Dispute over a township’s rezoning of a property from residential to commercial; Judicial review of a validly enacted zoning ordinance; Conditional rezoning; MCL 125.3405(1); Connell v Lima Twp; “Spot zoning”; Anderson v Highland Twp; Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA)

[This opinion was previously released as an unpublished opinion on 5/4/22.] The court held that the trial court did not err by determining that plaintiffs successfully challenged defendants-township and dragway operator’s (A2B) conditional zoning agreement and awarding them declaratory relief. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the township’s rezoning of A2B’s property from residential to commercial use to expand its nonconforming use as a drag racing facility was invalid. The trial court agreed, finding the amendment served no purpose and advanced no reasonable governmental interest, and granted plaintiffs’ request. On appeal, the court first found that the township properly complied with the MZEA to form an agreement with A2B. It next disagreed with plaintiffs that the zoning agreement constituted impermissible “spot zoning.” The conditional rezoning plan “did not create or permit a use that was inconsistent with the surrounding area, because the nonconforming use of the property as a drag racing facility had existed for decades.” The court noted that “the trial court did not reference ‘spot zoning,’ or use inconsistent with the surrounding parcels.” Finally, however, it found plaintiffs met their burden in challenging the conditional zoning. “When the agreed rezoning anticipates a use excluded by the zoning district in question, it is fatal to the operation of the conditional zoning agreement. Thus, the conditional zoning agreement was void according to [the ordinance], and as the trial court held, ‘there is no reasonable governmental interest being advanced’ by the agreement.” Affirmed.