Michigan Township Law

A property owner was denied PUD approval by the Village Council (upon initial recommendation of denial by the Village Planning Commission).   The property owner appealed the PUD denial to circuit court.  The circuit court affirmed the Village Council’s PUD denial, finding that the Council had based its decision on competent, material and substantial evidence on the record.

The property owner then sought to take its case to federal court (including a new claim of inverse condemnation), which court declined jurisdiction, given that the Allegan County circuit court had not reviewed the inverse condemnation claim.   The Allegan County circuit court then granted summary disposition for the Village on all counts.  

On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the property owner argued that the circuit court erred in granting summary disposition for the Village on all counts.   The Court of Appeals agreed, in part.   While the Court of Appeals found that res judicata barred the relitigation of the property owner’s appeal claims (ie., proper procedure, denial of PUD), the Court of Appeals reversed the grant of summary disposition as to the inverse condemnation claim.   The Court of Appeals held that as the inverse condemnation claim had not been heard by the circuit court in the original appeal, the court was premature in granting summary disposition on that claim.  Citing Houdini Properties v Romulus, 480 Mich 1022 (2006), the Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s grant of summary disposition as to the property owner’s inverse condemnation claim and remanded for further proceedings. 

Rodriguez v City of Village of Douglas, Court of Appeals, case no. 299510, unpublished, 1/10/12

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently upheld a Bay County Circuit court’s order which eliminated a property owner’s non conforming commercial use of a residentially zoned property.  

The Woys’ property was a legal non conforming use, as it was residentially zoned but used as a junk yard.  Beginning in 1983, the Township sought injunctive relief to prevent the property owner from bringing additional heavy equipment onto the property, as well as prohibiting the property owner from expanding commercial activities on the property.

Over the next several years, the Township returned to court repeatedly to show cause the property owner as to the property owner’s failure to comply with the circuit court’s order.   In 1999, the trial court issued an order that provided, in part, if the property owner did not comply with the order regarding use of the property, “. . .the property owner shall cease and desist from any commercial operations or storage of any material not presently permitted under the zoning ordinances as if a non conforming use did not exist.”  

In 2009, the Township requested another show cause hearing to determine if the property owner was in violation of the trial court’s order regarding use of the property.  The trial court then determined, after a site visit and testimony, that the property owner had brought new materials onto the property, in violation of the court’s order, and that the property owner was to immediately cease and desist from using the property for commercial operations or storage. 

The Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court, finding that the circuit court had the authority to terminate the property owner’s nonconforming use through a contempt order. The Court of Appeals held that the circuit court’s suppression of the nonconforming use was within the court’s remedial powers, as the property owner improperly expanded the nonconforming use.

Charter Township of Portsmouth v Jerry Woys, et al, Court of Appeals, case no. 302319, unpublished, 2/9/12

Attorney Rob Thall recently authored two amicus briefs for submission to the Michigan Supreme Court, in support of the Michigan Townships Association and the Michigan Municipal League.

Attorney Thall submitted an amicus brief in support of MTA in Toll Northville Limited Partnership v Township of Northville.

Attorney Thall submitted an amicus brief in support of MTA and MML in Michigan Properties LLC v Meridian Township.

Oral argument on both cases is scheduled for March 6, 2012 at the Michigan Supreme Court