Zoning; Chickens & coop on residential property; Accessory use & structures; Distinguishing Pittsfield Twp v Malcolm; Claims of future harm; Distinguishing Henry v Dow Chem Co; Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)

On remand from the Supreme Court, the court concluded “the circuit court did not err by affirming the ZBA’s decision to deny plaintiffs’ request to keep chickens and a coop on their residential property because the accessory use and accessory structures did not comply with” the applicable zoning ordinance. The record reflected that the ZBA’s decision was “supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.” The ZBA relied on the information provided by a neighbor, nonparty-G, “to conclude that ‘the use of the accessory structure is inappropriate for the neighborhood and the location will hinder and discourage the adjacent neighbor to live in harmony on their property due to issues associated with the proposed use.’ As such, the accessory structure failed to comply with” Zoning Ordinance § 42-7.6.6. Plaintiffs focused only on the issues of G’s “allergies and the visibility of the chicken coop, but [G] listed several other ways in which the chicken coup would hinder her use of her property and ability to live in harmony, including the odor, noise, risk of predators, risk of disease, and decreased property values.” While another witness disagreed with G “and expressed support for plaintiffs having the chicken coop, the information provided by [G] supported the ZBA’s factual findings which must be affirmed, even if alternative findings could have been supported by the record.” Lastly, although plaintiffs did “not challenge the sufficiency of the ZBA’s findings, the ZBA did not ‘merely repeat the conclusionary language of the zoning ordinance without specifying the factual findings underlying the determination that the requirements of the ordinance were satisfied in the case at hand.’” The court held that even “though the ZBA did not address each requirement listed in the ordinance, not all were applicable.” It concluded that the “circuit court appropriately reviewed the record and applied correct legal principles. The circuit court did not misapprehend or grossly misapply the substantial-evidence test to the ZBA’s factual findings.” Affirmed.