Action involving local permits to grow marijuana; Promissory estoppel; Bodnar v St John Providence, Inc; Principle that a claim of promissory estoppel is akin to a contract claim; Long v Chelsea Cmty Hosp; Regulatory taking; Gym 24/7 Fitness, LLC v State; Whether plaintiff established a vested property right; Upper Peninsula Power Co v Village of L’Anse; Categorical vs noncategorical taking; Penn Cent Transp Co v New York City; Equal protection; Engquist v Oregon Dep’t of Agric; Declaratory relief; MCR 2.605(A)(1)

Agreeing with the trial court that plaintiff “failed to plead viable claims premised on promissory estoppel, regulatory takings, and equal protection,” and that declaratory relief was unobtainable, the court affirmed. Plaintiff sued defendant-township alleging that, in reliance on its ordinance amendment allowing unlimited marijuana grower permits, he spent over $300,000 to convert his property into a “Cannabis Grow Park,” in hopes of selling parcels to marijuana grow operators, but that defendant’s subsequent limit on permits rendered his property almost worthless. The trial court ruled for defendant and dismissed the case. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred by granting defendant summary disposition of his promissory estoppel claim, noting he “did not establish the ‘promise’ element of promissory estoppel.” The ordinances at issue provided “that defendant’s board could review and amend the number of permits ‘annually or as it determines to be advisable.’ This language unmistakably demonstrates that defendant’s amendment to the number of . . . grower permits was not a promise to plaintiff that the number of permits would remain indefinitely ‘unlimited.’” The court also upheld summary disposition of his regulatory taking claim. “[A]ccepting plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and applying them to the Penn Central balancing test, we conclude . . . that no compensable taking of plaintiff’s property occurred . . . [and] that no factual development could change this outcome,” rendering summary disposition on this issue appropriate. Because he “failed to plead facts demonstrating either a categorical taking of his land such that his property was rendered wholly unusable, or a noncategorical taking under the Penn Central inquiry, the trial court correctly granted summary disposition on plaintiff’s takings claim.” The court also held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant summary disposition of his equal protection claim. He “did not identify a similarly situated property owner whom defendant treated differently under the ordinance.” His allegation that defendant told two marijuana growers “that it would issue additional Class C grower permits to them has no bearing on plaintiff’s position as a seller of land, because he does not grow marijuana and he did not assert that he applied for any Class C grower permits that defendant denied.” Finally, because it affirmed the dismissal of his underlying claims, it likewise affirmed “dismissal of his claim for declaratory relief.”