Zoning; § 1310 (extensions of nonconforming buildings) of defendant-township’s Zoning Ordinance; Ordinance interpretation; Ballman v. Borges; Sau-Tuk Indus., Inc. v. Allegan Cnty.; “Enlarge” or “alter”; “Setback” requirement; §§ 705.2(A) & 202; Consideration of the “harmony” of the area rather than merely interpreting the ordinance language; § 705.4(A) (requiring site plan review consider existing structures on adjacent properties in order to maintain harmony)

Concluding that the trial court did not err when it held that the ZBA misinterpreted § 1310 of the Zoning Ordinance and reversed the ZBA’s decision, the court affirmed. Defendant-Township argued that the trial court erred when it interpreted the plain language of § 1310 and reversed the ZBA’s denial of appellees’ request for a variance. The nonconformity was the setback requirement. It was “undisputed that the residence is an existing nonconforming building with respect to its setback, being set back only 8.3 feet from the road.” The Township argued that it was the “intent of the drafters of § 1310 to ‘prohibit any expansion or alteration of a nonconforming structure with less than ½ of the required setback distance.’ However, the plain language of the ordinance provides that ‘[n]o conforming building or structure may be enlarged or altered in a way that increases its nonconformity.’” The court noted that when “‘the words used in a statute or an ordinance are clear and unambiguous, they express the intent of the legislative body and must be enforced as written.’” Here, the court held that “the ZBA’s interpretation of § 1310 was contrary to the unambiguous language of § 1310. The proposed improvements to the property would not further decrease the setback, or, in other terms, enlarge or alter the nonconformity of the setback. Moreover, because the Township has elected not to challenge the trial court’s findings concerning the height requirement, there is no basis for concluding that the proposed improvements would result in a vertical nonconformity by exceeding the height requirement of § 705.4.” Thus, the ZBA’s finding were “not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence because there was no evidence that any nonconformity would be enlarged or altered; in simple terms, the building would be just as nonconforming after the improvements as it was before.”