Challenge to the validity of zoning ordinance (ZO) amendments; Compliance with the notice provisions of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA) & the ZO; MCL 125.3202(1) & (2); Personal notice required under MCL 125.3103(3); “Rezoning”; Jostock v Mayfield Twp; Entitlement to mailed notice under MCL 125.3401(7) & (8); Whether a township board meeting was a public hearing entitling a party to personal notice under MCL 125.3401; MCL 125.3306(2)

Holding that rezoning did not occur here, the court concluded the trial court did not err in ruling that defendant-Township Board did not fail to comply with the MZEA’s notice provisions by not providing plaintiffs with personal notice of the ZO amendments at issue. The trial court also did not err in finding “that further discovery would not stand a fair chance of uncovering factual support for” plaintiff-airport’s position. Finally, the personal mailed notice requirement in ZO § 18.12(2) did not apply. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendants. Plaintiffs claimed “the Township Board violated the notice provisions of the MZEA and the township [ZO] by failing to provide plaintiffs with proper notice when adopting the Solar Ordinance and its subsequent amendments to facilitate [defendant-]Mustang’s industrial-scale solar installation.” They asserted “the Township Board rezoned properties within the township that were classified as agricultural or industrial to permit a previously unpermitted use on those properties, but did not give personal notice as required under MCL 125.3103(3).” Defendants argued they did not rezone the properties. The MZEA does not define “rezoning.” But Michigan case precedent supported that the term “has been used consistently in Michigan law to refer to the changing of the zoning classification of a property.” The court observed that while “the Township Board did not change the classification of the properties in question, [it] so altered the special uses permitted within the classifications to which the properties belonged as to subject [them] to a use far different from the uses previously permitted on those properties.” The court also noted that amending a ZO “and rezoning are not mutually exclusive actions.” But while the amendments here “affected the zoning regulations applicable to all properties within two classifications, the entire effort to amend the [ZO] was to enable the township to deliver to Mustang special use permits to build its massive solar project on specific properties within those classifications. Neighboring properties will be affected to the same extent as if those specific properties had been placed in a different zoning classification. The Township Board, however, did not reclassify the specific properties to a new zoning classification, and as a result the properties were not rezoned as that term is applied in Michigan zoning law.”