Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


GORDON BARLOW, CHARLES ADAMS, KAREN NICHOLSON, ROBERT NICHOLSON, CAROL SCHNIERR, PAUL FRIDDLE, KIMBERLY SUTTON, and STEWART GROSS, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v CITY OF HASTINGS, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED August 1, 2006

No. 267089 Barry Circuit Court LC No. 05-000127-PZ

Before: Talbot, P.J., and Owens and Murray, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs appeal as of right the trial court's November 23, 2005, final order granting summary disposition to defendant on all but one of plaintiffs' claims.1 We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Plaintiffs first argue that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to defendant on plaintiffs' claim that defendant's adoption of Hastings Zoning Ordinance (HZO) Article VII-A, creating the Court Street Planned Unit Development District (PUD), was invalid under defendant's own ordinances and state statutes. We disagree. We review a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Dressel v Ameribank, 468 Mich 557, 561; 664 NW2d 151 (2003); Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998); Rice v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 252 Mich App 25, 30; 651

1

Plaintiffs prevailed in the trial court on their claim that defendant failed to properly resolve their individual requests for rezoning and the trial court ordered defendant to process those requests in conformity with applicable ordinances. Defendant is not challenging that decision. Thus, although plaintiffs continue to assert on appeal that defendant's actions in processing their rezoning requests were deficient, plaintiffs received the relief they sought on this issue below and there is no need for this Court to address that issue further.

-1-


NW2d 188 (2002). We also review a trial court's interpretation of a zoning ordinance de novo. Yankee Springs Twp v Fox, 264 Mich App 604, 605-606; 692 NW2d 728 (2004). Initially, we note that it is undisputed that: several of the plaintiffs applied for rezoning of their property; defendant's planning commission suspended action on those requests; defendant has the authority, pursuant to HZO

Download GORDON BARLOW V CITY OF HASTINGS.pdf

Michigan Law