Opinion ID: 848766
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the dearden test and relevant cases

Text: As this Court indicated in Dearden v. Detroit, 403 Mich. 257, 264, 269 N.W.2d 139 (1978), 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. In Dearden, this Court considered a statute granting the Department of Corrections exclusive jurisdiction over penal institutions, M.C.L. § 791.204, and determined that the statutory scheme demonstrated a legislative intent to grant the department immunity from local zoning ordinances in the establishment of state penal institutions. Dearden, supra at 265-267, 269 N.W.2d 139. Subsequently, in Burt Twp. v. Dep't of Natural Resources, 459 Mich. 659, 593 N.W.2d 534 (1999), this Court concluded that the Department of Natural Resources was required to comply with a local zoning ordinance when constructing a public boat launch. Although the Legislature granted the department power and jurisdiction over the management, control, and disposition of all land under the public domain, except for those lands ... that are managed by other state agencies, M.C.L. § 324.503(1), other statutes granted the township extensive regulatory authority over land use, including waterfront land use. We noted that the burden was on the department to demonstrate a clear legislative intent to exempt the department from the township's zoning ordinances. Nothing in the statutes in that case indicated a clear expression of legislative intent to grant the department exclusive jurisdiction or to exempt the department from the township's zoning ordinance. Burt Twp, supra at 668, 593 N.W.2d 534. More recently, in Byrne v. Michigan, 463 Mich. 652, 660-661, 624 N.W.2d 906 (2001), this Court concluded that the Legislature clearly expressed its intent to grant the Michigan State Police exclusive authority, not subject to any local zoning ordinances, over the siting and construction of a communications tower. The statute at issue there, M.C.L. § 28.282(2), specifically required that the local zoning authority be notified of the site selected and set out a procedure to be followed in the event that the selected site failed to comply with local zoning, with the result that if any dispute could not be resolved, the department could proceed with construction. [1] Thus, the statute amounted to a clear expression of the Legislature's intent to invest the state police with full authority over the construction of the tower. Id. at 661, 624 N.W.2d 906.