A municipality’s authority to regulate mining activity; The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA); MCL 125.3205; 2011 PA 113; Silva v Township of Ada; Kyser v Kasson Twp; “Gravel mining standards”; MCL 125.3205(3)-(5); Principle that the law to be applied is generally that in effect at the time of decision; Landon Holdings, Inc v Grattan Twp; Bad faith exception; Statutory preemption; DeRuiter v Township of Byron; Direct conflict; “Need”; Ultra vires action; Municipalities’ authority to zone; MCL 125.3201(1); Substantive due process; People v Sierb; Rational-basis review; Johnson v Department of Natural Res; Amendment of an ordinance; McCarthy v Village of Marcellus; Protected property interest; Mettler Walloon, LLC v Melrose Twp; Equal protection; Shepherd Montessori Ctr Milan v Ann Arbor Charter Twp; Preliminary injunction; MCR 3.310; Detroit Fire Fighters Ass’n, IAFF Local 344 v Detroit; American Aggregates of Michigan (AAOM)
The court held that the trial court did not err by granting plaintiff-Township summary disposition of counterplaintiff’s (AAOM) counterclaims. AAOM petitioned the Township for conditional rezoning and special land use approval of its owned and leased property in order to conduct mining activities. Shortly thereafter, the Township issued a moratorium, and later amended its existing zoning ordinance. It eventually sought injunctions. During a lengthy proceeding, the trial court granted a series of summary disposition motions, resulting in the dismissal of each of AAOM’s counterclaims. On appeal, the court rejected AAOM’s argument that the trial court erred by holding that the amended ordinance was the applicable ordinance, noting it failed to show the Township adopted the amended ordinance to obtain a litigation advantage. In addition, it rejected AAOM’s claim that the amended ordinance was preempted by MCL 125.3205 under a direct conflict theory, finding no direct conflict. It also rejected AAOM’s contention that the amended ordinance was invalid because it was ultra vires, finding the Township “did not ‘evade the Legislature’s mandate.’” The court next rejected AAOM’s argument that the amended ordinance violated due process, finding there was no substantive due process violation under a rational-basis review. It further rejected AAOM’s claim “that the moratorium was not a proper exercise of the Township’s authority because it was an illegal attempt to amend the ordinance by resolution and because passing moratoria is not authorized by” the MZEA, finding it failed to support this argument. Moreover, the court rejected AAOM’s contention that the moratorium violated due process and equal protection, holding it failed to show it “had a constitutionally protected right to have its application considered in a certain time or had a ‘reasonable expectation of entitlement’ to the permit,” and that “the plain language of the moratorium purports to treat all individuals seeking approval for gravel mining equally.” And because it failed to establish a constitutional violation, it was not entitled to damages. Finally, AAOM could not show how it was harmed by the trial court’s failure to comply with MCR 3.310 in issuing the status quo order. Affirmed.
Full PDF Opinion