Clark Hill PLC is an entrepreneurial full-service law firm serving clients in all areas of  real estate, business legal services, litigation, and personal legal services. For more information on Clark Hill's practice areas, professionals, and office locations, please visit clarkhill.com








Stephon B. Bagne

Member, Clark Hill PLC

Phone: (313) 965-8897

Fax: (313) 309-6897

Email: sbagne@clarkhill.com

Website: Clark Hill Property Owner Condemnation Services


Stephon B. Bagne’s expertise in representing property owners in condemnation cases is widely recognized. Stephon has represented all types of property owners in a variety of situations including vacant and improved property, partial and total takings, easement and fee acquisitions, involving commercial and residential properties. He has won jury trials in courts throughout the State of Michigan and successfully defended those verdicts before the Michigan Court of Appeals. Stephon has prevailed in challenges of the necessity of takings and negotiated less onerous acquisitions in partial taking matters. He regularly speaks and writes about eminent domain and other real estate law issues for a variety of professional organizations. For a more complete bio, please click here.







To the extent that an ordinance in ambiguous, it must be interpreted in favor of the property owner.

I recently overturned an adverse decision against a client by the Webster Township Zoning Board of Appeals.  In that case, the ZBA interpreted an undefined term in a zoning ordinance in a way that forced the property owner to stop a use that had been implemented for several years.  The Washtenaw County Circuit Court overturned that decision, relying in part upon cases requiring that the ambiguity in the Ordinance be interpreted in favor of the property owner.

Two Michigan Court of Appeals cases support this determination.

Per Talcott v Midland, 150 Mich App 143, 146-7; 387 NW2d 845 (1985),  “[w]hen interpreting the language of an ordinance to determine the extent of a restriction upon the use of property, the language must be interpreted, where doubt exists regarding legislative intent, in favor of the property owner.”  Id., at 147.  In Talcott, the Court of Appeals reversed Midland’s Zoning Board of Appeals and the trial court by “hold[ing] that carry-out pizzeria is a permissible use in” the applicable zoning district where it was questionable which of multiple definitions should be applied.  The ambiguity required applying the definition favorable to the owner.  

Talcott relied upon Peacock Twp v Panetta, 81 Mich App 733, 736-737, 265 NW2d 810 (1978), which involved an undefined ordinance term.  In Peacock, “any recognized ‘mercantile business’ [wa]s allowed in the commercial-residential districts. The ordinance fail[ed] to define the term ‘mercantile business’, hence, it [wa]s unclear as to what types of uses the drafters of the ordinance intended to permit.”  Id, at 736.  Therefore, the Court of Appeals interpreted that ordinance in favor of the property owner and determined it “should be construed to allow Defendant to use their property” as requested.  Id, at 737.

Interpreting ambiguities against a city or township is logical and fair.  The agency had the exclusive opportunity to enact a clear ordinance.  Further, an agency should not be able to capriciously shift the meaning of its ordinance to address the issue of the moment.

Obviously, this cannot be taken to ridiculous extremes.  For example, if a provision in a single family residential district is ambiguous, it does not mean that the property owner can install a strip mall.  In a situation like that, the “legislative intent” as referenced in those cases would almost certainly demonstrate that a strip mall should not be in a single family residential district.  But a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous zoning ordinance presented by a property owner should be implemented.

Please feel free to contact me about any municipal issues that you are experiencing.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>