Eagle Township v. VanAlstine, No. 375687 (2026)

Case details
Full caption
Eagle Township v. Shaun VanAlstine
Country
United States
Jurisdiction
Michigan (MI)
Court
Michigan Supreme Court
Decided
2026
Disposition
Per Curiam Affirmed
Panel
Riordan (P.J.); Redford (J.); Patel (J.)
EAGLE TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAUN..., Not Reported in N.W.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.12026 WL 1194667Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.UNPUBLISHED OPINION. CHECKCOURT RULES BEFORE CITING.If this opinion indicates that it is “FORPUBLICATION,” it is subject to revision untilfinal publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.UNPUBLISHEDCourt of Appeals of Michigan.EAGLE TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee,v.SHAUN VANALSTINE, Defendant-Appellant.No. 375687|April 30, 2026Editor's Note: This decision contains discussion of citationreferences that are incorrect or do not actually exist. Theseinvalid citations appeared in the original court opinion andhave been preserved as written since they are part of theofficial record. Any links to these invalid citations have beenremoved.Clinton Circuit Court LC No. 2024-012489-CZBefore: Riordan, P.J., and Redford and Patel, JJ.OpinionPer Curiam.*1 Defendant, Shaun VanAlstine, built a structure on hisproperty in Eagle Township, Michigan without the properpermitting and in violation of the Eagle Township InterimZoning Ordinance (IZO)’s size and setback requirements.Plaintiff, Eagle Township, brought this action seekingdeclaratory and injunctive relief. The township moved forsummary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and requestedan injunction to abate the zoning violations by removingthe structure. The trial court granted the township's motion,ordered VanAlstine to remove the structure, authorized thetownship to enter the property to abate the violations ifVanAlstine failed to do so, and awarded the township its costsand attorney fees. VanAlstine appeals by right the trial court'sorder. We affirm.I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORYVanAlstine is the record owner of the subject property, whichis approximately 2.43 acres and located in an agriculturalzoning district. Although the property does not conform tothe 10-acre minimum lot size for the agriculture district,it is considered to be a legal nonconformity because theparcel existed before the township's adoption of the IZO,which became effective on January 1, 2024. Previously,Clinton County promulgated all zoning regulations for thetownship. All exterior construction work within the townshiprequires a zoning permit approved by the township's zoningadministrator. The zoning permit must be obtained beforeapplying for a building permit from the county.Early in 2024, VanAlstine planned to build an addition to theexisting pole barn on the property. He intended to use theaddition to store and maintain work vehicles and equipment.In March 2024, VanAlstine's wife, Brittney, contacted JoelHaviland, Clinton County's building official, and informallyinquired about the required setbacks for an addition to anexisting pole barn. She did not provide any information aboutthe property address, the lot size, the size of the currentpole barn, or the size of the proposed addition. Havilandresponded:The minimum front yard setback is83”, measuring from the center ofthe road. However, there are manyother requirements for barns that youwill need to consider. Please see thelink below to Clinton County Zoningrequirements for Accessory Buildings(barn) section 4.1.Brittney clarified, “The add on of the polebarn [sic] willbe toward the road and not toward any other structure.So essentially, it needs to be 83” from the center of theroadway and all of the matching structure colors and roofingmaterial[?]” Haviland responded, “Yes, that is correct. Let meknow if you need anything else.”On June 9, 2024, Brittney e-mailed Haviland to inquire aboutobtaining a permit to build the addition. The following day,Haviland e-mailed Brittney the applications and instructed
EAGLE TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAUN..., Not Reported in N.W.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.2her to provide the construction plans and site plan with thecompleted applications for consideration. A few hours later,Brittney inquired whether the permits should be requestedthrough the township or the county.*2 VanAlstine began constructing the addition beforeapplying for a zoning permit from the township or a buildingpermit from the county. On July 1, 2024, after constructionof the addition was mostly complete, VanAlstine applied tothe township for a zoning permit. VanAlstine reported that theproposed addition would be 18 feet tall, 40 feet wide, and 60feet long.On July 10, 2024, the zoning administrator denied theapplication.1 The zoning administrator stated that theexisting pole barn was “considered as a legal non-conformingstructure due to the placement of the structure within therequired front yard.” The zoning administrator explainedthat the minimum front yard setback was 50 feet, but theproposed addition would only be approximately 24 feet fromthe right-of-way. The zoning administrator also stated that themaximum floor area of an accessory structure for the propertywas approximately 2,654 square feet,2 but the existing polebarn was approximately 2,160 square feet of floor area and theproposed addition would be an additional 2,400 square feet offloor area. The application was denied because the additionwould violate the minimum front yard setback, exceed themaximum floor area for accessory buildings on the property,and would unlawfully expand the legally nonconformingstructure toward the front lot line.Following the zoning permit denial, VanAlstine applied forthree variances: (1) a variance to reduce the required frontyard setback from 50 feet to 24 feet; (2) a variance to increasethe allowable square footage of accessory buildings on thesite to 4,560 square feet; and (3) a variance to expand alegal nonconforming structure. VanAlstine maintained thatthe county zoning commissioner had stated that the proposedaddition followed all guidelines for Clinton County, theneighbors all agreed to the addition, and the addition wouldnot interfere with any roadway travel or safety. On August8, 2024, the township issued a stop work order to haltconstruction of the structure. On August 26, 2024, thetownship Zoning Board of Appeals (the ZBA) held a publichearing on the variance application. The ZBA adopted thefindings of the zoning administrator, and denied the variancerequests. VanAlstine did not appeal the ZBA's decision.On September 11, 2024, Ken Skunda, the township's codeenforcement officer, sent a letter to VanAlstine stating thatthe pole barn addition violates the IZO and demanded that itbe removed from the property by October 11, 2024. Skundastated that the township would take legal action to abate thenuisance and enforce the IZO if the structure was not removedby the deadline. VanAlstine did not remove the structure.In December 2024, the township commenced this actionalleging that the pole barn addition violated the IZO andthus was a nuisance per se. The township further alleged thatVanAlstine continued building the structure in violation of thestop work order. The township sought a declaration that thestructure was a nuisance per se and requested an injunctionto enjoin construction. On January 7, 2025, the partiesstipulated to a preliminary injunction enjoining VanAlstinefrom continuing construction.*3 In his answer to the township's complaint, VanAlstineadmitted that he constructed the structure without a zoningor building permit but maintained that he acted in a goodfaith manner. He also admitted to the size and locationof the structure. VanAlstine maintained that constructionwas completed before the stop work order was issued. Hecontended that any additional steps taken after the stop workorder were simply “to protect the already-built structure,” anddenied that any further construction was done. VanAlstineasserted a series of affirmative defenses, including equitableestoppel, regulatory taking, and arguments contesting theequity of the township's request that the structure be removed.The township moved for summary disposition under MCR2.116(C)(10) arguing that there were no genuine issues ofmaterial fact whether the structure violates the IZO and thusis a nuisance per se. The township requested an injunctionto abate the zoning violations by removing the structure.In response, VanAlstine maintained that he relied in goodfaith on his wife's communications with Haviland aboutthe setback requirements, which were incorrect. VanAlstineargued that he had a right to conduct discovery to develophis affirmative defenses. For example, he contended thatthe township's denial of his zoning permit and his varianceapplication resulted in a regulatory taking. He asserted thathe should be afforded “the chance to prove his affirmativedefense by presenting evidence of the impact of theTownship's actions on his investment-backed expectations,the economic impact of the Township's action, and thecharacter of the Township's actions.” The township repliedthat discovery would be futile because VanAlstine admitted
EAGLE TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAUN..., Not Reported in N.W.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.3that he built the structure without a zoning or building permit,did not dispute the size and location of the structure, andacknowledged that the structure remained on the property.The township argued that VanAlstine was liable for a nuisanceper se regardless of his alleged defenses.Following a hearing, the trial court granted the township'smotion, ordered VanAlstine to remove the structure,authorized the township to enter the property to abate theviolations if VanAlstine failed to do so, and awarded thetownship its costs and attorney fees. This appeal followed.II. STANDARDS OF REVIEW“We review de novo a trial court's decision on a motionfor summary disposition.” El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare,Inc, 504 Mich 152, 159; 934 NW2d 665 (2019). Summarydisposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is warranted when,“[e]xcept as to the amount of damages, there is no genuineissue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitledto judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law.” MCR2.116(C)(10). “A genuine issue of material fact exists whenthe record leaves open an issue upon which reasonable mindsmight differ.” El-Khalil, 504 Mich at 160 (cleaned up). Whenreviewing a motion for summary disposition under MCR2.116(C)(10), a court must consider the evidence submittedby the parties in the light most favorable to the nonmovingparty. Id. Summary disposition should be granted when, afterreviewing the evidence in the light most favorable to thenonmoving party, there are no remaining issues of materialfact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matterof law. Lowrey v LMPS & LMPJ, Inc, 500 Mich 1, 5; 890NW2d 344 (2016).The interpretation and application of an ordinance posesa question of law, which we also review de novo. GreatLakes Society v Georgetown Charter Twp, 281 Mich App396, 407; 761 NW2d 371 (2008).3 Nuisance-abatementproceedings are generally equitable in nature, and equitablerulings are reviewed de novo, but we review for clear errorany underlying factual findings rendered by a court in supportof its decision. Ypsilanti Charter Twp v Kircher, 281 MichApp 251, 270; 761 NW2d 761 (2008). Whether an act orcondition constitutes a nuisance per se is a question of law.Id. at 269.*4 Finally, “a trial court's decision to grant injunctiverelief is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.” Dep't ofEnvironmental Quality v Gomez, 318 Mich App 1, 32; 896NW2d 39 (2016). “An abuse of discretion occurs when thecourt's decision falls outside the range of reasonable andprincipled outcomes.” Id. at 33-34 (cleaned up).III. ANALYSISVanAlstine argues that the trial court erred by concludingthat the structure constitutes a nuisance per se and abused itsdiscretion by ordering removal of the structure. We disagree.The township's complaint alleged that the structure violatedthe IZO and thus was a nuisance per se. A nuisance per seis “an act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at alltimes and under any circumstances, regardless of location orsurroundings.” Ypsilanti, 281 Mich App at 269 n 4 (cleanedup). Under the plain language of § 407 of the MichiganZoning Enabling Act, MCL 125.3101 et seq., “a structureerected in violation of a zoning ordinance constitutes anuisance per se,” Morse v Colitti, 317 Mich App 526, 554;896 NW2d 15 (2016), and a court shall order it abated:Except as otherwise provided bylaw, a use of land or a dwelling,building, or structure, including atent or recreational vehicle, used,erected, altered, razed, or convertedin violation of a zoning ordinanceor regulation adopted under this actis a nuisance per se. The courtshall order the nuisance abated, andthe owner or agent in charge ofthe dwelling, building, structure, tent,recreational vehicle, or land is liablefor maintaining a nuisance per se.[MCL 125.3407 (emphasis added).]As the moving party, the township bore the initial burdento identify the issues about which there were no materialfactual disputes and provide supporting evidence. BarnardMfg Co, Inc v Gates Performance Engineering, Inc, 285 MichApp 362, 369-370; 775 NW2d 618 (2009). The townshipmaintained that VanAlstine erected the structure without theproper permitting and in violation of the IZO's size andsetback requirements, which constituted a nuisance per se.
EAGLE TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAUN..., Not Reported in N.W.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.4Section 6.02.C.1 of the IZO generally prohibits detachedaccessory buildings and structures in any front yard, unlessone of two sets of conditions are met. Eagle TownshipOrdinance 03-2023, § 6.02.C.1.4 The existing pole barn isa detached accessory structure in the property's front yard.It does not meet either set of criteria § 6.02.C.1, but it isconsidered a legal nonconforming structure because it wasconstructed before the township adopted the IZO.5 Althoughit is a legal nonconforming structure, the pole barn canremain in place and be used. However, § 7.04.A of theIZO prohibits enlarging, extending, or structurally alteringany nonconforming structure. Eagle Township Ordinance03-2023, § 7.04.A6 The township presented evidence thatthe structure violated the IZO because it did not meet theminimum front yard setback requirement and enlarged anonconforming structure. In both sets of criteria for allowingan accessory building in a front yard, § 6.02.C.1 states that theaccessory building must meet the minimum front yard setbackrequirement for principal buildings. In the agricultural zoningdistrict, the minimum front yard setback requirement is 50feet. The existing pole barn has setback of approximately 80feet and thus meets the requirement. But the addition reducedthe setback to 24 feet. VanAlstine knew that the addition didnot comply with the IZO because he applied for a variancefrom § 6.02.C.1 to reduce the required front yard setbackfrom 50 feet to 24 feet. He also applied for a variance from§ 7.04.A to expand a legal nonconforming structure. Bothrequests were denied, and VanAlstine did not appeal eitherdenial.*5 The township also presented evidence that the structureviolated the IZO's square-foot limitations for accessorybuildings. Section 6.02.C.5 of the IZO limits the total floorarea of accessory buildings on lots larger than one acre butsmaller than five acres to 1,600 square feet plus an additionaltwo square feet of floor area for every 100 square feet oflot area, up to 5,000 square feet. Eagle Township Ordinance03-2023, § 6.02.C.5.7 Because the property is approximately2.43 acres, all detached accessory buildings are limited to3,708 total square feet. The existing pole barn is 2,160 squarefeet, and the addition's floor area is approximately 2,400square feet. The total square footage of detached accessorystructures on the property is 4,560 square feet, which violates§ 6.02.C.5. VanAlstine knew that the structure did not complywith § 6.02.C.5 because he applied for a variance to increasethe allowable square footage of accessory buildings on thesite to 4,560 square feet. The ZBA denied the request, andVanAlstine did not appeal the denial.Additionally, all exterior construction work within thetownship requires a zoning permit approved by the township'szoning administrator. The zoning permit must be obtainedbefore applying for a building permit from the county. EagleTownship Ordinance 03-2023, § 14.02.8 VanAlstine did notobtain a zoning or a building permit. His July 1, 2024 zoningpermit application was denied on July 10, 2024.9 Accordingto VanAlstine, “The structure was mostly complete by July14, 2024.”The township met its initial burden of establishing that thestructure was erected in violation of the IZO and thus was anuisance per se under MCL 125.3407. See Morse, 317 MichApp at 554. Accordingly, the burden shifted to VanAlstineas the nonmoving party to present evidence that a factualdispute remained to be resolved by the finder of fact. SeeBarnard Mfg, 285 Mich App at 370. VanAlstine concededthat he did not obtain the necessary permits and that thestructure violated the IZO's size and setback requirements.Because there were no genuine issues of material fact whetherthe structure violated the IZO, the trial court did not err bydetermining that the structure was a nuisance per se. See MCL125.3407; see also Morse, 317 Mich App at 554.On appeal, VanAlstine admits that MCL 125.3407 providesthat a use of land in violation of a zoning ordinance is anuisance per se. But he contends that “is not an absoluterule.” Rather, VanAlstine claims that our Supreme Court hasheld that a “ ‘nuisance per se’ requires more than a technicalviolation—it must involve a use inherently injurious to publichealth, safety, or morals.” We find no merit in this argument.The Supreme Court case cited by VanAlstine, Highland Parkv Grifith Motors, 336 Mich 588, 592; 59 NW2d 54 (1953),does not exist—it's a hallucinated citation that is likely theproduct of generative artificial intelligence (AI).*6 VanAlstine contends that he “made diligent efforts tocomply with local requirements, including consulting withClinton County Building officials,” and there is “no evidenceof health or safety risks caused by the structure with thezoning requirement.” VanAlstine began construction beforeapplying for the required building and zoning permits, andhe stated that construction was “mostly complete” beforehe requested a zoning variance. “[E]veryone dealing with amunicipality and its agents is charged with knowledge ofthe restrictive provisions of lawfully adopted ordinances.”Hughes v Almena Twp, 284 Mich App 50, 78; 771 NW2d 453(2009). “The general rule is that zoning authorities will not be
EAGLE TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAUN..., Not Reported in N.W.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.5estopped from enforcing their ordinance absent exceptionalcircumstances.” Williamston Twp v Sandalwood Ranch, LLC,325 Mich App 541, 553; 927 NW2d 262 (2018) (cleaned up).“Casual private advice or assurance of success from townshipofficials does not constitute exceptional circumstances.”Hughes, 284 Mich App at 78.Further, VanAlstine confuses a nuisance in fact with anuisance per se. “The difference between a nuisance per seand one in fact is not in the remedy but only in the proofof it.” Ypsilanti, 281 Mich App at 269-270 (cleaned up). “Toprove that a condition constitutes a nuisance in fact, it isgenerally necessary to establish that the condition is harmfulto the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.” Id. at 278.Whether an act or condition constitutes a nuisance in fact isa question of fact. Id. at 269. Conversely, a nuisance per seis “an act, occupation, or structure which is a nuisance at alltimes and under any circumstances, regardless of location orsurroundings.” Id. at 269 n 4 (cleaned up). Whether an act orcondition constitutes a nuisance per se is a question of law.Id. at 269. There is no genuine issue of material fact whetherstructure violates the IZO; therefore, the trial court did not errby determining that the structure was a nuisance per se.10 SeeMCL 125.3407; see also Morse, 317 Mich App at 554.VanAlstine further argues that the trial court abused itsdiscretion by ordering that the structure be removed. Wedisagree. After determining that the structure violated theIZO, the trial court was required to order it abated underthe plain language of MCL 125.3407, which states, “Thecourt shall order the nuisance abated, and the owner ... ofthe ... structure ...is liable for maintaining a nuisance perse.” (Emphasis added.) This Court has interpreted the useof “shall” in statutory language as specifying a mandatorydirective. Ellison v Dep't of State, 320 Mich App 169, 180;906 NW2d 221 (2017). See also Lima Twp v Bateson, 302Mich App 483, 493; 838 NW2d 898 (2013) (“Generally, aviolation of a zoning ordinance constitutes a nuisance per se,and a court must order it abated.”). The trial court did notabuse its discretion by ordering the structure removed.Finally, VanAlstine argues that township violated hisdue-process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment bywithholding “critical information regarding setback rules” incontravention of “disclosure obligations” and failed to actreasonably. “In civil cases, Michigan follows the ‘raise orwaive’ rule of appellate review.” Tolas Oil & Gas ExplorationCo v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC, 347 Mich App 280, 289; 14NW3d 472 (2023) (cleaned up). A party must raise an issuein the lower court for it to be preserved for appellate review.Id. We will generally decline to address an unpreserved issueunless the failure to do so “would result in manifest injustice,if consideration is necessary for a proper determination ofthe case, or if the issue involves a question of law andthe facts necessary for its resolution have been presented.”Id. at 289-290. Our Supreme Court has cautioned thatthis discretion should be exercised sparingly and only inexceptional circumstances. Napier v Jacobs, 429 Mich 222,233-234, 414 NW2d 862 (1987). Because this issue was notraised in the trial court, it is waived, and we decline to exerciseour discretion to review it. Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration, 347Mich App at 289.*7 Affirmed. The township, being the prevailing party, maytax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219.Michael J. RiordanJames Robert RedfordSima G. PatelAll CitationsNot Reported in N.W. Rptr., 2026 WL 1194667Footnotes1McKenna, a planning firm, serves as the township's zoning administrator.2The township alleged in its complaint that detached accessory buildings were limited to a total square footageof 3,708 feet, which was confirmed by Skunda. Regardless of the discrepancy in the maximum square footageallowed, the 4,560 total square footage of the detached accessory structures clearly exceeded the limit.
EAGLE TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAUN..., Not Reported in N.W.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.63“Ordinances are treated as statutes for the purposes of interpretation and review.” Great Lakes, 281 MichApp at 407. “The goal of statutory construction, and thus of construction and interpretation of an ordinance,is to discern and give effect to the intent of the legislative body.” Id. at 407-408. “Terms used in an ordinancemust be given their plain and ordinary meanings[.]” Id. at 408.4Section 6.02.C.1 of the IZO states:(C) Detached Accessory Buildings.(1) Location. Detached accessory buildings and structures shall not be located in a front yard, except ifone of the following sets of conditions are met:(a) Condition Set One:(i) The parcel exceeds five (5) acres in lot area; and(ii) All setback requirements of the district in which the accessory structure is to be located are compliedwith; and(iii) The accessory structure shall be located not less than two-hundred and twenty-five (225) feet fromthe road right-of-way; and(iv) The accessory structure shall be located no closer than fifty (50) feet to an existing residentialstructure on an adjacent parcel.(b) Condition Set Two:(i) Accessory structure exterior siding generally matches the color of the principal structure of which itis accessory to; and(ii) Accessory structure roofing material generally matches the color of the principal structure of whichit is accessory to; and(iii) Accessory structure must meet the minimum front yard setback of a principal structure in the districtthat it is located and must be located no more than seventy-five (75) feet from the principal structure; and(iv) The accessory structure shall be located no closer than fifty (50) feet to an existing residentialstructure on an adjacent parcel; and(v) No more than twenty (20) percent of an accessory structure floor area shall be located within anarea defined as between the principal structure's front building line and the public right-of-way and theprincipal structures side building lines so as to not obstruct the view of the principal structure from thepublic road right-of-way. [Eagle Township Ordinance 03-2023, § 6.02.C.1.]5Condition set one is not met because the property is less than five acres. Condition set two is not met becausethe existing pole barn has more than 20% of its floor area within the front yard.6Section 7.04.A of the IZO states in pertinent part:(A) No nonconforming use or structure shall be enlarged, extended, or structurally altered, nor shallany nonconformity be changed to a different nonconformity which increases the intensity of use ornonconformity, except as permitted in this Section.
EAGLE TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAUN..., Not Reported in N.W.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.7* * *(4) Enlargement, Extension, or Alteration.(a) Increase in Nonconformity Prohibited. Except as specifically provided in this section, no person mayengage in any activity that causes an increase in the extent of any nonconformity. For example, physicalalteration of structures or the placement of new structures on open land is unlawful if such activity resultsin:(i) An increase in the total amount of space devoted to a nonconforming use, or(ii) Greater nonconformity with respect to dimensional restrictions, such as setback requirements, heightlimitations, density requirements, or other requirements in the district in which the property is located.(b) Permitted Extension. Any nonconforming use may be extended throughout any part of a buildingwhich was manifestly arranged or designed for such use at the time of adoption or amendment ofthis Ordinance, but no such use shall be extended to occupy any land outside such building. Nononconforming use of land shall be enlarged, increased, or extended to occupy a greater area of land,nor shall any such use be moved in whole or in part to any portion of the lot or parcel than was occupiedon the effective date of this Ordinance or amendment thereto.(c) Alterations that Decrease Nonconformity. Any nonconforming structure or any structure or portionthereof containing a nonconforming use, may be altered if such alteration serves to decrease thenonconforming nature of the structure or use. [Eagle Township Ordinance 03-2023, § 7.02.A.]7Section 6.02.C.5 of the IZO states:Size. The total of all detached accessory buildings located on a parcel shall be subject to maximum lotcoverage requirements and accessory structure size shall be subject to the restrictions in floor area basedupon parcel size listed in the schedule below.MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA OF ACCESSORY BUILDINGS Parcel (Lot) Size Total Accessory Floor AreaOne-half (1/2) acre or less 1,200 sq. ft. More than one-half (1/2) and less than one (1) acre 1,600 sq. ft.More than one (1) acre and less than five (5) acres 1,600 sq. ft. plus 2 sq. ft. of floor area for 100 sq. ft.of lot area not to exceed 5,000 sq. ft. More than five (5) acres 1,600 sq. ft. plus 2 sq. ft. of floor area for100sq. ft. of lot area not to exceed 7,500 sq. ft.[Eagle Township Ordinance 03-2023, § 6.02.C.5.]8Section 14.02 of the IZO states:A Zoning Permit, approved by the Zoning Administrator, shall be required prior to the any application tothe Clinton County Building Department for a building permit for any exterior construction work in EagleTownship. Interior construction work shall not require a Zoning Permit. For activities requiring Site PlanApproval, the Site Plan Approval shall be considered the Zoning Permit. Alterations to the exterior ofa building that do not alter the footprint, or the height of the building shall be exempt from the ZoningPermit requirement. [Eagle Township Ordinance 03-2023, § 14.02.]9VanAlstine contended he did not receive the denial until July 18, 2024.10VanAlstine argued to the trial court that he had a right to develop his affirmative defenses through discovery.He does not raise this argument on appeal; therefore, he has waived it.
EAGLE TOWNSHIP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SHAUN..., Not Reported in N.W.... © 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.8End of Document© 2026 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.
ProvenanceKnow exactly where this document came from.Members see the sourcing behind every authority on DocPost — so you can check the record yourself and cite with confidence.Request access