Rezoning; PC or “planned community” zoning; Ordinance, § 7.301(B); Spot zoning; Whether a genuine issue of material fact existed on the basis of the affidavits

Concluding that ultimately, defendant-Superior Township Board of Trustees’s (the Board) “legislative decision to rezone the property was not arbitrary or unreasonable[,”] the court held that the trial court did not err by granting summary disposition to defendants. Plaintiffs (who own land near the property in question) contended that the Board’s decision to rezone the Dixboro property violated defendant-Superior Charter Township’s zoning ordinance. Plaintiffs first argued that “the rezoning did not meet the proper criteria required for PC zoning, per the Zoning ordinance’s language.” The court held that the “findings of fact, which the Board relied on when making its legislative determination to rezone the Dixboro property, were adequately supported by the record, which contains extensive documentation submitted by [intervening defendant-Garrett’s Space (GS)] regarding its plans for the site.” The court saw “no cause to disturb the [Planning) Commission’s findings in this matter.” Also, it found that it bore “repeating that the Commission found, and the Board agreed, that rezoning the property would be rationally related to the goals set forth in the Township’s Master Plan.” Plaintiffs had failed to present a genuine issue of material fact in relation to the Township’s adherence to the “zoning ordinance that would lead us to conclude that the trial court’s ruling should be reversed.” They next contended “that the Dixboro property failed to meet the criteria applicable to PC zoning districts set forth in Superior Charter Township Zoning Ordinance, § 7.301(B).” Their complaints as to “§ 7.301(B) are unsupported by the record, and again only show that ‘legitimate difference[s]’ of opinion exist as to whether the Dixboro property should have been rezoned.” But plaintiffs had “again failed to show that the Board’s decision to rezone the property from A2 to PC zoning was invalid by presenting evidence that the zoning amendment was arbitrary or unreasonable.” Ultimately, they “have neither presented a compelling argument as to why this Court should not defer to the findings of the Commission, the Board, and the trial court,” nor did they show “a genuine issue of material fact warranting reversal[.]” Affirmed.