Denial of a request to maintain existing LED exterior lighting on a property; The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act; MCL 125.3606(1); Edw C Levy Co. v. Marine City Zoning Bd. of Appeals; Nonconforming use; MCL 125.3208(1); Century Cellunet of S. MI Cellular, Ltd. P’ship v. Summit Twp.; Kopietz v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals for City of Vill. of Clarkston; Deference to the findings of the trial court & the zoning board; Norman Corp v. City of E. Tawas; The court’s jurisdiction over the appeal; Whether MCR 7.203(A)(1)(a) applied; Whether an administrative agency’s determination is adjudicatory in nature; Natural Res. Def. Council v. Department of Envtl. Quality; Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)

After holding that it had jurisdiction, the court concluded that the circuit court did not err in ruling that competent, material, and substantial evidence supported the appellee-ZBA’s decision to deny appellant’s request for a variance. While the ZBA contested the court’s jurisdiction to hear the case, the circuit court’s order was a final order under MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i), and thus, it was appealable as of right under MCR 7.203(A)(1). Appellant argued that “the circuit court erred in affirming the ZBA’s denial of appellant’s variance to maintain the existing LED exterior lighting on the outside of” the hotel. Specifically, it asserted that the ZBA’s denial “was in contravention of appellant’s right to maintain the existing LED lighting on the hotel because appellant has a vested property right in the lighting because it is a nonconforming use.” It argued that the originally installed neon tube light was lawfully installed approximately 15 years before “the enactment of the amended ordinance, and the existing LED lighting” was a continuation of this vested nonconforming use. It also contended that “the modification of the lighting from the original neon tube lighting to the existing LED lighting did not expand, enlarge, or change the nature of the lighting,” and as a result, it was entitled to maintain the existing lighting. The ZBA argued that “appellant lost any right that it had to maintain the neon tube lighting after the effective date of Section 5.22-4 of the amended ordinance when appellant removed the neon tube lighting from the hotel and commenced work on the unlawful installation of the existing LED lighting.” The circuit court agreed with the ZBA. The court concluded that the circuit court did not err in affirming the ZBA’s denial of the variance. It was unclear exactly when appellant began work on the LED light installation. There was a moratorium period before the effective date of Section 5.22-4. However, the court concluded that “whether appellant installed the LED lighting during the moratorium period or after the effective date of Section 5.22-4, the ZBA did not err in denying appellant’s request” for a variance. The time period in which the work on the LED lighting began was not dispositive. Affirmed.