154556-7 - Coloma Charter Twp v Berrien County
Attorney Information
154556
Coloma Charter Township,
|
|
Michael D. Homier
|
|
Plaintiff/Counterdefendant-Appellee,
|
|
v
|
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Berrien – Dewane, J.)
|
|
Berrien County and Berrien
County Sheriff’s Department,
|
|
Thomas G. King
|
|
Defendants/Counterplaintiffs-Appellants,
|
|
and
|
|
|
Landfill Management Company,
Inc., and Hennessy Land Company,
|
|
Christopher W. Tracy
|
_____________________________
|
Defendants-Appellants.
|
|
154557
Joe Herman, Sue Harman, Jay
Jollay, Sarah Jollay, Jerry Jollay, Neil Dreitner, Tony Peterson, Liz
Peterson, Randy Bjorge, Annette Bjorge, and Tina Buck,
|
|
James R. Poll
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
|
|
v
|
|
|
Berrien County,
|
|
Thomas G. King
|
|
Defendant-Appellee.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Order Link
Order Link 2
Order Link 3
Opinions Link
Opinions Link 2
Opinions Link 3
Summary
Page Content
In 2005, Berrien County leased property in
Coloma Charter Township to build a training facility and four outdoor shooting ranges,
where Berrien County Sheriff’s Department officers would receive firearms training.
A number of residents sued the county, alleging that the county was not
authorized to build the outdoor shooting ranges without first complying with
the Township Zoning Act (TZA), MCL 125.271 et
seq. [now repealed]. The county argued
that the County Commissioners Act (CCA), MCL 46.1 et seq., had priority over any conflicting provisions of the TZA. See
MCL 46.11(b), (d). The lawsuit resulted in a Supreme Court decision holding
that the county had authority under the CCA only to “site” and “erect” buildings
and for any ancillary land use that is
indispensable to the building’s normal use. Herman v Berrien Co,
481 Mich 352 (2008). The Court
concluded that the outdoor shooting ranges were not indispensable to the normal
use of the classroom training facility and, therefore, the township’s ordinances
controlled. The case returned to the circuit court, which entered a
permanent injunction in late 2008, enjoining the county from using the shooting
ranges. Thereafter, the county began conducting law enforcement firearms
training at a private gun club in the township. To accommodate the additional
use, the gun club sought to construct six additional outdoor shooting ranges. In
2010, the township filed this action to enjoin the gun club’s expansion of a nonconforming
use. The circuit court granted summary disposition to the township and ordered
the nuisance abated. In 2013, the county board of commissioners passed a
resolution to construct a shooting range building near the training facility,
which it claimed would be consistent with the “indispensable use” standard of Herman. The residents who had brought the
earlier lawsuit moved to enforce the 2008 injunction and asked the circuit
court to hold the county in civil and criminal contempt for violating the
order. In addition, the township filed a new action, seeking to enjoin the county
and the sheriff’s department from discharging firearms at the site. The circuit
court granted summary disposition to the county and sheriff’s department, allowed
the use of the building for firearms training, modified the permanent
injunction to allow such use, and dismissed the township’s civil contempt claim.
The township and the residents filed separate appeals, which were consolidated.
In a split published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the
circuit court’s orders were inconsistent with MCL 46.11(b) and (d), and with
the Herman decision. The
Court of Appeals remanded for entry of summary disposition in favor of the
township and the residents, reversed the circuit court’s modification of the
injunction, and vacated and remanded on the issue of an award of attorney fees
pursuant to MCL 600.1721. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the criminal contempt claim. The Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal
to address: (1) whether the gun range currently used by the Berrien County
Sheriff’s Department has priority under the CCA, MCL 46.11(b) and (d), over a
conflicting township zoning ordinance, see Herman
v Berrien County, 481 Mich 352 (2008); if so, (2) whether the Court of
Appeals erred by reversing the circuit court’s revision of the existing
permanent injunction based on changed circumstances; and (3) whether the Court
of Appeals properly vacated the circuit court’s decision to deny the request
for attorney fees pursuant to MCL 600.1721.