Opinion ID: 4183371
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: zoning ordinances

Text: We next consider whether the Townships’ Act 425 agreement is void as against public policy for impermissibly contracting away Haring’s legislative zoning authority. The Court of Appeals concluded that it was. To reach this result, it first found that the Act 425 agreement required Haring to enact specific zoning standards, thus restraining the Township’s discretion in how to zone the property. 49 In other words, it held that the agreement contracted away Haring’s zoning powers. Relying on the general proposition that such contract zoning is prohibited unless specifically authorized by statute, 50 the Court then examined whether the Legislature had authorized it in Act 425, specifically in MCL 124.26. 51 That statute states, in relevant part: If applicable to the transfer, a contract under this act may provide for any of the following: