Recently, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued three important decisions regarding Michigan zoning ordinances. In Jostock v Mayfield Township, ____ Mich App ___ (2003), the Court discussed various aspects of a conditional rezoning. Among other legal issues, the Court confirmed that for a conditional rezoning to be effective, the use involved must be expressly permitted within the zoning district for which a conditional rezoning occurs. This case is now pending on appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. In Top Grade Aggregates, LLC v Richland Township (unpublished decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals dated June 22, 2023; Case No. 361743; 2023 WL 4144564), the Court of Appeals addressed two important zoning matters. First, the Court specified the standard of review for when a municipal planning commission’s decision is appealed to a county circuit court. The standard is not exactly the same as the standard of review for a municipal zoning board of appeals decision on appeal. Second, this written opinion includes a substantial analysis of the “very serious consequences” test used in Michigan lawsuits involving mining operations. Finally, in Northstar Aggregates, LLC v Watson Twp (unpublished decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals dated July 27, 2023; Case No. 363567; 2023 WL 4830432), the Court of Appeals again addressed the “very serious consequences” test regarding mining. The Court analyzed the two prongs of the test and what must be shown in the trial court – the “need” component for minerals and whether “very serious consequences” would result from the extraction and mining of those materials.
Categories: Zoning and Planning, Zoning Permits