Where a special land-use application to add a tasting room to a winery was granted, the circuit court did not err in striking the hours-of-operation and sound conditions imposed.
“In this special land-use zoning action, defendant, Oronoko Charter Township, appeals as of right the circuit court order regarding plaintiffs’, Lakeview Vineyards, LLC, and Daniel Nitz (together, Lakeview), special land-use application to add a tasting room to Chill Hill Winery. The circuit court’s order affirmed the Township’s grant of the special land-use application and struck the hours-of-operation and sound conditions imposed. We affirm.
“This case arises out of Lakeview’s special land-use request to open a tasting room at Chill Hill Winery. Throughout the administrative process regarding this request, Jeffery Lemon a planning commission board member and owner of a winery that is a direct competitor to Lakeview was involved in meetings and discussions pertaining to the special conditions ultimately imposed. Lemon recused himself before the final meeting and vote; however, after recusal, Lemon submitted a list of similarly situated tasting rooms and their hours of operations indicating that Lakeview’s proposed hours of operations were not in line with the Lake Michigan Shore Wine Trail wineries.
“The circuit court found that the planning commission did not incorporate a statement of findings and conclusions specifying the basis for the conditions imposed, or follow proper procedure. The circuit court affirmed the Township’s grant of the special land-use application and struck the hours-of-operation and sound conditions involved.
“Because the planning commission failed to make proper findings and conclusions supporting the conditions imposed, there were no findings for the circuit court to appropriately consider. Based on this arbitrary action by the planning commission, without any analysis as to its reasoning, the circuit court’s removal of the conditions was appropriate. Moreover, we cannot conclude that the circuit court clearly erred in its findings that the conditions were not justified based on the record as a whole.
“The Township next argues that the planning commission followed proper procedure. Lakeview argued that it was deprived of an impartial decision-maker because despite having a clear conflict of interest, Lemon participated in multiple meetings and discussions regarding Lakeview’s special land-use application. In response, the Township argued that the planning commission complied with the law when Lemon recused himself and abstained from voting.
“When viewing the evidence as a whole, we cannot conclude that Lemon followed proper procedures. He was the owner of a neighboring winery in direct competition with Chill Hill. Lemon was heavily involved in Lakeview’s application process before his recusal. And after his recusal, he still sent the list of similar businesses and their corresponding hours and other correspondence. Although Lemon did not take part in the final vote, his involvement before and after his recusal likely materially prejudiced the planning commission’s procedures against Lakeview.
“Although there is no evidence indicating that the board members were biased or unfairly allowed Lemon Creek Winery any business advantages, we cannot conclude that the circuit court erred when it determined that the planning commission heard and relied on information and opinions provided by Lemon, and ‘cannot now ‘unring the bell.’ ‘Because the planning commission failed to follow proper procedure based on Lemon’s improper involvement, the circuit court’s decision to strike the hours of-operation and sound conditions was appropriate.
“Lastly, the Township argues that if we conclude that the record was inadequate or that the planning commission failed to comply with the law, then the appropriate remedy is to remand to the planning commission. The circuit court found that the planning commission did not incorporate a statement of findings and conclusions specifying the basis for the conditions imposed, or follow proper procedure. Instead of remanding this case to the planning commission, the circuit court affirmed the Township’s grant of the special land-use application and struck the hours-of-operation and sound conditions involved.
“Because the planning commission failed to provide findings and conclusions in violation of MCL 125.3502, and its decision followed unlawful procedure resulting in material prejudice from Lemon’s improper involvement, the circuit court properly removed the conditions, and a remand to the planning commission is not necessary.”
Lakeview Vineyards LLC v. Oronoko Charter Twp.; MiLW 08-108108, 7 pages; Michigan Court of Appeals unpublished per curiam; Rick, J., Jansen, J., Letica, J.; on appeal from Berrien Circuit Court; Craig R. Noland for appellant; Scott A. Dienes for appellee.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0