A municipality’s authority to adopt local zoning ordinances; The Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA) (MCL 125.3101 et seq); MCL 125.3201(1); MCL 125.3102(w); MCL 125.3209; Olsen v Chikaming Twp; Whether defendant-township’s interim zoning ordinance was subject to a petition for referendum under the MZEA; MCL 125.3402 & 3404; Preliminary injunction; MCR 3.310(A)(4); Slis v State; Mere apprehension of future injury or damage; Pontiac Fire Fighters Union Local 376 v City of Pontiac; Due process; Bonner v City of Brighton; Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (MCL 15.231 et seq)

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying plaintiffs’ (Sandstone and Walters) motion for a preliminary injunction, granting in part their claim for relief under FOIA, or dismissing counts I, IV, and V of their complaint. However, it did err by dismissing counts II and III without notice and hearing on those counts. Sandstone began to implement its plan to build a solar power project in defendant-township. But the township, which had operated under the county’s zoning ordinance, adopted an interim zoning ordinance. Plaintiffs sued, seeking a declaratory judgment that the interim ordinance was invalid (Count I), that the township improperly imposed a moratorium on projects within it (Count II), alleging that the interim ordinance imposed exclusionary zoning (Count III), and that the township’s refusal to accept Walters’ referendum petition was improper and unlawful (Count V). They also alleged a violation of the FOIA (Count IV) and moved for a preliminary injunction seeking an order compelling the township to accept the referendum petition, to determine its adequacy, and to place the interim ordinance on the ballot at the next regular or special election. The trial court denied their motion for a preliminary injunction, granted partial relief on their FOIA claim, and dismissed their complaint in all other respects. On appeal, the court concluded that “the trial court properly held that the right to file a petition for referendum under MCL 125.3402 does not apply to an interim zoning ordinance implemented under MCL 125.3404.” As to plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief, because they “failed to show that the trial court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes,” it did not abuse its discretion by denying their motion for a preliminary injunction. As to their due process argument, the court found that they “had ample notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding the merits of Counts I and V of their second amended complaint.” And they were “clearly heard” on their FOIA count as the trial court ordered the township to produce additional documents responsive to their request. However, as to Counts II and III, the court was not convinced that plaintiffs “were on notice that the trial court was prepared to consider the dismissal of those claims.” Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.