Edw C Levy Co. v. Marine City Zoning Board of Appeals
293 Mich. App. 333
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Road Commission owns a 5.98 acre riverfront parcel in Marine City used for aggregate, rock salt, and calcium chloride storage and distribution.
- In 1999 Marine City rezoned the property from 1-2 to Waterfront Recreation and Marine, preserving its industrial status as a prior nonconforming use.
- In 2007 SCA proposed purchasing the property; Road Commission instead leased to Detroit Bulk Storage for five years after rejecting the sale.
- Detroit Bulk Storage needed a Marine City business license; the city manager certified the use as allowed and the city commission granted a conditional license.
- SCA appealed the certification to the ZBA in 2008, ZBA denied; circuit court remanded for a new vote after identifying a recusal issue.
- A June 3, 2009 ZBA vote (only four members present) reversed the certification 2–1; subsequent appeals and a re rezoning, culminating in Heavy Industrial zoning for the parcel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether majority voting rule requires a majority of all members | SCA: majority means present members tally suffices | Levy: majority means three of five votes are required | Majority of five required; three votes needed to reverse |
| Whether ZBA’s denial/approval was supported by substantial evidence | SCA: use expansion evidence exists via lease terms | Levy: no competent evidence of expanded use or hours | ZBA decision supported by substantial evidence; no expansion shown |
| Whether the nonconforming use could be expanded by lease-driven activity | SCA: the lease and new operator expanded the nonconforming use | Levy: continuation must be substantially the same as before; no clear expansion | No proven expansion; nonconforming use not increased beyond prior scope |
Key Cases Cited
- Detroit v Ambassador Bridge Co, 481 Mich 29 (2008) (statutory and regulatory considerations guiding zoning/administrative decisions)
- Norman Corp v East Tawas, 263 Mich App 194 (2004) (basic nonconforming-use principles and evidentiary standards)
- In re Payne, 444 Mich 679 (1994) (administrative determinations and evidentiary review standards)
- Belvidere Twp v Heinze, 241 Mich App 324 (2000) (principles governing zoning interpretation and review)
- City of Troy v Papadelis (On Remand), 226 Mich App 90 (1997) (procedural and substantive zoning review considerations)
- Long Island Court Homeowners Ass’n v Methner, 74 Mich App 383 (1977) (limitations on expanded nonconforming uses)