Bois Blanc Island Tp. v. Natural Resources Com'n
| Decision Date | 06 May 1987 |
| Docket Number | Docket Nos. 81123-81125 |
| Citation | 404 N.W.2d 719,158 Mich.App. 239 |
| Parties | BOIS BLANC ISLAND TOWNSHIP, Garfield, Hendricks, Hudson and Moran Townships of Mackinac County; Drummond Island Township of Chippewa County; Covington Township of Baraga County; Cedarville Township of Menominee County; Turin Township of Marquette County; Limestone and Mathias Townships of Alger County, all Michigan municipal corporations, in behalf of themselves and their citizens, residents, and taxpayers, and all other similarly situated cities, townships and villages of Alger, Baraga, Chippewa, Crawford, Delta, Dickinson, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Keweenaw, Luce, Mackinac, Marquette, Menominee, Ontonagon and Schoolcraft Counties of the State of Michigan, Plaintiffs-Appellees, and Garden Township of Delta County, Added Party Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION and the Department of Natural Resources, Defendants-Appellants. The CITY OF OMER, a Michigan municipal corporation, and the Township of Arenac, an organized township situated in the County of Arenac, and their citizens, residents and taxpayers, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION and the Department of Natural Resources, Defendants-Appellants. VILLAGE OF L'ANSE, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The NATURAL RESOURCES COMMISSION and the Department of Natural Resources, Defendants-Appellants. 158 Mich.App. 239, 404 N.W.2d 719 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[158 MICHAPP 240] Timothy G. Holland, Lansing, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Thomas J. Emery and Sheldon A. Silver, Asst. Attys. Gen., for defendants-appellants.
Before HOLBROOK, P.J., and T.M. BURNS and HOOD, JJ.
The Department of Natural Resources and the Natural Resources Commission (DNR) appeal as of right from an order entered in the circuit court remanding these consolidated cases to the DNR for a contested-case hearing as provided in the Administrative Procedures Act, M.C.L. Sec. 24.201 et [158 MICHAPP 241] seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 3.560(101) et seq. Plaintiffs are cities, villages and townships which individually have been operating sanitary landfills on undedicated, state-owned lands for several years. On appeal, the question facing this Court is whether the DNR may summarily, without notice, reason or a hearing, terminate plaintiffs' interests in the operation of the sanitary landfill sites on their present locations. We find that it may not so terminate without a hearing and, therefore, affirm the circuit court order remanding the cases to the DNR for such hearings.
The DNR and its predecessor, the Department of Conservation, have, since at least 1956, issued permits, variously called "use permits," "dump permits" and "sanitary landfill permits" (hereinafter referred to as "sanitary landfill permits") to plaintiffs to operate sanitary landfills on state-owned lands. On the reverse side of these permits are twelve conditions with which plaintiffs were required to comply in order to continue operation of the sanitary landfills. The first landfill began operating in 1956, and the remainder of the plaintiffs began operation of landfills between 1959 and 1976. By their own terms, the sanitary landfill permits expired on December 31 of the year in which they were issued. All the plaintiffs' permits have since expired, most on December 31, 1976. Two others expired on December 31, 1982. Plaintiffs have not applied for a renewal of these permits and the DNR had, until recently, allowed plaintiffs to continue operation of the landfills without permits. Although several of the plaintiffs were licensed under the predecessor statute to the Solid Waste Management Act, none are licensed under the present act, M.C.L. Sec. 299.401 et seq.; M.S.A. Sec. 13.29(1) et seq. The sanitary landfill permits at issue in this case are distinct from the licensing [158 MICHAPP 242] requirements under the Solid Waste Management Act. The sanitary landfill permits are in the nature of a land-use permit, permitting the plaintiffs to use state land for a specific purpose, in these cases, as sanitary landfill sites.
On August 15, 1983, the DNR, purportedly acting as proprietor or landlord, served notice on a representative of each of the plaintiffs to quit the premises upon which they were operating their landfills. Plaintiffs subsequently filed suit in circuit court, claiming that the DNR must provide them with an administrative hearing prior to terminating their sanitary landfill permits. Cross motions for summary judgment were filed. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motions on the basis that plaintiffs had licenses within the meaning of the APA and were entitled to a hearing on whether there was a proper basis for terminating plaintiffs' interests in the sanitary landfill sites.
As noted, each of the plaintiffs had originally been issued permits to operate sanitary landfills on state-owned land. We find that these permits were equivalent to licenses within the meaning of the APA.
A "license" as defined under the APA "includes the whole or part of an agency permit, certificate, approval, registration, charter or similar form of permission required by law...." M.C.L. Sec. 24.205(1); M.S.A. Sec. 3.560(105)(1). This broad definition under the APA evidences a legislative intent to include practically any form of permission required by law. Under M.C.L. Sec. 299.2; M.S.A. Sec. 13.2, the DNR may promulgate and enforce reasonable rules concerning the use and occupancy of land under its control. The Legislature has also provided that the DNR may make rules for the protection of land under its control against wrongful use. M.C.L. Sec. 299.3a; M.S.A. Sec. 13.4. Pursuant to these grants of authority, the [158 MICHAPP 243] DNR has promulgated an administrative rule which provides that it is unlawful for a person on state land other than state parks or recreation areas to use such land as a place to dispose of refuse, rubbish, trash or garbage without proper written permission. 1979 AC, R 299.331(1)(d). Since plaintiffs are required by law to have written permission from the DNR to operate their sanitary landfills on state land, the permits issued for such operations are, in effect, "licenses" within the meaning of the APA.
The DNR's argument that these permits are not "licenses" under the APA, but rather are licenses granted by an owner of land authorizing a particular use of the land (i.e., a "license" under common law), does not support its contention that the APA is inapplicable. The APA definition of "license" includes any "form of permission required by law." Since use of the state land as a sanitary landfill requires permission of the DNR, the sanitary landfill permits are "licenses" within the meaning of the APA.
Although we have characterized the sanitary landfill permits issued...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
King v. State
...with the community's interest in proper regulation. Id. at 696, 238 N.W.2d 154; see also Bois Blanc Island Twp. v. Natural Resources Comm., 158 Mich.App. 239, 404 N.W.2d 719 (1987). Therefore, improperly issued licenses—including the one issued to plaintiff here—may be revoked as long as th......
-
Seattle Bldg. and Const. Trades Council v. Apprenticeship and Training Council
...prequalification, by statute they had to be prequalified to work on state projects. See also Bois Blanc Island Township v. Natural Resources Comm'n, 158 Mich.App. 239, 404 N.W.2d 719 (1987) (written permission of agency required to dispose of garbage on state land is license required by CIT......
-
Maxwell v. DEQ
...law to be made by an agency after an opportunity for an evidentiary hearing." MCL 24.203(3). In Bois Blanc Island Twp. v. Natural Resources Comm., 158 Mich.App. 239, 244, 404 N.W.2d 719 (1987), this Court observed that the contested-case provisions of the APA do not apply to the issuance of......