Northern Mi Environmental Action Council v. City of Traverse City
332590
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 24, 2017Background
- Pine Street Development sought a special land use permit (SLUP) to build two 96-foot (taller) mixed-use buildings in downtown Traverse City; a SLUP was required because the proposed height exceeded the 60-foot limit.
- Traverse City Planning Commission approved the SLUP after adopting a staff report that concluded existing infrastructure and services would adequately serve the development and that tax revenues (including via TIF and Brownfield programs) would offset public costs.
- Appellees (NMEAC and Townsend) sued in circuit court challenging the SLUP; Pine Street intervened.
- The circuit court vacated the SLUP and remanded to the City Commission, finding the record lacked factual support for two zoning-ordinance standards: 1364.02(c) (adequacy of public infrastructure and services) and 1364.02(d) (not creating excessive public costs).
- The circuit court criticized reliance on conclusory staff statements and on TIF/Brownfield financing without analysis showing how tax revenues would offset public expenses.
- On appeal, this Court affirmed the remand, holding city findings lacked competent, material, and substantial evidence on several points and directing further proceedings before the commission.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (Townsend and NMEAC) | Townsend: personal loss of airflow/sunlight/view; NMEAC: members will be uniquely affected (environment, taxes) | Pine Street: plaintiffs lack the special injury required to challenge zoning | Townsend has standing (special injury to adjacent resident); NMEAC standing unresolved at this stage—pleading sufficient but factual resolution left to circuit court |
| Adequacy of public infrastructure (Ordinance 1364.02(c)) | City relied on conclusory staff statements; no substantive traffic, police, school, or fire analyses to support adequacy | City relied on staff report, departmental statements, and conservative trip estimates | City commission’s findings not supported by competent, material, substantial evidence; record lacks meaningful data for police, traffic, schools, and some fire concerns |
| Excessive public costs (Ordinance 1364.02(d)) | Staff/commission asserted tax revenue would offset costs but provided no analysis; use of TIF/Brownfield undermines that claim; parking/possible public garage not analyzed | City: development will increase tax revenue and use TIF/Brownfield and developer contributions for improvements | Findings unsupported: no data showing tax revenues would offset public costs; TIF/Brownfield diversion not reconciled; parking/public garage impacts unaddressed — remand required |
| Scope of review (whether only incremental height must be considered) | Plaintiffs: ordinance standards apply to the entire proposed use (whole development) | Pine Street: only the incremental special use (extra 36 feet) should be evaluated against by-right development | Court: the “use” under 1364.02 encompasses the special land use as applied here (the full proposed taller-building development), so reviewing whole project is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Lansing Sch. Ed. Ass’n v. Lansing Bd. of Ed., 487 Mich 349 (Mich. 2010) (standing principles and analysis for declaratory-judgment plaintiffs)
- Unger v. Forest Home Twp., 65 Mich App 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975) (aggrieved party/special-damage requirement to challenge zoning)
- Whitman v. Galien Twp., 288 Mich App 672 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010) (standards for appellate review of zoning exceptions)
- Hughes v. Almena Twp., 284 Mich App 50 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (environmental-group standing via members’ aesthetic/recreational injuries)
- Lamkin v. Hamburg Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 318 Mich App 546 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017) (standing as a fact-bound, proof-oriented inquiry)