MI Appeals Court Upholds Challenge to Conditional Rezoning Agreement for Nonconforming Drag Race Facility and Found No Spot Zoning

This post was authored by Isabella Weinstock, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Touro Law Center

A2B Properties LLC (“A2B”) challenged the Mayfield Township (the “Township”) Board of Trustees (the “Board”) decision to rezone certain property from R-1, single-family residential, to C-2, local commercial district to permit the expansion of a nonconforming drag racing facility.

Drag way operator, A2B purchased the property in 2018, and thereafter attempted to expand the use by extending the hours of operation. Since drag racing is not a permitted use under the zoning ordinance, and is only permitted to the extent the dragway is maintained as a lawful nonconforming use, the Township considered this to be an unlawful enlargement of the nonconforming use and sought to enjoin A2B from operating the dragway except for during certain limited hours on Wednesday, Sundays, and certain holidays.

Thereafter, on April 20, 2021, A2B petitioned the Township Board to rezone the property from R-1 residential to C-2 commercial. On May 12, 2021, A2B submitted a conditional rezoning agreement to the Township Board that permitted the use to continue with daily use of the dragway for track rental and vehicle testing, and organized racing on Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays subject to conditions that A2B claimed would mitigate negative impacts from the use. The Township Board planning expert recommended that the Township deny the rezoning request reasoning that the Township could lose control over subsequent uses of the property, and it was unclear how permitting daily use of the dragway, and allowing organized racing three days a week would constitute restrictions meant to limit the dragway’s negative impacts. The Township Planning Commission held a meeting to consider comments by citizens to the proposal and voted to approve the conditional rezoning agreement.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Township’s rezoning of A2B’s property from residential to commercial use to expand its nonconforming use as a dragway was invalid. The trial court granted plaintiffs’ request finding that the rezoning did not serve a legitimate governmental purpose. Nor did it advance a reasonable governmental interest. A2B appealed. The appellate court opined that the parties complied with the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act in forming the rezoning agreement because the conditions proposed were voluntarily offered by A2B, in writing, and the Township did not require A2B to offer conditions as a requirement for the rezoning. Further the appellate court reasoned that the rezoning did not constitute impermissible “spot zoning” because the nonconforming activity, drag racing, has existed at the property for decades. Nonetheless, the appellate court determined that in order to amend a zoning ordinance, the Township must show that there is a “reasonable government interest being advanced”. Since the Township failed to show there was any governmental interest or purpose being advanced as a result of the rezoning, the appellate court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Jostock v. Mayfield Twp., 2023 WL 3261566 (Mich. Ct. App. May 4, 2023)