Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


JOSEPH SMOLARZ, Plaintiff/CounterdefendantAppellant, v COLON TOWNSHIP, Defendant/CounterplaintiffAppellee, and LARRY MOYER, Defendant/Counterplaintiff, and JERRY ALBRIGHT, LINDA ALBRIGHT, RAMON CRESPO, DOLLENE CRESPO, MITCHELL ADDIS, CONNIE ADDIS, ROBERT ROBBINS, JUDITH ROBBINS, CHARLES BENTON, JUDY BENTON, RICHARD NOIROT, CLARA NOIROT, LESTER TEFFT, WILLIAM SAMPSON, and DORIS SAMPSON, Intervening CounterplaintiffsAppellees.

UNPUBLISHED April 21, 2005

No. 251155 St. Joseph Circuit Court LC No. 01-001160-CZ

JOSEPH SMOLARZ, Plaintiff/CounterdefendantAppellee, v LARRY MOYER and COLON TOWNSHIP, No. 255286 St. Joseph Circuit Court LC No. 01-001160-CZ

-1-


Defendants/Counterplaintiffs, and JERRY ALBRIGHT, LINDA ALBRIGHT, RAMON CRESPO, DOLLENE CRESPO, MITCHELL ADDIS, CONNIE ADDIS, ROBERT ROBBINS, JUDITH ROBBINS, CHARLES BENTON, JUDY BENTON, RICHARD NOIROT, CLARA NOIROT, LESTER TEFFT, WILLIAM SAMPSON, and DORIS SAMPSON, Intervening CounterplaintiffsAppellants.

Before: Judges Neff, P.J., and White and Talbot, JJ. PER CURIAM. This action involves plaintiff's right to engage in various shooting activities on his land, to which his neighbors object, and the township's right to regulate that use. In these consolidated appeals, plaintiff appeals by leave granted in Docket No. 251155 from the trial court's September 8, 2003, order granting defendant Colon Township's motion for summary disposition and permanently enjoining plaintiff from using his property as a hunt club, gun club, or firing range until plaintiff applies for and defendant issues a special use permit allowing these activities. In Docket No. 255286, intervening counterplaintiffs, neighbors of plaintiff, appeal as of right from the trial court's April 12, 2004, order granting plaintiff's motion for summary disposition and dismissing intervening counterplaintiffs' action for nuisance. We affirm the trial court's grant of summary disposition in both Docket No. 251155 and Docket No. 255286. I. Standard of Review Both appeals stem from the trial court's decision on motions for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint and is reviewed de novo. Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich 274, 278; 681 NW2d 342 (2004). The court must consider the entire record, including any documentary evidence submitted by the parties, in a light most favorable to the non-moving party to determine whether there is a genuine issue of material fact and whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. II. Docket No. 251155 A. The Township Rural Zoning Act Plaintiff argues that defendant Colon Township ("defendant") lacked the general authority under the Township Rural Zoning Act ("TRZA"), MCL 125.271 et seq., to enact the -2-


2000 amendment to its zoning ordinance. We disagree. Issues of statutory construction, including zoning ordinances, are also reviewed de novo. Soupal v Shady View, Inc, 469 Mich 458, 462; 672 NW2d 171 (2003). Townships only have those powers provided by statute or our state's constitution. Const 1963, art VII,

Download JOSEPH SMOLARZ V COLON TOWNSHIP.pdf

Michigan Law