Charter Township of Delta v. Dinolfo

Michigan Court of Appeals · Property

PropertyZoningFamily definition in zoningEqual ProtectionDue Processzoningtownship authorityfamily definition

Facts

Each defendant couple owned a home in an area zoned for low density residential use restricted to single-family dwellings. Living with each couple were their children and six unrelated adults, all of whom were members of the Work of Christ Community, a nonprofit organization. The ordinance defined 'family' as related persons living together as a single housekeeping unit, together with not more than one unrelated additional person. Defendants sought a variance from that definition, were denied, did not comply with the zoning board's order, and the township filed suit.

Issue

Whether the township had authority to define 'family' in its zoning ordinance, whether the ordinance violated the statutory ban on totally prohibiting a land use in the presence of demonstrated need, and whether the ordinance's definition of 'family' violated equal protection or due process under the United States and Michigan Constitutions.

Rule

A township has only those powers expressly conferred by the Michigan Constitution or statute, or necessarily implied from them; because the zoning enabling act expressly allows a township to regulate the maximum number of families housed in a building, the power to define 'family' is necessarily implicit. A zoning ordinance defining 'family' is constitutionally valid if it bears a rational relationship to a permissible governmental objective, such as providing an area conducive to family life. The statutory prohibition on zoning ordinances that totally prohibit a land use is not violated where the use is not totally prohibited and may be established elsewhere under the ordinance.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A township in Michigan adopted a zoning ordinance for low-density districts that limits the number of families who may occupy a dwelling and separately defines "family" as related persons living as a single housekeeping unit plus one unrelated person. Elena Ortiz, a homeowner in Lansing, argues the township lacked authority to include any definition because no statute expressly says townships may define that term.

If a Michigan court follows the majority opinion's reasoning, how should it rule on Elena's authority challenge?

Explanation. The majority held that townships possess powers expressly conferred or necessarily implied. Because the zoning enabling act expressly authorized regulation of the maximum number of families that may be housed in a building, the power to define what counts as a family was necessarily implicit. (Derived from Charter Township of Delta v. Dinolfo (n.d.).)