Connell v. Lima Township
| Decision Date | 04 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 353871 |
| Citation | 336 Mich.App. 263,970 N.W.2d 354 |
| Parties | Karen CONNELL, Larry Connell, James P. Eyster, Kim E. Michener, Rita Michener, Diana Newman, Michael B. O'Leary, and Laura Ouellette, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LIMA TOWNSHIP and Lima Township Planning Commission, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
James P. Eyster, Ann Arbor, in propria persona, and for Karen Connell, Larry Connell, Kim E. Michener, Rita Michener, Diana Newman, Michael B. O'Leary, and Laura Ouellette.
Lucas Law, PC, Onsted (by Frederick Lucas ) for Lima Township and the Lima Township Planning Commission.
Before: Swartzle, P.J., and Ronayne Krause and Rick, JJ.
Swartzle, P.J. Lima Township rezoned property in its jurisdiction, subject to certain conditions proposed by the property owner. Adjacent property owners sought to challenge the rezoning decision in the circuit court, but the court concluded that they did not exhaust certain administrative remedies and were not aggrieved parties. The critical issue on appeal is whether the rezoning decision was a legislative act or an administrative/quasi-judicial act. As explained, rezoning is a legislative act, in contrast to, for example, the decision to grant a conditional-use permit. Given this, plaintiffs were not required to exhaust administrative remedies or show that they were aggrieved parties, and the circuit court erred by granting summary disposition to defendants on these grounds.
The subject property is a 3.41-acre parcel in Lima Township. In 1945, a factory was built on the property.
The facility was used as a factory until 1986, and thereafter the facility was used for other purposes, including as a prior nonconforming use due to a zoning change. The facility was eventually abandoned, and it remained abandoned for approximately 30 years; at some point, the property was rezoned Rural Residential (RR). Several residences were constructed nearby when the facility was no longer being used as an active factory. In 2016, the property owners began to repair the facility.
In the fall of 2018, one of the owners of the subject property, James Smith, requested that the Township conditionally rezone the subject property from Rural Residential (RR) to Light Industrial (LI). A conditional rezoning involves a property owner's offer to impose certain conditions on the use of property in exchange for a rezoning to a new use classification. The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA), MCL 125.3101 et seq. , specifically allows a local unit of government to engage in conditional rezoning:
Thus, the keystone of a conditional rezoning is that the conditions are voluntarily offered by the property owner in writing, and the local unit of government cannot require the landowner to offer conditions as a requirement for rezoning.
The Township designated Smith's request for conditional rezoning as Application 2018-002, and this designation appears on all of the minutes from the relevant meetings of the Lima Township Planning Commission and the Lima Township Board of Trustees. Plaintiffs have provided a copy of the Township's zoning map to illustrate the location of the subject property and the surrounding land uses. This map shows the crossroads and the zoning districts in the area, as well as the location of surrounding homes; it illustrates that the subject property is entirely surrounded by residential uses located in either the Agriculture-1 (AG-1) or Rural Residential (RR) Districts.
It is uncontested that plaintiffs, as owners of adjoining parcels, received written notice of a Planning Commission meeting held on August 27, 2018, at which the proposal for a conditional rezoning of the subject property from Rural Residential (RR) to Light Industrial (LI) was first considered. Several of the plaintiffs spoke during the public hearing. After the hearing concluded, the Planning Commission considered action on the application, but eventually postponed action until a site plan was submitted. From this point forward, the Planning Commission did not provide plaintiffs with any specific notice regarding meetings on the application for a conditional rezoning; rather, the meetings were simply noticed under the more general requirements of the Open Meetings Act, MCL 15.261 et seq. , as acknowledged by both parties during oral argument on appeal.
At its next meeting on September 24, 2018, the Planning Commission briefly considered the application. The Planning Commission's meeting minutes report that the chairman "stated that there has not been a site plan filed for Application 2018-002." The Planning Commission again voted to "postpone Application 2018-002 until a Site Plan is filed."
At its meeting on October 22, 2018, the Planning Commission again considered the application. The Planning Commission's meeting minutes for that date report that the chairman "stated [that] a site plan was received on October 3, 2018." (The trial court record does not contain a copy of this site plan.) The Planning Commission had also received a report from the Lima Township Planner; the report stated that all surrounding land uses were residential in nature, and that "the development pattern immediately surrounding the subject site is well established." The report noted that the application was one for conditional rezoning, and the applicant had offered several conditions in exchange for the rezoning. The Township Planner ultimately opined that the site plan submitted by the applicant was inadequate, and recommended that the Planning Commission "postpone action until the applicant has had a chance to revise their application." The Planning Commission voted to direct staff "to draft a resolution recommending denial of the requested conditional rezoning for Application 2018-002."
At its next meeting on November 26, 2018, the Planning Commission considered the application. The Planning Commission's meeting minutes indicate the following regarding Application 2018-002:
The Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of the requested conditional rezoning, with five members in favor and two members opposed. The meeting minutes do not report that any member of the Planning Commission abstained from voting or was absent.
In their amended complaint, plaintiffs referred to this November 26, 2018 vote of the Planning Commission. Plaintiffs alleged that, following the August 2018 public hearing during which public comment was received, the Planning Commission voted to deny the conditional rezoning request on November 26, 2018. Plaintiffs further alleged that they "all understood that this ended the application process for rezoning." As the subsequent proceedings would reveal, however, plaintiffs’ understanding was incorrect.
As explained in more detail in the next section, rezoning is a legislative act that can be accomplished only by the Lima Township Board of Trustees; the Planning Commission can only issue a recommendation to the Township Board. The Lima Township Zoning Ordinance addresses amendments (including the rezoning of parcels) in § 14.3, titled "Amendment Procedures." The Zoning Ordinance provides that an amendment may be initiated by petition of one or more property owners of Lima Township, and all proposed amendments must be referred to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation before action may be taken thereon by the Township Board. Lima Township Zoning Ordinance, § 14.1. The Planning Commission must hold at least one public hearing on a requested rezoning, Lima Township Zoning Ordinance, § 14.3.2, and must forward any recommendation to the Township Board:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
J.A. Bloch & Co. v. Ann Arbor Twp.
...determines 5 that the opposing party, rather than the moving party, is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Connell v Lima Twp, 336 Mich.App. 263, 281; 970 N.W.2d 354 (2021). Absent a factual dispute, whether a claim is barred by a statutory limitations period presents a question of la......
-
Zelasko v. Charter Twp. of Bloomfield
...zoning ordinance and separate claims in the circuit court alleging violation of substantive due process and of equal protection. Unlike Connell, KL Properties, and Whitmore plaintiffs in this case seek to overturn an administrative decision of the Township Board through an original circuit ......
-
Knutson v. Gassert
...the zoning map-the township engaged in legislative activities involving the zoning and rezoning of property. See Connell v Lima Twp, 336 Mich.App. 263, 283; 970 N.W.2d 354 (2021). Regardless of the 2008 zoning dispute, by its legislative actions in 2019, adopting a new ordinance and express......
-
Cary Invs. v. City of Mount Pleasant
... ... But "an administrative body cannot rule on ... constitutional claims[,]" Connell v Lima Twp , ... 336 Mich.App. 263, 285; 970 N.W.2d 354 (2021), so ... plaintiff's ... ...