Title: NORMAN BYRNE V STATE OF MICHIGAN

State: michigan

Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court

Document:

____________________________________________________________________________________________ 
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
________________________________ 
 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 48909 
C hief Justice 
Justices 
Maura D. Corrigan  
Michael F. Cavanagh 
Elizabeth A. Weaver 
Marilyn Kelly 
Clifford W. Taylor 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
Opinion 
Stephen J. Markman 
FILED APRIL 18, 2001  
NORMAN and ROSEMARY BYRNE, 
DONALD and LEE NOLTE, 
RICHARD and SUE BURTON, 
BERNARD and MARGARET ROOKER, 
ARTHUR and CONNIE VADEBONDOEUR, 
DANIEL and JANE WHITE, GENE 
McGANN, ROBERT and KATHY SCUDDER 
and LIL VROMA, Individually,  
Plaintiffs-Appellants,  
v  
No. 116412  
STATE OF MICHIGAN and  
DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE,  
Defendants-Appellees,  
and  
MOTOROLA COMMUNICATIONS AND  
ELECTRONICS, INC.,  
Intervening-Defendant- 
Appellee.  
PER CURIAM  
The plaintiffs sued to stop construction of a State  
Police radio tower on a site near their homes.  The circuit  
court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendants  
 
and the Court of Appeals affirmed. We likewise affirm. The  
site of the tower was selected in a manner that accords with  
the pertinent statute.  
I  
In the wake of studies done in the 1980s, the Legislature  
concluded 
that 
the 
State Police radio communication system was  
outdated and inadequate.  The problems included aging and  
unsafe towers, restricted access to radio frequencies, and  
incomplete coverage of the state.  
A long process led eventually to a 1994 contract with  
Motorola Communications and Electronics, Inc., under which  
Motorola would design and construct the “Michigan Public  
Safety Communications System” (MPSCS) for approximately $187  
million.  When complete, the system of 181 towers would  
modernize communications for the State Police, and link law  
enforcement agencies throughout the state.1  The system would  
function as a whole, so that the location and height of  
individual towers would depend, inter alia, on the location  
and height of other towers.  
The MPSCS is governed by 1996 PA 538, MCL 28.281 et seq.;  
MSA 4.491 et seq. 
With regard to the selection of tower  
sites, the act provides:  
1 
 The system also will be available to certain other 
agencies that are involved with law enforcement or public 
safety.  The Departments of Corrections, Natural Resources, 
and Transportation have been mentioned in this regard.  
2  
In 
siting 
the 
buildings 
and 
equipment 
necessary to implement the Michigan public safety 
communications 
system, 
the 
director 
of 
the  
department of state police shall locate the system, 
a local unit of government with zoning authority 
shall be notified of a site selected in their  
jurisdiction and the requirements necessary for a 
site.  If the selected site does not comply with 
zoning, the local unit shall have 30 days from the 
date of notification to grant a special use permit 
or propose an equivalent site.  If the local unit  
does not grant a special use permit within the 30 
day period, or a proposed alternate site does not 
meet the siting requirements, the department may 
proceed with construction.  [MCL 28.282(2); MSA 
4.492(2).]  
This case concerns a particular tower planned for a site  
in Ada Township of Kent County. The tower is to be 475 feet  
tall, and is to be located near Honey Creek Avenue and Three  
Mile Road.2  In an opinion concerning this and two other law  
suits challenging the same tower, the Court of Appeals set  
forth the pertinent facts.  Kent Co Aeronautics Bd v State  
Police, 239 Mich App 563, 567-569; 609 NW2d 593 (2000).  
On August 12, 1997, the State Police and  
Motorola notified plaintiff Ada Township of their 
intention to construct the communications tower at  
the Honey Creek site.  The notification advised Ada  
Township that within thirty days it must either 
issue a special use permit authorizing construction 
of the tower at the selected site or, if Ada 
Township opposed the site selected by the State 
Police, it must propose an alternative site that 
met “Equivalent Site Criteria” adopted by the State 
Police.  
2 
 This case arose at a time when the tower was in the  
planning stages. However, we are advised that the tower was 
completed in June 1998 and became fully operational in 
September 1999.  Motorola has supplied a photograph of the 
completed tower.  
3  
 
 
On September 10, 1997, the Ada Township 
Planning Commission held a special meeting at which 
it tabled a recommendation of an alternative site  
and approved a special use permit for the  
construction of the MPSCS radio tower on the Honey 
Creek site. 
The special use permit, however, 
limited the permissible height of the tower to 175 
feet, applied setback and other restrictions  
contained in the township zoning ordinance, and 
incorporated height restrictions contained in the 
Kent County International Airport Zoning Ordinance.  
On September 12, 1997, the State Police and 
Motorola similarly notified Kent County of its 
intention to construct a communications tower in  
Ada Township, and advised the County that it had 
thirty days to propose an equivalent site or grant 
a special use permit, if the county believed that 
the proposed tower did not comply with its zoning 
ordinance.
 Kent County neither proposed an  
alternative site nor issued a special use permit, 
and instead advised the State Police that it must  
apply for a permit to construct the tower.  
In early December 1997, the State Police and 
Motorola notified Ada Township and Kent County of 
their intention to proceed with construction on the 
Honey 
Creek 
site 
and 
began 
pre-construction 
activity.  Ada Township issued a stop-work order. 
Thereafter, Ada Township and the State Police 
reached an agreement under which the State Police 
would evaluate the feasibility of constructing the 
tower at the alternative site previously tabled by 
Ada Township.  The agreement acknowledged that if  
third-party 
litigation 
ensued 
to 
challenge 
construction of the tower at the alternative site, 
that the State Police would abandon the alternative  
site and return to the Honey Creek site.  
In fact, on January 7, 1998, a group of 
citizens opposed to construction of the tower at 
the alternative site filed suit seeking to require 
the State Police to construct the tower at the  
Honey Creek site.  The State Police promptly 
abandoned the alternative site and commenced  
construction at the Honey Creek site.  
Prior to construction, on December 12, 1997, 
the Federal Aviation Administration concluded that  
the proposed tower “would not be a hazard to air  
4  
 
navigation.”
 On January 13, 1998, the Michigan 
Bureau of Aeronautics, to whom airspace reviews and 
approvals had been delegated by the Michigan 
Aeronautics Commission, issued a “Tall Structure 
Permit” for the proposed tower, an indication that 
its 
study 
found 
the 
tower 
would 
pose 
“noninterference to air navigation.”  
The plaintiffs are homeowners who live near the tower  
site.  Some live on land adjacent to the site. In a complaint  
filed in circuit court, they sued the state of Michigan and  
the State Police.  
The complaint is organized in five counts.  First, the  
plaintiffs 
alleged 
that 
the 
statute 
governing 
the  
communications system (1996 PA 538) is unconstitutionally  
vague, and allows an arbitrary exercise of the discretion  
granted to the State Police. Second, they asserted that the  
State Police violated the Administrative Procedures Act3 by  
not formally promulgating its “equivalent site criteria” as  
rules under the APA.  Third, the plaintiffs complained of the  
defendants’ plan to build a tower that does not comply with  
the height limit and other restrictions found in the special  
use permit issued by Ada Township.  Fourth, the plaintiffs  
alleged that the proposed tower would be a nuisance.  The  
fifth count was a claim of inverse condemnation.  
Motorola filed a motion to intervene, which the circuit  
court later granted.  It also filed a motion for summary  
disposition.  MCR 2.116(C)(8), (10).  The state of Michigan  
3 MCL 24.201 et seq.; MSA 3.560(101) et seq.  
5  
and the State Police likewise moved for summary disposition.  
MCR 2.116(C)(4), (5), (7), (8), (10).  After those motions  
were filed, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction  
to halt the project.  
Before the motions were heard, the parties agreed that  
the inverse condemnation claim was a matter for the Court of  
Claims, and therefore should be dismissed without prejudice.  
After 
hearing 
the motions for summary disposition and for  
a preliminary injunction, the circuit court dismissed the  
plaintiffs’ remaining claims with prejudice and denied the  
request for an injunction.  
The court ruled that the statute “is sufficiently  
instructive 
to 
meet 
the 
requirements 
of 
constitutionality” 
and  
that criteria for an equivalent site need not be promulgated  
under the APA.  The court declined to find the tower a  
nuisance on the basis of its height, and said that the  
township’s use permit did not govern the construction of the  
tower.  
In that regard, the court noted this Court’s decision in  
Dearden v Detroit, 403 Mich 257; 264; 269 NW2d 139 (1978). In  
Dearden, we held that legislative intent is the test for  
whether a governmental unit is bound by a local zoning  
ordinance.  
In the present case, the circuit court said that the  
language of MCL 28.282(2); MSA 4.492(2) demonstrated the  
6  
 
  
 
  
Legislature’s intent in this controversy.
 The court also  
observed that this statutory language, enacted as 1996 PA 538,  
was a legislative override of a 1996 Court of Appeals decision  
in a case called Addison Twp v State Police (On Remand), 220  
Mich App 550; 560 NW2d 67 (1996).4  
The plaintiffs appealed, but the Court of Appeals  
affirmed. The plaintiffs have now applied to this Court for  
leave to appeal.  
II  
The plaintiffs raise several issues, but we will address  
only one. 
With regard to the remaining issues-
--those  
discussed at 239 Mich App 585-589 (and, by reference, 239 Mich  
App 582-584)-
--we have examined the plaintiffs’ arguments and  
find no reason to modify the analyses offered by the Court of  
Appeals.  
III  
We write today in order to address a question of  
4 1996 PA 538 was introduced into the Legislature (as 
1996 Senate Bill 1209) after the Oakland Circuit Court 
enjoined construction of a different 
MPSCS tower. The bill was  
passed by the Legislature shortly before, and signed by the 
Governor shortly after, the Court of Appeals affirmed the 
injunction. 
Addison Twp at 560. 
This Court denied  
applications for leave to appeal as moot “[i]n light of the 
enactment of 1996 PA 538, and the fact that the defendants 
have proceeded with construction of the tower on an  
alternative site acceptable to the plaintiff . . . .” Addison  
Twp v State Police, 456 Mich 910 (1997). Later, we observed 
that Addison Twp
 had been effectively overruled by the 
Legislature. Burt Twp v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 459 Mich 
659, 664, n 3; 593 NW2d 534 (1999).  
7  
  
 
 
statutory interpretation, concerning 1996 PA 538, MCL 28.281  
et seq.; MSA 4.491 et seq. 
Such questions are reviewed de  
novo. Kent Co Deputy Sheriffs Ass’n v Kent Co Sheriff, 463  
Mich 353, 357, n 8; 616 NW2d 677 (2000).  
IV  
In Burt Twp v Dep’t of Natural Resources, 459 Mich 659;  
593 NW2d 534 (1999), suit was filed when the DNR began  
constructing a boat launch on Burt Lake without the approval  
of the township zoning board. Finding no legislative intent  
to exempt the DNR from the township’s zoning ordinance, we  
found that the project was subject to the ordinance.  459 Mich  
671.  
Our Burt Twp opinion was built on the earlier decision in  
Dearden.  There, the Archdiocese of Detroit leased a building  
to the Department of Corrections for use as a neighborhood  
center for housing inmates who would soon be released.  The  
Detroit Zoning Board of Appeals would not approve that use of  
the property, however.  This Court found that “the Legislature  
intended to grant the Department of Corrections immunity from  
local zoning ordinances when establishing state penal  
institutions.”
 403 Mich 267. 
The legislative intent was  
found to be controlling because:  
The common thread running through [earlier 
decisions on this subject], although not clearly 
stated in some, is an attempt to determine the 
intent of the Legislature when deciding whether a 
governmental unit is subject to a municipal zoning  
8  
 
 
ordinance.  We hold today that the legislative 
intent, where it can be discerned, is the test for 
determining whether a governmental unit is immune 
from the provisions of local zoning ordinances. 
[403 Mich 264.]  
We quoted that language in Burt Twp, reaffirming that  
“legislative intent, where it can be discerned, is the test  
for determining whether a governmental unit is immune from the  
provisions of local zoning ordinances.” 459 Mich 663.  
As indicated, MCL 28.282(2); MSA 4.492(2) provides the  
following, with regard to the role of local zoning authorities  
in the site-selection process:  
In 
siting 
the 
buildings 
and 
equipment 
necessary to implement the Michigan public safety 
communications 
system, 
the 
director 
of 
the  
department of state police shall locate the system, 
a local unit of government with zoning authority 
shall be notified of a site selected in their  
jurisdiction and the requirements necessary for a 
site.  If the selected site does not comply with 
zoning, the local unit shall have 30 days from the 
date of notification to grant a special use permit 
or propose an equivalent site.  If the local unit  
does not grant a special use permit within the 30 
day period, or a proposed alternate site does not 
meet the siting requirements, the department may 
proceed with construction.  
There can be no doubt of the correctness of the Court of  
Appeals 
statement 
that 
“[t]he 
clear 
import 
of 
the  
Legislature’s enactment of 1996 PA 538, which by its terms  
grants the State Police responsibility for all matters  
concerning construction of the new MPSCS, was to exempt the  
State Police from local zoning ordinances so that the MPSCS  
could effectively and efficiently be constructed.” 239 Mich  
9  
App 574.  
As 
the 
Court 
of 
Appeals further observed, the Legislature  
recognized, in the second sentence of MCL 28.282(2); MSA  
4.492(2), that the State Police might select a site that is  
incompatible with a local zoning ordinance. The Legislature  
dealt directly with that possibility, requiring notification,  
and giving the local unit of government the alternatives of  
timely issuing a special use permit or proposing an equivalent  
site. Finally, the Legislature specified the outcome if the  
local unit and the State Police cannot resolve the situation,  
authorizing 
the 
State Police to “proceed with construction” if  
the local unit neither issues a timely special use permit nor  
proposes an alternative that meets the siting requirements.  
The language of the statute thus supports the Court of  
Appeals conclusion:  
[W]e read 1996 PA 538 as a clear expression of 
the Legislature’s intent to vest the State Police 
with complete authority over construction of the 
communications tower, not subject to any other 
legislative act, including zoning ordinances.  
Indeed, if the State Police were subject to the 
provisions in the township zoning ordinances, the 
underlying purpose of the MPSCS could be effectively  
thwarted by local government entities imposing 
unreasonable restrictions to prohibit construction 
of the towers in appropriate locations. A careful  
reading of 1996 PA 538 evinces a contrary  
legislative intent. [239 Mich App 575-576.]  
For these reasons, we agree with the Court of Appeals  
that the MPSCS project is not subject to local zoning  
ordinances or use permits issued under those ordinances,  
10  
 
 
 
 
except as specifically provided in MCL 28.282(2); MSA  
4.492(2).  Accordingly, we affirm the judgments of the circuit  
court and the Court of Appeals. MCR 7.302(F)(1).  
CORRIGAN, C.J., and WEAVER, TAYLOR, YOUNG, and MARKMAN, JJ.,  
concurred.  
CAVANAGH and KELLY, JJ., concurred in the result only.  
11