Teridee LLC v. Charter Township of Haring
153008
| Mich. | Jul 3, 2017Background
- ~241-acre undeveloped parcel in Clam Lake Twp; ~141 acres owned by TeriDee LLC and trusts seeking commercial development requiring water/sewer.
- TeriDee previously sought an Act 425 transfer to Cadillac (rejected by referendum) and filed an annexation petition to have Cadillac annex the land.
- Clam Lake and Haring Charter Townships entered a 2013 Act 425 agreement transferring the parcel to Haring; the contract was filed with the county clerk and Secretary of State.
- The State Boundary Commission (SBC) found the Act 425 agreement invalid (concluding it was a sham to block annexation) and validated TeriDee’s annexation petition; the circuit court affirmed the SBC.
- Separately, the circuit court and Court of Appeals held the Act 425 agreement void because it purportedly delegated Haring’s zoning authority (contract zoning). The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave and consolidated the appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the SBC may determine the validity of an Act 425 agreement when reviewing an annexation petition | TeriDee: SBC may review and invalidate sham Act 425 agreements that attempt to preempt annexation | Townships: SBC may only determine if an Act 425 agreement is "in effect" (i.e., entered and filed); broader validity questions belong elsewhere | Court: SBC may only determine whether an agreement is "in effect" under MCL 124.30; it may not adjudicate general validity — Casco overruled; agreement here was in effect and preempted annexation |
| Whether an Act 425 agreement can require a participating local unit to adopt specific zoning ordinances (contract zoning) | TeriDee: Agreement impermissibly contracts away Haring’s legislative zoning power; thus void as against public policy | Townships: Act 425 (MCL 124.26(c)) authorizes agreements to provide for adoption and enforcement of ordinances, including zoning | Court: MCL 124.26(c) authorizes the parties to bargain over ordinances, including zoning; the agreement’s zoning provisions are permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Casco Twp v. State Boundary Comm, 243 Mich App 392 (2000) (Court of Appeals previously held SBC could examine Act 425 agreement validity; overruled)
- Midland Twp v. State Boundary Comm, 401 Mich 641 (1977) (describing SBC powers and deference to statutory limits)
- Shelby Charter Twp v. State Boundary Comm, 425 Mich 50 (1986) (interpreting statutory criteria for preemption of annexation related to services)
- Inverness Mobile Home Community v. Bedford Twp, 263 Mich App 241 (2004) (addressing limits on contract zoning; Court distinguishes as Act 425 authorizes agreements)