Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2006

Home

Page 4-- December 10, 2005 Comprehensive Plan --Township plan calls for limiting commercial uses Developer wants to baild travel plaza next to highway interchange Citation: Wolters Real~y Ltd. v. Saugatuck Township, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 247228 (2005) MICHIGAN (10/25/05) -- Woiters Realty Ltd. wanted to build a travel plaza on a parcel of land it owned near a major highway interchange. A small portion of the property was zoned commercial, but the rest of the property was zoned agricultural. After Wolters' request, the township refused to change the zoning of the parcel to allow for the development of a travel plaza. Wolters sued, claiming that the zoning for its Iand was unreasonable. The court ruled in its favor. The township appealed, arguing its comprehensive plan should be respected. DECISION:,-~ ~rmed. The lower court properly balanced the township's interest in carrying out its comprehensive plan with Wolters' proposal to use its property to construct a travel plaza. The township's comprehensive plan proposed to eliminate commercial zon- Lng in the area where Wolters' proposed travel plaza would have been located.. Specifically, the plan stated that "the present commercial zoning of [the high- way] south of the [interchange] should be eliminated except for small areas representing existing commercial establishments at the freeway" and inter- changes. Whether a zoning classification advanced a city's master plan was a factor in determining reasonableness. However, it was only one factor, and it did not replace the balancing of interests required under an assertion of the police power. Certainly, the township was entitled to create a comprehensive plan for future development that limited commercial uses for the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding area and its residents. However, a comprehensive plan for the future did not, by itself, validate existing zoning patterns or the township's change to those zoning patterns. In fact, despite the comprehensive plan's proposal to eliminate all commer- cial zoning in the area, the township already had expanded the commercial portion of Wolters' parcel after establishing its comprehensive plan. The township's expert planner admitted that the plan suggested there was too much commercial zoning, but the zoning had been expanded for Wolters' parcel be- cause it was located near a major highway. Ultimately, the existing location of the parcel, next to a highway and sur- rounded by commercial properties, had to be taken into account. see also: Wolters Real~. Ltd. v. Saugatuck Township, 696 N. V~2d 711 (2005). see also: Frericks v. Highland Township, 579 N. !,V2d 44I (1998). @ 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group, Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please call (§17) 542-0048. 126