Whether a new ordinance was published under the city charter’s requirements; MCL 117.3(k); Timeliness; Sufficiency of the meeting minutes to satisfy the publication requirement; Distinguishing People v Poyma; Whether the new ordinance was a zoning ordinance or a regulatory ordinance; Natural Aggregates Corp v Brighton Twp; Whether plaintiff had a vested property right in a prior nonconforming use; Retroactive application; The Michigan Regulation & Taxation of Marihuana Act (MRTMA)

The court held that the new ordinance at issue “was not void for lack of publication or enumeration.” Further, because it was a regulatory ordinance, not a zoning ordinance, plaintiff-AFJN’s arguments as to “possession of a vested property right in a prior nonconforming use and the retroactive application of the new ordinance” were meritless. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-City of Highland Park. The case arose from a marijuana facility licensing dispute. After its original ordinance in response to the MRTMA was declared void and unenforceable, Highland Park enacted the new ordinance, which took effect on 9/5/23. It was “undisputed that the city charter required publication of the new ordinance and that the actual text of the new ordinance itself was not published on Highland Park’s website until” 4/24. AFJN argued that the publication requirement was “not met because the text of the new ordinance itself was not published within seven days and the [8/21/23] meeting minutes were insufficient to satisfy the publication requirement under the city charter.” But the court noted that the “meeting minutes contain the same language as the new ordinance almost verbatim.” The court found that AFJN’s claim that “the new ordinance was not enumerated in the” meeting minutes was unpersuasive. Further, AFJN’s reliance on Poyma was misplaced because the facts were distinguishable given that “the summary of the new ordinance contained in the [8/21/23] meeting minutes complied with the city charter and state law when it was published on Highland Park’s website within seven days of enactment.” The court further held that the new ordinance was a regulatory ordinance, not a zoning ordinance. And “Michigan caselaw does not support that a property owner may possess a vested right in a prior nonconforming use regarding a regulatory ordinance.” Thus, AFJN could not “possess a vested property right in a prior nonconforming use to operate an adult use marijuana retail facility in Highland Park, and there was no unlawful retroactive application of the new ordinance.”