correct.
***********


I guess what I want to know is, now that we did get the variance and can proceed, can I still sue them for the attorney expenses they caused us by thier mistake? I've heard that you can't sue a government entity, but I can't find out why we could take them to circuit court then if we didn't get the variance. So there must be conditions that need to be met in order to sue a government entity, and I guess that's what I'm looking to find.

Thanks.

**A: then hire your own attorney and ask him or her.

 

[Crash_46]

zoning dispute with neighbor/and zoning administrator

Northern Lower Michigan here. Story sounds all too familiar.
My issue is over a wooden deck built on home overlooking Lake.
Private subdivision was created in 1971 in violation of it's own Township Zoning law requiring minimum of 20,000 sq ft of lot area. I am not only, the only individual who was required to file for a variance to that effect back in 1986/ approved...but these many years later, after issued permit for deck construction, due to neighbor complaint, have been drug into court to fight for my rights as well. After I had 4,000 invested in deck, Administrator claims "mistake" relative to rear yard set back concern. Recommended filing for variance (again) My argument was relative to what about the spec home you just approved for construction with identical condiditions? No variance for either lot area or the raised and attached deck? Mistake again?
My deck has over 100 feet of "unbuildable" land in front of it but the Administrator insists on my filing for variance (8 foot short of property line) In court, their attorney cited the violation as a "road set back" violation. In short, no one is sure what they are talking about and I am footing all the bills as well.
My next course of action is to hire attorney and attempt to sue not the Township, but the individual ...."see Hafer vs Melo 1991 42 US Code/1983 "Govt officials should be personally liable for civil rights damages if they acted in their govt capacity, but outside the law". My case is relative to selective enforcement, as are many Zoning disputes/and their enforcement...under state constitution/ bill of rights...exclusive or separate priviledges should be looked at. I empathize with you, and will interested in your outcome....it is my opinion that much of what's going on in the courts with citizens and their Township disputes over Zoning is TAKING A FLIGHT INTO FANTASYLAND HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH HEALTH, SAFETY, AND THE WELFARE OF IT'S CITIZENS.
Good Luck, don't give up.

 

[taylorjm]

Very interesting, yet your situation seems to be even more stupid then mine. We were lucky, in that after two months of the zoning board of appeals fighting amonst themselves, they approved a variance to allow us to put up our garage, but I will be looking into the infomation you gave with regards to sueing the individual. Our building permit was signed by the building inspector, and its his fault for not checking out the site before signing the permit, so if he is liable, then fine, doesn't matter to me as long as I can get something out of it.

Thanks, and good luck. Oh, also, I've actually still been fighting with the state of michigan on this (even though we can continue construction, I don't like them to have the last word) According to the uniform construction code, Act 360 (I think) of 1972. Only if a permit conforms to the laws and ordinances can it be issued. My fight has been that they issued a permit agains that Act, which is breaking the law, therefore making them liable. I also have been fighting with the state of michigan with regards to this being under the jurisdiction of the Construction Board of Appeals, not the Zoning Board of Appeals. Reason for this, it states that the Construction Board of Appeals is the one that enforces the Act 360. Therefore, if the Act is broken, the Construction Board of Appeals is the one that should make things right. The State disagrees, and has been citing things to me about how a permit isn't valid if it was issued incorrectly, but that information comes out of the MRC, Michigan Residential Code book. I'm still in the process of telling them that thier MRC book, has to conform with the Act, and how the Act is a michigan law, and thier MRC book is simply a rule that is goverend under the Act. Therefore, my reasoning of them breaking the law of the Act 360, comes before thier puny MRC code books.

They are still scratching thier heads over that one...

 

[Crash_46]

zoning dispute/continued

i think you are on the right track. I forgot to mention that I contacted the Bureau of Construction Codes in Lansing for their assistance...in my case their jurisdiction does not not include Zoning, however , in your case you may be able to bring some "heat" on with their assistance. I do not have their link handy, but i'll post it for you tomorrow if you need it.

 

[taylorjm]

Thank, but I've been in contact with them as well, and they didn't have jurisdiction over my case either. But I still got some good information from them. Such as how our inspector tried to tell me that because I was adding a garage, I had to retrofit my existing home to install hard wired smoke dectectors in all the bedrooms. After talking to an inspector for the state of michigan, I found out he was dead wrong, and low and behold, the next time the inspector came out, he told me how the state "relaxed" the code, and I don't need smoke dectectors in the house now.

Uh huh, ya, "relaxed" the code, ya.

 

[Crash_46]

zoning disputes/cont

you know, i think it's time for a newspaper editorial or front page article. we should get together.
I've been working on a masterpiece.
please feel free to contact me to compare notes and resources:
home email/
[email protected]
231-547-5945
I've never been accused of being political, but it seems, the only way to deal with these type of issues is to dig your heels in.