Special land use application; Whether the application was complete under the Zoning Ordinance (ZO); Mandamus; Clear, legal right requirement; Applicability of an amended ZO; Bad faith; Rodney Lockwood & Co v City of Southfield; Willingham v Dearborn; Validity of the amended ZO; Compliance with MCL 125.3205 (extraction of natural resources); Metamora Twp v American Aggregates of MI, Inc (Unpub)

The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff a writ of mandamus because plaintiff failed to show it had a clear, legal right to a public hearing. There was also no error in concluding that the amended ZO applied to its special land use “application because the amendments were not made in bad faith and were consistent with MCL 125.3205.” Plaintiff wanted to develop and operate a gravel mine on property in defendant-Grant Township. It sought a writ of mandamus directing defendant-Township Zoning Administrator to process its special land use application and directing defendant-Grant Township Planning Commission to hold a hearing and make a determination on the application pursuant to the prior version of the Township ZO. On appeal, the court first held that “the trial court did not err in finding that necessary items were missing from plaintiff’s application and it was incomplete.” Among other things, the reclamation plan did “not include the necessary information on phasing or timing. The lack of this required information alone was sufficient to deem the application incomplete and not ready for immediate public hearing under the original” ZO. Because it was incomplete under the ZO then in effect, plaintiff did not show a clear legal right to its requested relief. The court also concluded that the record did not support its claim that the amended ZO was enacted in bad faith. The Township had last “received an application for a special use permit for earth removal, quarrying, gravel processing, and mining” in 2003. MCL 125.3205 was amended in 2011 “to limit local governments’ zoning authority over mining projects unless very serious consequences would result.” The Township sought the advice of counsel after receiving plaintiff’s initial application, and was advised that the ZO “should be amended to better conform with the law.” The fact that “plaintiff’s application was a catalyst for” the decision to amend the ZO did “not establish bad faith.” The court noted that the amended ZO provided “a clearer process” for considering applications, and expressly addressed the changes in the law. Finally, the court agreed with the trial court that the amended ZO “was valid and complied with MCL 125.3205.” Affirmed.