Special land use application; The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act; MCL 125.3502(4); Judicial review; Const 1963, art 6, § 28; Whether the Planning Commission’s decision was supported by competent, material, & substantial evidence; Lakeview Vineyards, LLC v Oronoko Charter Twp (Unpub); Whether the trial court properly directed it to consider additional evidence on remand; Applicability of MCL 125.3606(2); Effect of failing to present the evidence to the Planning Commission before asking the circuit court to consider it; Zoning board of appeals (ZBA)

The court held that defendant-Township’s Planning Commission (PC) did not adequately articulate its basis for denying plaintiff-Beck’s “special land use application as required by MCL 125.3502(4).” But the circuit court erred in directing the PC “to consider additional evidence on remand because Beck failed to present the evidence before the [PC] before asking the circuit court to consider it.” The court noted that “MCL 125.3502(4) states that a [PC’s] decision on a special land use application shall be incorporated in a statement of findings or conclusions. During the [PC] meetings, the commissioners individually expressed concerns regarding the Premier Academy development’s incompatibility with adjacent land uses, incompatibility with the Township’s master plan, and adverse impact on nearby traffic. Yet, none of the individual commissioners made findings. And the [PC] never incorporated its members’ individual concerns in a statement of findings or conclusions specifying the basis for its denial of” the application. As a result, the court concluded here, as it did in Lakeview Vineyards, that the PC “failed to comply with MCL 125.3502(4). Therefore, the circuit court did not misapply legal principles or otherwise misapply the substantial-evidence test by vacating the [PC’s] denial of Beck’s special land use application and remanding for further proceedings before the” PC. However, the “circuit court misapplied legal principles by directing the” PC to consider a report on remand. The court found that “the statute under which the circuit court required the [PC] to consider [the] report, MCL 125.3606(2), does not apply to an appeal of a [PC’s] special land use decision. It only applies to an appeal involving a” ZBA’s decision. Further, as Beck did not present the report as evidence before the PC, the circuit court “should not have considered the report in determining whether the [PC’s] decision was authorized by law and whether its findings were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record.” The court affirmed the circuit court’s decision to remand the matter to the PC. It reversed “the circuit court’s decision to the extent it required the” PC to consider the report. “On remand, the [PC] shall make findings and conclusions regarding the special land use application as provided by MCL 125.3502(4). As part of that process, it may, but is not required to, hold additional hearings or consider additional evidence.”