Plaintiff used her single-family
dwelling in Spring Lake Township, in a district zoned R-1 Low Density
Residential, as a short-term rental property.
The township board subsequently adopted Ordinance 255, which sets forth
a registration and licensing procedure for short-term rentals, provides certain
limitations for short-term rental activity, and prohibits short-term rentals in
districts zoned R-1. The township board
also adopted Ordinance 257, which amended the township’s existing zoning
ordinance and imported into the zoning ordinance several of the terms defined
in Ordinance 255, such as “Limited Short-Term Rental” and “Short-Term
Rental.” The township board denied
plaintiff’s request for a short-term rental license and denied her appeal, concluding
that her use of the home as a short-term rental property was prohibited by
Ordinance 255 and that her past use of the property as a short-term rental was
not a “grandfathered use” because it was never a lawful use in the R-1 zoning
district. The Ottawa Circuit Court
affirmed the denial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court in a
published opinion. The Supreme Court has
ordered oral argument on the application to address (1) whether the Court of
Appeals improperly relied on the character of the relationship that defines the
term “family” in the zoning ordinance in order to conclude that the permitted
use of a “Dwelling, Single Family” in the R-1 district does not include
short-term rentals; and (2) whether, aside from the definition of “family,” the
appellant met her burden of proof to establish that her actual use of 18190
Lovell Road as a short-term rental complied with the permitted use of the
property as a “Dwelling, Single Family” before the township adopted Ordinance
255 and Ordinance 257.