|
No. 136680
| Edith Kyser, |
|
Christopher M. Bzdok |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Leelanau - Power, T.) |
|
|
| Kasson Township, |
|
Gerald A. Fisher |
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
American Planning Association and Michigan Association of Planning's Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Aggregates Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Municipal League's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Municipal League's (Corrected) Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Paving & Materials Co. and Edw. C. Levy Co.'s Amici Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Townships Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Edith Kyser owns a 115.6-acre parcel at the edge of the Kasson Township gravel district. Her property contains a large deposit of glacially-deposited outwash gravel, which is the most commercially valuable type of deposit. Her property adjoins an active gravel mine, and is located on a state trunk line highway, M-72, which already handles traffic from the township’s numerous gravel mining operations. Kyser sought to have the property rezoned to allow a gravel mining operation, but the township denied her application. Kyser sued the township, claiming that its refusal to allow gravel mining on her property violated her substantive due process rights, because gravel mining would cause “no very serious consequences” under the rule adopted in Silva v Ada Township, 416 Mich 153 (1982). In Silva, the Michigan Supreme Court held that “zoning regulations which prevent the extraction of natural resources are invalid unless ‘very serious consequences will result from the proposed extraction.’ ” Based on the Silva rule, Kyser argued that the trial court should grant summary disposition in her favor. The township agreed that the “no very serious consequences” rule applied, but argued that summary disposition was inappropriate because there was a factual dispute as to whether the mining operation would undermine the integrity of the township’s gravel district zoning. The trial court denied Kyser’s motion for summary disposition, but later ruled in her favor when the case came to trial. The court ordered that the township could not enforce its zoning ordinance to prohibit gravel mining on Kyser’s property. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a split published opinion. The dissenting judge disagreed with the majority’s decision to affirm the trial court’s order permitting gravel mining. The township appealed to the Supreme Court. Among other things, the township argues that Silva’s “no very serious consequences rule” was superseded by the Legislature’s enactment of MCL 125.297a, which states that a zoning ordinance or decision “shall not have the effect of totally prohibiting the establishment of a land use within a township in the presence of a demonstrated need for that land use within either the township or the surrounding area within the state, unless there is no location within the township where the use may be appropriately located or the use is unlawful.” The Supreme Court first entered an order denying leave to appeal, but then vacated that order on its own motion and granted leave to appeal.
Top of Page
|
