Can a township that does not own or operate a sanitary sewer system and is not itself discharging sewage nevertheless be compelled by the MDEQ (now DNRE) to address faulty private septic systems within its boundaries? Not according to the Court of Appeals' decision in Department of Environmental Quality v Worth Township. "Where...the municipality could not be the source of the sewage discharge because it did not operate a sanitary sewer system, it has overcome the presumption [that it violated state law] and is not subject to the statutory remedies for a discharge."  The Court rejected the MDEQ's argument that MCL 324.3109(2) could be used to force a township to construct and operate a municipal sewer system in this factual context. It also noted that there is no statutory authority granting the Department the power to determine an appropriate remedy.

The Court concluded that the statute in question "does not impose blanket responsibility upon a municipality for any sewage discharge that occurs within its jurisdiction without regard to cause and a corresponding obligation to remedy such discharges." In doing so it reversed an Ingham County Circuit Court order and remanded the case for entry of an order of summary disposition in favor of Worth Township.

Attorney Michael Woodworth of The Hubbard Law Firm represented the Township both in the trial court and on appeal.

The City of Lansing is currently debating an ordinance that would regulate medical marihuana as a home occupation.  The ordinance would follow in the footsteps of the City of Grand Rapids and require a distance of at least 1,000 feet between a caregiver cultivating medical marihuana and schools, churches and playgrounds.  "The goal is to regulate this occupation just like we would regulate others, whether the home occupation is growing tomato plants or medicinal marihuana," stated city attorney Brig Smith.

In March, the City of Bellville was approached with an inquiry regarding a medical marihuana business.  In response, the City placed a moratorium on applications for such businesses and subsequently extended the moratorium for an additional 120 days.  Now the City is debating how to regulate such businesses.

Certain members of the City Council spoke out against banning medical marihuana based on federal law due to the high risk of litigation.  As we have previously noted, this risk has recently moved from the hypothetical to the impending. The Council also considered regulating businesses through licensing, but was concerned about charging medical marihuana businesses higher fees than other adult-orientated businesses.

The Corunna City Council approved a six-month moratorium on permits and licenses for medical marihuana related business.  It's important to note that this action does not forbid individual patients from using marihuana pursuant to state law.

On the other hand, a motion to adopt a similar moratorium failed in the City of Owosso.  Instead, the city created a subcommittee "to investigate the relationship between the city's zoning and the Medical Marihuana Act."

In Whitman v Galien Township, published June 10, 2010, the Michigan Court of Appeals considered the specificity required of a special use ordinance.  Here, the plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal the circuit court's order affirming the zoning board of appeals' grant of a special use permit for the operation of a snowmobile, dirt bike and ATV racetrack in the township's agricultural district.

On appeal, the plaintiffs argued the board's decision was unlawful because the underlying ordinance did not comply with the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA).  The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the circuit court's decision.

Pursuant to the MZEA, a zoning ordinance that allows special uses "shall specify the special land uses and activities eligible for approval...."  MCL 125.3504(1).  The court interpreted this language to "mandate that a zoning ordinance must set forth in explicit, precise, definite and detailed language both customary uses and the specific actions and functions that are eligible for special use permits."

Under the township's zoning code, the uses eligible for special use status in an agricultural district were "establishments for the conducting of commercial or industrial activities." The court held these broad, sweeping and undefined terms failed to provide the required specificity.  Because the zoning ordinance failed to comply with the MZEA, the board's decision to grant the special use did not comport with the law and could not stand.