Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />Appeal-Court rules township lacked authority in land <br />transfer decision <br /> <br />Says township ordinance contradicts state law <br /> <br />Citation: Romeo Plank Investors, L.L.c. v. Macomb Tp., 2007 <br />WL 517507 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007) <br /> <br />:MICHIGAN (02/20/07)-Romeo Plank Investors, LLC (RPI) <br />submitted a request to the township of Macomb to transfer a <br />portion of land to a neighboring parcel. The land was to be <br />transferred by a nursery that was operating as a legal, noncon- <br />forming use in a residential area. <br />The township denied RPI's request, and RPI appealed to the <br />zoning board of appeals. The board denied the appeal, and RPI <br />appealed to court. The court reversed the board's decision, find- <br />ing that the requested transfer did not qualify as a land division <br />that was governed by the Land Division Act (Act). <br />The court stated that, because the transfer was not a "split... <br />division, or a subdivision" under the Act or the township's zon- <br />ing ordinance, the to'wnship had no authority to deny or regu- <br />la te the transfer. Essentially, the court agreed with RPI that the <br />township's zoning ordinance conflicted with the Act, and that the <br />Act-a state law-superseded the ordinance~ <br />The township appealed, arguing that the board's decision was <br />supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence, and, <br />therefore, it should have been upheld. <br /> <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> <br />While the appeals court agreed with the lower court that the <br />transfer was not governed by the Act, it found that the lower <br />court had erred by determining that the township therefore did <br />not have authority over the transfer. The decision of the lower <br />court was reversed. <br />The Act provided that "approval of a division [was] not a de- <br />termination that the resulting' parcels compl[ied] with other or- <br />dinances or regulations;" a division that was allowed under the <br />Act did not necessarily meet other zoning requirements, and the <br />Act "expressly allow[ed] municipalities to impose stricter require- <br />ments." There was no implicit conflict. <br />Further, the court found that the board's decision was based <br />on proper procedure and supported by the evidence in the record. <br />Generally, a court had to affirm the decision of a zoning board if <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />156 <br />