## Facts

- English owned a 49-acre parcel in Augusta Township, Michigan, zoned agricultural/residential (AR).
- The Township’s zoning ordinance designated a separate 96-acre tract as a manufactured housing park (MHP) district.
- The Township supervisor owned 80 of the 96 acres zoned MHP, did not intend to develop it, and the site was in an undesirable location.
- The MHP tract was distant from water and sewer service, adjacent to a toxic-waste landfill, and about three-quarters of a mile from a federal prison.
- A former Township official testified the MHP district was selected because the board believed it would not be developed and that the board sought to keep manufactured housing out of the Township despite developer interest.
- In 1989, English sought rezoning of his parcel from AR to MHP and presented evidence of utility and infrastructure capacity (water availability, sewer capacity with modification, and adequate roads).
- The Township denied the rezoning request, and English sued alleging exclusionary zoning of manufactured-housing parks.

## Issues

1. Whether the Township’s zoning scheme and refusal to rezone English’s parcel constituted unlawful exclusionary zoning by effectively excluding manufactured-housing parks despite a demonstrated need and an available suitable site.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.
- The court held the record supported findings that the Township effectively excluded manufactured-housing parks in practice, notwithstanding a nominal MHP district.
- The court upheld findings that (1) there was demand/need for manufactured-housing park use and (2) English’s parcel was a suitable and appropriate location.
- The court sustained the order requiring the Township to rezone English’s property from AR to MHP.

## Legal Principles

- A zoning ordinance is invalid as exclusionary when it effectively or totally excludes a legitimate land use for which there is demonstrated need in the municipality or surrounding area and a suitable location exists within the municipality.
- Courts evaluate the practical effect of a zoning scheme, not only whether a use is listed or mapped in name.
- Zoning ordinances are generally presumed valid, but the presumption can be overcome with competent evidence of exclusion and unmet need.
- On appeal, a trial court’s factual findings in zoning cases receive considerable deference and will be upheld when supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a rezoning remedy after concluding the Township’s placement and administration of its MHP district operated to keep manufactured-housing parks out of the Township, despite evidence of demand and the suitability of English’s property for that use.


English v. Augusta Township, 204 Mich. App. 33, 514 N.W.2d 172 (Mich. Ct. App. 1994)