## Facts

- Brady Township, Michigan adopted a zoning ordinance measuring livestock density by “animal units,” defined by “odor producing characteristics of animal wastes.”
- The ordinance assigned animal-unit equivalencies: cattle 1.00, horses 1.00, swine 1.00, sheep/goats 0.50, and poultry/fowl 0.10.
- Robert T. Richardson owned 194 acres in the township and sought to operate a nursery-swine facility raising pigs under 55 pounds.
- Applying the ordinance’s swine equivalency, Richardson’s property could support 1,999 pigs; he asserted economic viability required about 4,200 pigs.
- Richardson asked the township for an interpretation or variance to treat nursery swine under 55 pounds as 0.50 animal units rather than 1.00.
- A proposed amendment to change the ordinance’s treatment of swine was advanced but failed in the local legislative process.
- The township attorney advised the Zoning Board of Appeals it lacked authority to amend the ordinance text, and the Board declined to provide the requested interpretation.
- Richardson sued asserting substantive and procedural due process violations; the case was removed to federal court, which granted summary judgment to the Township.

## Issues

1. Whether the animal-unit ordinance’s classification of all swine as 1.00 animal units violates substantive due process because it allegedly lacks a rational relationship to odor-control objectives.
2. Whether the township’s refusal to provide the requested interpretation or variance deprived Richardson of procedural due process by denying process in connection with a protected property interest.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Township.
- The court held the ordinance satisfied rational-basis review because it was rationally related to the legitimate governmental interest in controlling odors from livestock operations.
- The court held Richardson failed to identify a constitutionally protected property interest in reclassifying nursery swine or obtaining an interpretation/variance that would effectively change the ordinance, defeating his procedural due process claim.

## Legal Principles

- Land-use regulations not implicating fundamental rights are reviewed under a highly deferential rational-basis standard; the regulation is valid if supported by any conceivable rational basis and is not arbitrary or capricious.
- A zoning ordinance need not be perfectly tailored to its objectives; legislatures may employ general classifications and avoid added administrative complexity.
- Procedural due process requires deprivation of a protected life, liberty, or property interest; a claimant must show a legitimate claim of entitlement grounded in state or local law, not merely a unilateral expectation.
- Where a requested change is legislative and discretionary (e.g., amending ordinance text or reclassifying regulated uses), there is generally no protected property interest in obtaining the requested outcome.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Brady Township’s animal-unit scheme as a rational odor-control measure and rejected Richardson’s procedural due process challenge because he lacked a legally protected entitlement to have nursery swine treated differently or to obtain an interpretation that would effectively amend the ordinance.


Richardson v. Township of Brady, 218 F.3d 508 (6th Cir. 2000)