Anspaugh v. IMLAY TOWNSHIP

741 N.W.2d 518, 480 Mich. 964
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 7, 2007
Docket133351
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 741 N.W.2d 518 (Anspaugh v. IMLAY TOWNSHIP) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anspaugh v. IMLAY TOWNSHIP, 741 N.W.2d 518, 480 Mich. 964 (Mich. 2007).

Opinion

741 N.W.2d 518 (2007)

Earl ANSPAUGH and Trinity of Michigan, L.L.C., Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
IMLAY TOWNSHIP, Imlay Township Board, and Imlay Township Planning Commission, Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 133351. COA No. 262492.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

December 7, 2007.

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 5, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Lapeer Circuit Court for further hearing, if necessary, and further findings of fact. The Court of Appeals engaged in appellate fact finding when it concluded that "we too find that the I-2 zoning provided for by defendants is exclusionary," because "there is no direct route of travel" to the property zoned for I-2 use, and consequently "the I-2 land use siting provided by the township is not appropriate to foster the commercial uses to which land designated for I-2 uses must be put." 273 Mich.App. at 129-130, 729 N.W.2d 251. On remand, the Lapeer Circuit Court shall determine whether, as the Court of Appeals held, "the township's zoning ordinance effectively excludes lawful and otherwise appropriate I-2 uses for which there is a demonstrated need," owing to the unsuitability for I-2 uses of the available routes of access to the I-2 zoned property within the township. In making this determination, the Lapeer Circuit Court shall consider whether there are available indirect routes that provide reasonably *519 suitable access to the I-2 zoned property.

We do not retain jurisdiction.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Thompson
887 N.W.2d 650 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2016)
People of Michigan v. Jackie Lamont Thompson
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2015
In Re Adoption of Borghese
741 N.W.2d 518 (Michigan Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
741 N.W.2d 518, 480 Mich. 964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anspaugh-v-imlay-township-mich-2007.