Brad Jewett v. Charter Township of Garfield
331092
Mich. Ct. App.Aug 17, 2017Background
- Brad and Trina Jewett applied in 2013 for a special use permit (SUP) to build an independent senior apartment complex (originally 88 units, later reduced to 43) on a 6.3-acre parcel zoned R-1B (single-family residential) in Garfield Township, MI.
- The Township Zoning Ordinance allows certain institutional uses (including senior housing) in residential districts by SUP, subject to Article VIII and the general and specific standards of § 8.1.3.
- The Planning Commission denied the SUP, finding the proposed project incompatible with the area’s low-density single-family character and that it failed to meet multiple § 8.1.3 general (harmony, effect on existing/future uses, fumes/glare) and specific standards (insufficient information, nonconformity with regulations, contrary to ordinance spirit).
- Jewetts appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the Planning Commission, concluding the denial was supported by competent, substantial, and material evidence and was not based solely on building size.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the circuit court applied correct legal principles and whether its substantial-evidence review was proper, and it affirmed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Planning Commission’s denial of the SUP was supported by substantial evidence | Jewett: denial was arbitrary and based solely on project size; commission abused discretion | Garfield Twp: denial rested on multiple findings (density, scale, traffic, noise, light, inadequate info) that show incompatibility | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports denial; decision not based solely on size |
| Whether the Planning Commission misapplied ordinance standards (§ 8.1.3) | Jewett: commission improperly applied standards and failed to justify incompatibility | Township: commission expressly addressed each general and specific standard and gave reasons for noncompliance | Affirmed — commission discussed each standard and provided rationale |
| Whether the circuit court misapplied the substantial-evidence review on appeal | Jewett: circuit court erred in deferring to commission and accepting size-based reasoning | Township: circuit court correctly reviewed record and found evidence a reasonable mind could accept | Affirmed — appellate court finds no misapplication of standard; factual findings not clearly erroneous |
| Whether a size-only rationale would render other ordinance provisions superfluous | Jewett: if denial were size-based, it would conflict with Section 8.5.1’s presumption favoring institutional uses | Township: denial was not size-only, so the argument is inapplicable | Affirmed — because decision was not based solely on size, the related argument fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Northwestern Nat’l Cas Co. v. Comm’r of Ins., 231 Mich App 483 (agency decision review; grounds for being unauthorized by law)
- Vanzandt v. State Employees Retirement Sys., 266 Mich App 579 (standard for substantial evidence review)
- Leahy v. Orion Twp., 269 Mich App 527 (definition of substantial evidence)
- Boyd v. Civil Service Comm., 220 Mich App 226 (appellate standard for reviewing lower court’s review of agency action)
- Braska v. Challenge Mfg Co., 307 Mich App 340 (de novo review of legal conclusions; factual findings for clear error)