Court Opinion

ID: 9411824
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 05:05:57.842004+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:15.193315
License: Public Domain

If this opinion indicates that it is “FOR PUBLICATION,” it is subject to
                  revision until final publication in the Michigan Appeals Reports.

                            STATE OF MICHIGAN

                            COURT OF APPEALS

NORTHSTAR AGGREGATES, LLC,                                             UNPUBLISHED
                                                                       July 27, 2023
               Plaintiff-Appellant,
and

USA EARTHWORKS, LLC,

               Plaintiff,

v                                                                      No. 363567
                                                                       Allegan Circuit Court
WATSON TOWNSHIP,                                                       LC No. 2021-064894-AA

               Defendant,
and

WATSON TOWNSHIP PLANNING
COMMISSION,

               Defendant-Appellee.

Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and MARKEY and YATES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

         Plaintiffs, Northstar Aggregates, LLC, and USA Earthworks, LLC, filed an application
with defendant, Watson Township Planning Commission (WTPC), seeking a special-use permit
(SUP) to operate a sand and gravel mining business on certain real property located within the
boundaries of defendant, Watson Township (the township), that was zoned low-density residential.
The WTPC denied the application, and Northstar and USA Earthworks, in a single document, filed
a claim of appeal and a civil complaint in the circuit court challenging the denial. The circuit court,
sitting solely as an appellate body after the complaint was dismissed by stipulation, affirmed the

                                                 -1-
decision of the WTPC. Northstar appeals that ruling to us.1 Because we conclude that the circuit
court clearly erred with respect to the issue of “need” and engaged in an inadequate examination
on the matter of “very serious consequences,” we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

                      I. STATUTORY AND ORDINAL FRAMEWORK

       To give context to our discussion of the facts and procedural history of the case, we begin
with an examination of the statutory and ordinal framework that play a role in analyzing the issues
presented in this case. The litigation implicated the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA), MCL
125.3101 et seq. In Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance v Saugatuck Twp, 509 Mich 561, 577; 983
NW2d 798 (2022), our Supreme Court observed:

               Local governments have no inherent power to regulate land use, but the
       Legislature has empowered local governments to zone for the broad purposes
       identified in the MZEA at MCL 125.3201(1). The MZEA was enacted in 2006 and
       consolidated three zoning statutes for cities and villages, for townships, and for
       counties. In addition to setting the parameters of local zoning power, the MZEA
       also established processes and standards for when, how, and who can appeal official
       decisions related to the regulation and development of land. [Quotation marks and
       citations omitted.]

        The governing statute in this case is MCL 125.3205, which addresses zoning and the
regulation of drilling and mining operations, and the statute provides, in relevant part:

               (3) An ordinance shall not prevent the extraction, by mining, of valuable
       natural resources from any property unless very serious consequences would result
       from the extraction of those natural resources. Natural resources shall be considered
       valuable for the purposes of this section if a person, by extracting the natural
       resources, can receive revenue and reasonably expect to operate at a profit.

                (4) A person challenging a zoning decision under subsection (3) has the
       initial burden of showing that there are valuable natural resources located on the
       relevant property, that there is a need for the natural resources by the person or in
       the market served by the person, and that no very serious consequences would
       result from the extraction, by mining, of the natural resources.

              (5) In determining under this section whether very serious consequences
       would result from the extraction, by mining, of natural resources, the standards set

1
  Although their appellate brief identifies Northstar and USA Earthworks as joint appellants, the
claim of appeal solely listed Northstar as the appellant. This fact does not alter our analysis or
impact our ruling.

                                                -2-
       forth in Silva v Ada Township, 416 Mich 153[; 330 NW2d 663](1982)[2], shall be
       applied and all of the following factors may be considered, if applicable:

               (a) The relationship of extraction and associated activities with existing land
       uses.

               (b) The impact on existing land uses in the vicinity of the property.

              (c) The impact on property values in the vicinity of the property and along
       the proposed hauling route serving the property, based on credible evidence.

2
  In Silva, 416 Mich at 156, our Supreme Court reaffirmed the rule “that zoning regulations which
prevent the extraction of natural resources are invalid unless ‘very serious consequences’ will
result from the proposed extraction.” Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Kyser v Kasson Twp,
486 Mich 514, 517; 786 NW2d 543 (2010), held that the rule of Silva was not a constitutional
requirement, that it, in fact, violated the constitutional separation of powers, and that the rule was
superseded by the exclusionary zoning provision in MCL 125.3207. Shortly thereafter, the
Legislature, pursuant to 2011 PA 113, amended MCL 125.3205 to add the “very serious
consequences” language and the citation of Silva, effectively resurrecting Silva and rejecting
Kyser. With respect to the standards set forth in Silva, the Silva Court stated:
               Natural resources can only be extracted from the place where they are
       located and found. Preventing the mining of natural resources located at a particular
       site prevents all use of those natural resources. . . . .

              Preventing the extraction of natural resources harms the interests of the
       public as well as those of the property owner by making natural resources more
       expensive. Because the cost of transporting some natural resources (e.g., gravel)
       may be a significant factor, locally obtained resources may be less expensive than
       those which must be transported long distances. . . . .

               In most cases, where natural resources are found the land will be suited for
       some other use and can reasonably be devoted to that use. Unless a higher standard
       is required, natural resources could be extracted only with the consent of local
       authorities or in the rare case where the land cannot be reasonably used in some
       other manner. The public interest of the citizens of this state who do not reside in
       the community where natural resources are located in the development and use of
       natural resources requires closer scrutiny of local zoning regulations which prevent
       development. In this connection, we note that extraction of natural resources is
       frequently a temporary use of the land and that the land can often be restored for
       other uses and appropriate assurances with adequate security can properly be
       demanded as a precondition to the commencement of extraction operations. [Silva,
       416 Mich at 159-161.]

                                                 -3-
              (d) The impact on pedestrian and traffic safety in the vicinity of the property
       and along the proposed hauling route serving the property.

               (e) The impact on other identifiable health, safety, and welfare interests in
       the local unit of government.

              (f) The overall public interest in the extraction of the specific natural
       resources on the property. [Emphasis added.]

       Analyses of “need” and “no very serious consequences” are at the heart of this litigation
and appeal. In this case, the WTPC also took into consideration a couple of provisions in the
Watson Township Zoning Ordinance (ZO). The WTPC examined ZO, § 15.02, which provides as
follows:

                Special Land Uses are not permitted to be engaged in within the particular
       zone in which they are listed unless and until the Township Planning Commission,
       in its discretion, is satisfied that the use under the conditions, controls, limitations,
       circumstances and safeguards proposed and imposed by the Commission, will:

              (a) be compatible with the other uses expressly permitted within the district,
       with the natural environment and

               (b) be consistent with the capacities of public services and facilities affected
       by-the land use;

              (c) not be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent
       properties or to the occupants thereof or to the general neighborhood;

            (d) promote the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the
       community;

              (e) encourage the use of lands in accordance with their character and
       adaptability;

                (f) the standards required by the Commission for the allowance of this
       Special Land Use can and will in its judgment, be met at all times by the applicant
       or its assigns.

               The burden of proof of facts which might establish a right to a Special Land
       Use Permit under the general standards and any specific standards contained herein
       shall be upon the applicant.

                                                 -4-
        The WTPC also took into consideration ZO, § 17.07,3 which pertained to requests for
special exception permits for earth removal, quarrying, gravel processing, mining, and associated
mineral extraction, and which provided, in relevant part:

              (c) Following [a] hearing, said Planning Commission shall grant or deny the
       application and set forth its reasons for its decision. Such recommendation shall be
       based upon the criteria set forth within the Ordinance and shall be based, in
       addition, on a consideration of the following:

               (1) the most advantageous use of the land, resources and property

               (2) the character of the area in question and its peculiar suitability, if any,
       for particular uses

              (3) conservation of property values, as well as natural resources and the
       general and appropriate trend and character of development in the subject area

               (4) the protection and preservation of the general health, safety and welfare
       of the township

              (5) the scarcity or value of the minerals sought to be mined as compared
       with the effect upon the adjacent community of the proposed operations

              (6) whether or not the operations were previously in existence prior to the
       adoption of the text provision concerning the same and the extent and character of
       such previous operations

              (7) in making any decision, the Planning Commission shall have the right
       and authority to impose such additional conditions and safeguards as it deems
       necessary for the protection of the health, safety and general welfare of the
       neighborhood and of the adjoining residents and property owners. . . . .

        We note that the WTPC also referenced at times the township’s Master Plan, which
revealed that the property at issue was designated for future residential cluster development. With
the statutory and ordinal framework in place, we now commence our review of the WTPC and
circuit court proceedings.

                                   II. WTPC PROCEEDINGS

3
 After the SUP application was submitted in October 2020, the township amended ZO, § 17.01 et
seq., in April 2021, including § 17.07. Chapter 17 addresses mining operations. As reflected in
meeting minutes that we discuss infra, the WTPC applied the pre-amendment version of ZO,
§ 17.07; therefore, we quote the language of that earlier version.

                                                -5-
                                     A. THE APPLICATION

        By document dated October 5, 2020, Northstar4 applied for a SUP to commence a mineral
mining operation in an area zoned low-density residential. The property consisted of 77.74 acres,
44.49 of which were to be mined if approval was granted. Accompanying the application was an
extensive statement in support of the application. The prospective mining operation was described
as follows:

              The proposed aggregate extraction operation would yield aggregate
       material to be used by USA [Earthworks] in its construction business and supply
       materials to create asphalt material for such uses as parking lots, driveways,
       subdivision roads and similar uses. The aggregate would also be available for use
       for highway, road and development projects. The aggregate extraction operation
       would yield approximately 700,000 to 800,000 tons of material as the expected
       yield. Of that expected yield, approximately 95% of it would be used by the
       Owner/Operator in their own business operations. The remainder would be used
       primarily as road gravel for job sites.

       In the statement, Northstar discussed the specific operational aspects of the proposed
mining business. The statement also addressed the following subjects: road access; required truck-
turning movements; estimated increase in traffic generated by the operation; hours of operation;
estimated end or completion date of operation under normal market conditions (10-15 years);
auditory mitigation; visual impact and screening; fencing; earthen berms; restoration of property
at end date; public service and utility requirements; structures; wetland and environmental
determinations; site barriers; property value impacts; and noise and vibration. In addressing the
subjects, Northstar proffered information favorable to the commencement of a mining operation.
Northstar asserted that its studies, reports, and analyses demonstrated that “there will be no serious
adverse impacts arising from the proposed project.”

         The statement noted that “the mining operation will use only approximately one and a one
half (1.5) mile of local roads (117th Avenue) within the Township.” Northstar discussed the
character of the area surrounding the project and the suitability of the land for mining. The
statement reflected that there were two houses adjacent to the site and four homes across the street
from Northstar’s property. The statement also contained a “need” analysis, and because “need” is
critical to resolving this appeal, we quote most of Northstar’s argument, which provided:

                [The minerals are] of great value to the Applicant/Operator for the reason
       that such materials are a constant resource need in the Applicant’s business. The
       ability to excavate and utilize materials from this site would result in a significant
       cost savings to its regular business operations, would provide a constant source of
       a needed resource and would support the continuation of its business and the jobs
       that this business provides. The cost savings resulting from this ready source of

4
  For ease of reference, and unless otherwise indicated, we shall refer solely to Northstar for the
remainder of this opinion even though USA Earthworks remained a party throughout the litigation.

                                                 -6-
       materials would permit the expansion of the Applicant’s business, the creation of
       additional jobs, and provide ongoing support for the viability of the Operator. The
       Operator has, in the past, had to turn down jobs because there was not a readily
       available source of material to meet its needs and further, even in the event that
       such resources are available, the cost savings alone justify the Applicant’s need. In
       addition, the costs savings would be passed on in the local market making
       operations much more competitive for the Applicants. Due to the immense
       competition for aggregate reserves, this operation is needed in order to keep the
       flow of aggregate materials necessary to support the company’s operations and to
       keep it at full employment in this area. The mining operation would fulfill a great
       portion of that need.

               Moreover, the proposed use is beneficial both socially and economically, in
       terms of maintaining business activity and employment within Allegan County and
       is designed to minimize the impact of the surrounding area by being situated in a
       relatively isolated location, conducting mining and smaller isolated phases and with
       the special use to be consistent with the mineral extraction use which is proposed.

Northstar further indicated its belief “that the design of [the] proposed mining operation, the
construction of extensive berms as screening as needed around the site, and the consultants’
reports, all provide assurance of a lack of very serious consequences in conjunction with [the]
proposed mineral extraction operation.”5

                            B. DOCUMENTARY SUBMISSIONS

        In the WTPC proceedings, numerous reports, studies, and analyses were placed into the
record. Northstar submitted an impact study by James A. Van Stensel, Jr., a certified general real
estate appraiser, who reached the following conclusion:

              It is my conclusion that the future mineral mining operation will not
       negatively impact the marketability of properties adjoining or within close
       proximity to this type of operation. Furthermore, I have concluded that it does not
       negatively impact the market value of single-family residential properties or vacant
       land within close proximity to this type of operation. This is predicated on the
       assumption that the hours of aggregate mining operation and removal are normal
       operating hours on weekdays and Saturdays for this type of operation. This
       conclusion assumes that there is a reasonable termination date for the aggregate
       mining operation with reclamation after each phase and that all precautions

5
 After the township amended Chapter 17 of its ZO in April 2021 relative to mining operations,
Northstar submitted a revised SUP application in July 2021. But it did not significantly alter any
portions that we discussed above. With respect to the planned mining operation, Northstar now
added that the aggregate would be used within a six-county service area consisting of Allegan,
Barry, Kent, Kalamazoo, Ottawa, and Van Buren Counties. Northstar also attached a Fugitive
Dust Control Plan.

                                               -7-
       necessary will be made to prevent soil erosion and or other damage to adjoining
       property owners.

       Northstar also introduced a wetlands study and determination by King & MacGregor
Environmental, Inc., which identified wetland areas on the property but did not reveal any
problematic impacts from a mining operation. Additionally, Northstar tendered a traffic impact
study prepared by Progressive AE, which provided as follows:

               Based on the analyses performed, Progressive AE offers the following
       regarding future traffic operations along the proposed mining operation route to
       serve the Northstar Aggregates, LLC mineral mining development:

               1.     Adequate vehicle capacity exists to accommodate the additional 20
       truck round trips expected per business day generated from the proposed mining
       operation along the entire route including M-222, 12th Street, and 117th Avenue.

               2.     The condition of 117th Avenue and 12th Street is in a fair to poor
       existing condition which meets safety, capacity and geometric standards to support
       trucking operations. Additional maintenance efforts may be needed to maintain the
       existing pavement condition after the trucking operation commences.

               3.      The existing route has had very few crashes in the last 5 years. The
       proposed addition of 20 truck round trips daily is insignificant throughout the day
       and traffic crashes are expected to remain similar to the previous 5 years.

        Northstar presented a commercial driveway permit for the proposed gravel pit entrance that
was issued by the Allegan County Road Commission. Northstar further proffered a letter from the
Director of Operations for Hopkins Public Schools, who noted an awareness of the SUP
application and stated that “[w]hile this gravel pit is on a road that is also traveled by Bus #5 of
our school transportation route, we do not foresee any problems that would impede on safety or
the normal course of operation for that route.” Northstar additionally submitted a policy paper
authored by George S. Ford, PhD, and R. Alan Seals, PhD, titled Quarry Operations and Property
Values: Revisiting Old and Investigating New Empirical Evidence (March 2018), in which the
authors concluded that “[w]e find no compelling statistical evidence that either the anticipation of,
or the ongoing operation of, rock quarries negatively impact home prices” and that “[i]n light of
the evidence presented here and in prior research, the expectation must be that there will be little
to no effect on home prices and, if anything, that effect may be positive.” Northstar also hired
Valbridge Property Advisors to perform a market study of the impact of the proposed sand and
gravel mining operation on surrounding properties. The Valbridge study resulted in the following
opinion:

               Based on the data collected and analyzed, there is very little evidence to
       support a conclusion that residential property values will experience negative value
       impact as a result of proximity to an open excavation sand and gravel extraction
       site located proximal to residential property. In fact, the bulk of the data
       demonstrates no change in values or, in some cases, an increase in values.

                                                -8-
        The WTPC made multiple requests to Northstar to provide various information in
furtherance of the SUP application. The WTPC submitted, ultimately, a total of 82 questions to
Northstar, many with subparts, and Northstar provided substantive answers to most of the
questions. The answers were favorable to granting the SUP application. The WTPC also asked
Northstar to provide information concerning its interpretation of the language “need for . . . natural
resources,” as used in MCL 125.3205(4), and Northstar prepared and tendered a 13-page brief to
the WTPC. Northstar supplied the WTPC with an affidavit by Matt Double, who averred that he
and his wife co-owned Northstar and USA Earthworks, the proposed operator of the mine. Double
averred that he “has been a contractor for more than 25 years and is engaged in business requiring
the use of substantial amounts of sand and gravel materials.” Double indicated that as a contractor
he was “involved in the business of excavating, including government projects, assisted living
centers, water main projects, road building and rebuilding, installation of pipe and water lines,
preparation and installation of road base, [and] underground retention systems requiring stone.”
Double claimed that “USA Earthworks is a consistent user of sand and gravel products and requires
50,000-80,000 tons of such materials on an annual basis to sustain its business.”

        Pertinent to the language in MCL 125.3205(4), querying whether “there is a need for the
natural resources by the [applicant] or in the market served by the [applicant],” Double averred as
follows:

               Your affiant states that due to the increasing demands and consequent
       shortages of sand and gravel materials, the cost to purchase such materials have
       increased an estimated 25-35 percent on the average in the past five (5) years. . . .
       During that same period, transportation costs including fuel, parts, tires, equipment
       and maintenance have doubled or more in the past three (3) years so that having to
       travel further and further from his own operating area to obtain sand and gravel has
       at times eliminated USA Earthworks as a competitor in bidding due to the need to
       cover such prices in its bidding for those jobs. USA Earthworks needs a ready
       supply of sand and gravel and its own source of sand and gravel to stay competitive
       in the marketplace.

                                                ***

               Your affiant states that USA Earthworks cannot compete with competitors
       in the marketplace who own their own supplies and that even now the need to go
       further away from projects to obtain materials at higher prices and higher
       transportation costs has taken away the ability in many cases to make competitive
       winning bids for projects.

                                                ***

               Your affiant states upon information and belief that sand and gravel supplies
       will become increasingly scarce in the Southwest Michigan area over the next ten
       (10) to twelve (12) years to a point that no ready access to sand and gravel supplies
       which are not owned by the applicant are likely to be available. (See MDOT Report
       attached).

                                                 -9-
                                              ***

               Your affiant states that the sand and gravel from this mining operation is a
       valuable natural resource, that the operation will produce 700,000 tons to 800,000
       tons of sand and gravel materials, that both companies would profit from the use of
       such materials, and that the sand and gravel is needed by Northstar Aggregates and
       USA Earthworks to be able to compete in the marketplace.

Northstar submitted an aggregate price list covering several area sand and gravel companies, and
it showed increases in the price of aggregate from 2017 to 2021 that ranged from 18.82% to
40.34%.

        The zoning administrator for the township, Lori Castello, prepared a memorandum that
contained her review of the various criteria or factors in ZO, § 17.01 et seq., and her application
of known facts or information regarding Northstar’s SUP request to each ordinal factor. Castello’s
overall evaluation was neither supportive nor critical of Northstar’s application, but on a number
of the factors, she believed that the WTPC needed to obtain additional information.

       The WTPC, and ultimately the circuit court, did rely on a 2006 report prepared by George
Erickcek of the W.E. Upjohn Institute that was titled: An Assessment of the Economic Impact of
the Proposed Stoneco Gravel Mine Operation on Richland Township. Erickcek wrote:

              This report, which was completed at the request of the Richland Township
       Planning Commission, provides an estimation of the economic impact of the
       proposed Stoneco Gravel Mine Operation on Richland Township. The following
       impacts are assessed in this study:

             1.       The potential impact on residential property values in Richland
       Township.

               2.     The potential employment impact of the proposed gravel mine on
       the area’s economy.

              In addition, we carefully reviewed the economic impact reports provided by
       Stoneco for consideration. In the preparation of this impact analysis we used
       nationally-recognized modeling techniques that are the standard for academic
       research. We estimate that the proposed gravel mine will have a significant negative
       impact on housing values in Richland Township. Once in full operation, the gravel
       mine will reduce residential property values in Richland and Richland Township
       by $31.5 million dollars, adversely impacting the values of over 1,400 homes,
       which represent over 60 percent of the Richland residences.

              In addition, the mining operation will have an insignificant impact on area
       employment and personal income. At most, we estimate that only 2 additional jobs
       will be created in Kalamazoo County due to the mining operation. The mining
       operation serves the local market, and analysis based on the Institute’s econometric
       regional model for the Kalamazoo region shows that it will bring in an insignificant

                                               -10-
       amount of new income into the area’s economy, $58,000. Although the mine will
       employ an estimated 5 to 10 workers and require drivers to haul an estimated 115
       to 120 truck loads of gravel per day, most all of these jobs would simply “displace”
       any employment growth in the county’s 15 existing gravel pits.

               Stoneco has not established a need for new aggregate capacity. Kalamazoo
       County is currently serviced by 15 gravel operations, and in recent years,
       employment in the county has been shrinking and the population has been stagnant.
       Consequently, there is no prima facie case that new capacity is needed. To
       definitively determine whether such a need exists, we would need to have
       information on projected demand for aggregated material in the county and capacity
       of the gravel pits currently servicing the county.

               Finally, a careful evaluation of the five impact studies presented by Stoneco
       finds that their methodologies are seriously flawed, and thus conclusions drawn
       from the analyses are invalid.

       The Upjohn report was actually provided to the WTPC by a township resident. The
resident also provided the WTPC with a January 2021 document submitted by Healthy Waters
Alliance regarding a SUP application by R. Smith & Sons, Inc., to operate a gravel pit in Hope
Township. The study, which cited and used the formula from the Upjohn report, found:

               We firmly conclude that if the gravel pit were approved, the 253 listed
       parcels would suffer an immediate $6,819,086 valuation loss and Hope Township
       would incur an estimated $55,790 yearly loss in tax revenue. Of course the actual
       property value loss and tax revenue loss will be far greater than these figures when
       all affected properties are considered.

              The data presented below clearly demonstrates very serious consequences
       not only to local property owners, but to the Township as well. And economic
       damage to the Township represents damage to all Township citizens, not just those
       in proximity to the proposed mine.

       The resident additionally gave the WTPC the following article on the subject of mining
and property values: Chuck Wallace, What Can You Do Now? Property Values Decrease Around
a Quarry (November 2014). The author asserted:

               The negative impacts on local property values of a new quarry operation in
       a community are clear and irrefutable. The reduction in value of properties are
       significant, as high as 25% or more, and are irrespective of whether a local resident
       actually sells his or her property. It is important to note that these impacts are
       permanent.

       The WTPC admitted into the record a December 2014 e-mail from the township’s zoning
administrator to the township, which addressed gravel mines in the township and contained an
attachment listing the mines and their status at the time. The list identified eleven gravel mines
that had been grandfathered-in at various times and four gravel mines that had operated under

                                               -11-
SUPs. The list indicated that only five of the gravel mines remained in use in December 2014.
We emphasize that this was a document from 2014, six years before Northstar submitted its SUP
application.

                       C. WTPC MEETINGS, MINUTES, AND FINDINGS

        There were six WTPC meetings or hearings in which the topic of Northstar’s SUP
application was discussed—April 28, May 26, June 23, August 25, September 22, and October 27,
2021. At the meeting on April 28, 2021, public comments in the form of letters and e-mails were
read or presented by the WTPC’s chairperson,6 along with, apparently, live comments by residents.
There were 17 citizens who voiced opposition to Northstar’s SUP application; one person was in
favor of the SUP request. The persons against the planned mining operation expressed concerns
about noise, safety on the roads in light of the envisioned truck traffic, pollution, health problems,
loss of property values, road congestion, use of aggregate materials outside the township, dust, and
aquifer impact. The meeting minutes note that Northstar’s attorney remarked that sand and gravel
constitutes a natural resource for purposes of MCL 125.3205(3) and (4). One of the seven WTPC
members declared a conflict of interest and abstained from discussing and voting on the SUP
application because he lived in close proximity to the planned mining operation.

         The next meeting was on May 26, 2021, where there was further consideration and
discussion of the SUP application, including matters regarding “need” and “very serious
consequences.” A motion passed to table further discussion and a vote so that more research could
be done on those topics. On June 23, 2021, another meeting was held on Northstar’s SUP
application. The minutes reveal discussions regarding “need,” “very serious consequences,” the
necessity of obtaining studies and reports on subjects pertinent to the mining operation, such as
traffic, road integrity, and safety, and the funding of studies and reports. According to the minutes,
one WTPC member “said he has seen/reviewed documents/reports about the number of mines and
costs of gravel not increasing.” We note that no reports or documents suggesting that the cost of
gravel was not increasing were ever made part of the WTPC record.

        The minutes from July 28, 2021, indicate that the WTPC members discussed sources for
funding experts and studies regarding the impact of the proposed sand and gravel mining operation,
whether new studies and reports were even necessary, the names of professionals who could
perform studies and appraisals, and the need to obtain all of the information possible to make an
informed decision. The minutes reveal that Northstar had submitted studies and reports in support
of the SUP application, that some WTPC members were hesitant to simply accept Northstar’s
information and documentation, especially considering that Northstar had paid to have the studies
and reports prepared, and that in the minds of the members the entire process needed to move
forward. One WTPC member indicated appreciation in regard to Northstar’s submissions, but she
then opined that the studies failed to show the very serious risks voiced by township residents,
making it imperative for the WTPC “to do our due diligence for our residents.” Another WTPC
reiterated concerns regarding the trustworthiness of Northstar’s studies and reports because
Northstar had paid the experts for their work. Northstar’s attorney acknowledged that Northstar

6
    These letters and e-mails are part of the WTPC’s record.

                                                -12-
had paid for the studies as part of its effort to secure a SUP; nonetheless, the reports were all
prepared by “professionals” in their respective fields. We note that ultimately the WTPC did not
hire its own experts to conduct studies and prepare reports concerning impacts of the proposed
mining operation on the township. Instead, the WTPC placed significant reliance on citizen input
and old reports and studies of sand and gravel mining operations outside of the township. As
indicated earlier, these documents were supplied to the WTPC by a township citizen.

        On August 25, 2021, another WTPC meeting was held regarding Northstar’s SUP
application. One member stated that he had checked into a property-value-impact study, which
would cost $20,000, and a traffic-impact study, which would cost $12,000. WTPC members
indicated that the studies were cost prohibitive, and the studies were not pursued. The minutes
note that a professional expert communicated to members that he had some hydrogeologic
concerns about the mining project, but he was unavailable to conduct a study. And no details
regarding the expert’s concerns are in the record. The meeting minutes also provided, “It was
determined the professional expert found the presented information (submitted to Planning
Commission from Northstar . . .) as insufficient and inadequate and in further need of review.”
This appears to be just a blanket statement absent any explanatory details whatsoever or a
supporting affidavit, study, or report. According to the minutes, the township’s zoning
administrator observed that “from her experience, the studies done on behalf of, and paid for, by
Northstar . . . are from reputable businesses.” There were more discussions regarding the meaning
of “need” and “very serious consequences.” There was also an indication that Northstar had
“provided a good amount of information for the board to use in rendering a decision along with
the input of residents.” Northstar representatives spoke about working with the road commission
to address road issues or questions that had arisen and about studies being currently done regarding
road speed and safety improvements for purposes of identifying future actions that could be taken
if the SUP application were granted. The meeting minutes state that a vote on the SUP request
would be taken at the next hearing.

       The next meeting was conducted on September 22, 2021, and the meeting minutes are quite
extensive. The WTPC members shared their various thoughts on the SUP application in the
context of the criteria set forth in ZO, §§ 15.02 and 17.07. The comments were generally against
granting the application. The minutes indicate that one WTPC member “believe[d] the board can
make decisions for the moral and well being of the residents beyond the ordinance and with the
stewardship and oath . . . taken to protect the residents[.]” According to the meeting minutes,
another WTPC member reiterated

         that he does not think a gravel pit belongs next to residential homes. “It is ‘their’
         community.” It is a huge impact you can never bottle it up. “It’s a gravel mine.” It
         doesn’t belong next to houses. He is looking out for residents safety and well
         being.[7]

7
    An audio recording of the meeting revealed that this member stated:

                                                 -13-
Another WTPC member questioned the need for a gravel pit because there were already six gravel
pits in the township and 36 throughout Allegan County. Yet another WTPC member observed
that Northstar’s expert’s opinion that property values are not impacted and some are improved
when a sand and gravel mining operation is started was contrary to the Upjohn study and destroyed
the credibility of Northstar’s expert. One WTPC member emphasized that not one resident in the
neighborhood around Northstar’s property wanted the gravel pit, that the question should focus on
what the township would get out of the mining operation, that he could see no benefit to the
township or its residents if the SUP were granted, and that his concern was for the emotional and
mental health of the township’s citizens given the serious impact a mine would have on their lives.
Other comments and remarks by members included claims that a mine would not comply with the
Master Plan, that property values would suffer, that there would be a very serious impact to water
in the area, that the cash-strapped township would suffer a serious reduction in tax revenue given
the reduction in property values, that there was no scarcity of aggregate materials in light of 36
county and six township mines, and that there would be a huge impact on the safety of township
residents.

        After the discussion of the various issues, a roll call vote was taken on each individual
factor in ZO, § 15.02(a)-(f), and on each individual factor in ZO, § 17.07(c)(1)-(6). Although some
members found that a few of the factors favored Northstar or that there was insufficient
information on particular factors, the vast majority of the votes by the members on the 12 total
factors were unfavorable to Northstar. A motion to deny Northstar’s SUP application was
approved 6-0 by roll call vote. The meeting minutes concluded with eight enumerated findings of
fact, some of which are fairly extensive and actually contain multiple factual findings. These
findings form the crux of this case and appeal. Because of their importance, we quote most of the
findings in their entirety.

Fact finding #1 (full finding):

               The request for SUP is incompatible with sustaining the long term planning
       of the need to protect strategic areas, “for future residential cluster development”
       as identified in the (Watson Township Master Plan). A mine in this location will
       delay the overall rate of growth and increased tax revenue benefiting all residents.
       The needs of the community are best served by following the Master Plan. The
       Upjohn report identifies with credibility that indeed property values are impacted.
       The report identifies that property values closest to a mine can be impacted up to
       30-50%, while others, further away, will be impacted from 10-30%.

                I can’t do it to the citizens. The other stuff is just kind of fodder. I realize
       from a legal standpoint we need to look at this, but I just can’t do this to our citizens.
       No way am I going to allow someone coming from the outside and upend their way
       of life for a capitalist venture.

                                                 -14-
Fact finding #2 (full finding):

              The State of Michigan clearly intended for localities to regulate land use,
       including the extraction of natural resources other than oil and gas[.] (Metamora
       Twp. v American Aggregates of Michigan). The Planning Commission of Watson
       Township has no aversion to mining, as to date there are 4-6 mines located within
       the township, and others that have been grandfathered in under old regulations.
       Watson Township within Allegan County has 36 mines (Office of Mineral
       Management).

Fact finding #3 (full finding):

               The Planning Commissioners have a stewardship, and have taken an oath,
       to protect Watson Township and its residents from any safety, health and welfare
       issues that arise under its jurisdiction. As the smallest township within Allegan
       County the tax revenue is limited. Adding an additional mine in a residential area
       will have a serious impact on planned residential development and a loss of tax
       revenue. Additionally, with a revenue decrease—is the serious impact on
       residential value of homes in the vicinity. (American Aggregate Corp. v. Highland
       Twp.) & (Silva v Ada). The serious decrease in property values from 30-50%.
       (American Aggregates Corp. v Highland Twp) will cause serious injury to the
       Township’s ability to meet financial needs in the applicant’s proposed 10-15 year
       time span.

        Fact finding #4 refers to MCL 125.3205(5)(d) (“The impact on pedestrian and traffic safety
in the vicinity of the property and along the proposed hauling route serving the property”) and (e)
(“The impact on other identifiable health, safety, and welfare interests in the local unit of
government”). We summarize these findings. The WTPC found a serious risk of loss of property
values and a serious risk to life along the truck hauling route, which together constituted “a very
serious consequence for the safety, health and wellbeing of residents and those traveling along the
proposed hauling route.” The WTPC found that there would be dangers associated with trucks
hauling sand and gravel when negotiating a particular curve, when making turns, and when passing
each other on the local roads. The WTPC noted the size of the trucks, the width of the roads, and
the softness of the roadway shoulders. The WTPC opined that a study supplied by Northstar which
showed that the roads were compatible with the gravel trucks was “insufficient.” The WTPC
dismissed a Northstar offer of .10 per ton of product removed from the mine to cover township
costs for tax impact and road maintenance. The proposal, according to the WTPC, would not
suffice to remove the very serious impact on the township’s financial responsibilities or to offset
the devaluation of property values. Because of a lack of clarity regarding road maintenance costs
and whether townships or the Allegan County Road Commission are obligated to cover certain
costs, the township, according to the WTPC, would incur an undue financial burden for costs
associated with road repairs and maintenance necessitated by the 880 gravel trucks that would be
traveling the township’s roadways each month. The WTPC stated that “[u]ntil a financial
agreement for road repairs, expansion and recommendations from the Department of
Transportation are met, this [SUP] application cannot be approved.” The WTPC also complained
that Northstar had failed to address the impact of its proposed business on a particular intersection
and stopped short of identifying a remedy to make the intersection safe.

                                                -15-
        With respect to fact finding #5, the WTPC addressed ZO, § 15.02(c) (will the proposed use
“be detrimental or injurious to the use or development of adjacent properties or to the occupants
thereof or to the general neighborhood”) and (d) (will the proposed use “promote the public health,
safety, morals and general welfare of the community”). With some identified omissions, we quote
fact finding #5 in full:

               The Special Use permit standard is not met for land usage in R1 to
       accommodate another mining operation. The voice of the residents as identified in
       the Public Hearing and recorded in the April 2021 minutes, and subsequent
       Planning Commission meetings, only leads this Planning Commission to support
       residents in their rejection of the proposed gravel mine as the safety and welfare
       and health of residents will be greatly impacted and put very serious risk to their
       property values . . . . Also, the standard set forth in . . . Silva . . . applies to the
       serious impact with land uses in the vicinity of the property; the impact on property
       values; and the impact of the hauling route; the impact on public interest; as well
       as the lack of proof of NEED as defined in the dictionary . . . . And in order for
       there to be a “need,” there must be a lack of supply. The moral and general welfare
       of the community will be jeopardized. There is low public interest because the price
       of a resource is not affected by the addition of another mine in the area served.
       There are several gravel pits/mines available in Allegan County as well as Watson
       Township[.] . . . The proposed mining operation will be detrimental to adjacent
       property values and decrease and place an undue burden on the township tax
       revenue. In a small township strapped for budget needs being met, and the added
       expenses for maintaining the roads used by heavy gravel trucks places the
       community in a huge deficit. The costs of improving and maintaining the hauling
       route roads is beyond the budget capacity!

        Fact finding #6 (full finding after the WTPC first noted that for planning purposes under
the Master Plan it was useful to recognize and understand that various roads within the township
serve different functions):

               The roads identified for the hauling route were not designated for heavy
       gravel trucks. The volume of truck traffic increase plus the narrow roads, lack of
       shoulders, and lack of safety features along the hauling route with speeds allowed
       up to 55 mph will greatly increase the serious risk to residents and those folks
       traveling along these roads. Residents have voiced safety concerns in the Public
       Hearings about the hazardous conditions, including curves, hills, overpass, blind
       spots, and lack of speed control, road width, no turn lan[e]s and no safety controls
       (light) at the major intersection of M 222 & 12 St. Time studies of double gravel
       trucks (weighing 164,000 lbs) pulling onto M 222 from 12th street have not
       occurred and have yet to produce a remedy to the serious safety factors associated
       with the gravel trucks.

        Fact finding #7 (full finding after the WTPC first noted the need to consider under the
Master Plan the ability of existing roadway construction to handle projected traffic volume that
results from new development arising from granting a zoning request such as a special use):

                                                -16-
               According to the applicant’s numbers; 154 days per year – 40 gravel truck
       trips – 20 round trips per day – 880 gravel trucks per/month; 154 days per year =
       6,160 gravel trucks on the roads per year x 10-15 years. This has a HUGE impact
       on the neighborhood and general welfare of the community. . . .

Fact finding #8 (full finding):

               Watson Township may consider many factors in approving or denying a
       SUP. The township is not limited to what the applicant identifies as “very serious
       consequences” and hence has identified a very serious impact and consequence to
       the health, welfare and safety of its residents. The identified risks with mining
       operations are not denied by the applicant as they acknowledge inherent risks, but
       the applicant mitigates the risks by downplaying ALL impact, most importantly
       those placed on the residents and township for a 10-15 year span of time. This
       proposed traveling/hauling route and adjoining roads are where most
       residents/school buses and recreational traffic (accessing Big Lake) and major
       access to thoroughfares have to travel each day. The increase in hazardous road
       conditions caused by the number, weight, and road limits, immediately becomes a
       very serious consequence. These roads are the only paved roads for a quadrant of
       the township to access major thoroughfares. These issues have substantial merit in
       determining that the detriment to the people in Watson Township supersedes the
       projected monetary needs of the applicant. That the benefits of having a seventh
       mine in a small township does not merit a SUP as there are plenty of resources
       available. That the loss of 10-15 years of land development, tax revenue and
       property tax loss will have a huge impact on the financial stability of Watson
       Township. The quality of life the residents have chosen for a rural lifestyle is
       diminished by all the risk factors identified in the applicant’s application.

       The meeting minutes from October 27, 2021, simply reflect that the permanent record for
the denial of Northstar’s SUP request would be immediately filed.

                             III. CIRCUIT COURT PROCEEDINGS

         On November 2, 2021, Northstar, in a single document, filed a claim of appeal and a civil
complaint against the township and the WTPC in the circuit court. With respect to the claim of
appeal, Northstar argued, in part, that the WTPC’s decision was not supported by competent,
material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Northstar built much of the appeal around
MCL 125.3205, first contending that it supplied the WTPC with evidence demonstrating that no
very serious consequences would result from its planned mining operation, and next maintaining
that Northstar needed the natural resources. In regard to serious consequences, Northstar argued
that it had provided the WTPC with professional studies or reports which established that a mining
operation would not have a negative impact on the market value of residences in the pertinent area,
nor would it impact the marketability of such residences. Northstar further asserted that it had
submitted a traffic impact study, which essentially showed that a mining operation would not pose
any safety problems and that the existing roadways were adequate to handle the gravel trucks.

                                               -17-
       Northstar additionally claimed that it had tendered a wetlands study in which the specialists
concluded that the planned mining operation would have no adverse impacts to onsite wetlands or
adjacent wetlands. Northstar next proffered that the Allegan County Road Commission had
granted a driveway permit for the location. Northstar argued that the road commission had
informed the WTPC that it had no concerns about truck traffic from the mining operation and that
the main throughways were designed for trucks. Northstar asserted that gravel trucks would only
use a short stretch of township roads and travel through a mainly industrial-agricultural area to
access M-222. Northstar further argued that it had provided the WTPC with a letter from the local
school district indicating that it had no concerns regarding truck traffic, and Northstar noted that it
had informed the WTPC that it would schedule truck departures so as not to conflict with school
bus operations.

       Northstar posited that it had supplied the WTPC with an environmental impact study,
demonstrating the absence of very serious consequences should the mining operation commence.
Northstar next alleged that the WTPC had asked Northstar to answer a grand total of 82 questions,
many of which had subparts, and that Northstar answered all of the questions. Yet, despite
Northstar’s compliance with the WTPC’s request to answer the questions, the WTPC effectively
ignored the responses and never challenged or rejected Northstar’s answers. Northstar contended:

               Despite [Northstar] having provided data driven analysis on every issue
       related to the determination of whether or not the mining operation would create
       very serious consequences (a test the [WTPC] adopted) and the need for such
       resources (supported by studies from the Michigan Department of Transportation
       and testimony and Affidavit of [Northstar’s] Chief Operating Officer, Matt Double)
       a majority of the members of the [WTPC] refused to accept or consider the evidence
       presented by [Northstar’s] supportive studies for unsupported reasons which were
       not based upon countervailing data, opposing studies, or for any other reasons
       supported by competent, material and substantive evidence on the record.

        In the claim of appeal, Northstar accused various members of the WTPC of refusing to
accept Northstar’s data and studies on the unsubstantiated basis that they could not trust Northstar,
being overheard stating that they simply were not going to allow a mining operation in a residential
area regardless of Northstar’s reports, demanding irrelevant information, disbelieving Northstar’s
studies absent having any evidence to the contrary, and generally rejecting valid evidence for
spurious reasons.

       Northstar next focused on the “need” for aggregate, arguing that the WTPC relied on
unsubstantiated and false claims regarding the number of active mining operations in the county,
the number of operating mines in the township, and the prices for aggregate, which the WTPC
erroneously asserted were dropping. Northstar maintained that the WTPC’s determination that
there was no “need” for the natural resources was not supported by competent, material, and
substantial evidence.

       In sum, Northstar argued that the WTPC’s decision to deny the SUP application was not
supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. Rather, according
to Northstar, the WTPC’s “decision was based upon conjecture, rumor, and hearsay without any
material supporting evidence[.]” Northstar contended that the WTPC “had already made a

                                                 -18-
decision that the [a]pplication should be denied irrespective of any kind of evidence[.]” Citing
many of the claims discussed above in relation to the substantial-evidence test, Northstar
concluded the “claim of appeal” section of its filing by arguing that the WTPC’s decision was not
authorized by law.

        With respect to the civil complaint, Northstar alleged a violation of the MZEA, a violation
of Northstar’s state and federal constitutional due-process rights, and a violation by the WTPC of
Const 1963, art 1, § 17, which entitled Northstar to fair and just treatment in the course of
legislative hearings.

        On January 7, 2022, the WTPC and township moved for summary disposition of
Northstar’s civil complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(4), arguing that the circuit court lacked subject-
matter jurisdiction over the complaint because Northstar’s allegations effectively constituted an
appeal of the WTPC’s decision and could not serve as the basis of an original action. On January
26, 2022, a stipulated order was entered dismissing the counts in the “complaint” portion of
Northstar’s filing. The dismissal was without prejudice. The parties agreed that the substance of
the dismissed complaint would not be used in the circuit court appeal by Northstar and that any
claims in the appeal that might also be deemed part of the complaint would “not suffer any
disability on account of the . . . dismissal.” As part of the stipulation, the WTPC and township
agreed that if the civil complaint was subsequently filed, the WTPC and township would not raise
any defense under the statute of limitations.

        On April 13, 2022, Northstar moved to supplement the record pursuant to MCR
7.122(E)(6), which provides that “[m]otions regarding the contents of the record or to prepare a
transcript of proceedings before the officer or entity must be filed within 21 days after transmission
of the record to the court.” Northstar argued that the record was incomplete because relevant and
material statements made by certain WTPC members were omitted from meeting minutes.
Northstar contended that the comments demonstrated that the WTPC’s decision was not supported
by competent, material, and substantial evidence. Northstar sought to depose WTPC members
regarding remarks at a meeting so as to provide the circuit court with a complete record. Northstar
attached an affidavit by one of its consultants who was at the meeting conducted on June 23, 2021,
and the consultant averred that he heard one of the WTPC members state at the meeting that he
would not believe any study showing that property values would not drop because of the planned
mining operation. We note that the record contains an audio recording of the May 26, 2021
meeting and a video recording of the meeting on September 22, 2021. A recording of the June 23,
2021 meeting was apparently taped over when minutes were being prepared. The circuit court
denied the motion to supplement the record, ruling that the existing record was sufficient, that
meeting minutes are not supposed to be verbatim reproductions of a meeting, and that it was
unnecessary to open discovery for one missed remark.

        The parties filed appellate briefs in the circuit court and then presented oral arguments to
the court on September 19, 2022. The parties’ arguments focused on “need” and “very serious
consequences” in connection with Northstar’s attempt to open and operate a gravel pit. The
arguments parallel those made to this panel in their respective briefs on appeal. To avoid
redundancy, we shall discuss the arguments in the analysis section of this opinion when pertinent
to resolving the appeal. We do note that at oral argument in the circuit court, the court spent
considerable time attempting to obtain the attorneys’ positions regarding what did and did not

                                                -19-
constitute “evidence” in the WTPC proceedings. The circuit court took the appeal under
advisement. On September 30, 2022, the parties appeared in court, and the circuit court delivered
an oral decision from the bench.

         The circuit court first directed its attention to the issue of “need,” noting that it found
persuasive this Court’s opinion in Metamora Twp v American Aggregates of Mich, Inc,
unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued April 1, 2021 (Docket No.
349069). As indicated earlier, the WTPC had relied on Metamora Twp. In that case, this Court
construed the term “need” as used in MCL 125.3205, relying on a dictionary definition to rule that
“in order for natural resources to be needed, the resources must be ‘requisite, desirable, or useful’
and there must be ‘a lack’ of them such that a ‘supply’ is required.” Metamora Twp, unpub op at
10, citing and quoting Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed).8 Here, the circuit court
found “too simplistic” Northstar’s contention that “need” was established merely because
Northstar claimed that it needed its own source of aggregate to stay competitive and remain in
business. The court appeared to accept the WTPC’s assertion that there was not a lack of natural
resources—sand and gravel—in the township. The circuit court referenced the 2014 e-mail
regarding the number of mines in the area, while noting that there “was other evidence or other
testimony” through statements by the township supervisor and residents that there were at least
four to six mines, “but certainly more than 1 or 2 which was the assertion of [Northstar].” The
circuit court mentioned the market-value-impact report by James A. Van Stensel, Jr., that was
submitted by Northstar, observing that the author had studied one or two mines in Allegan County
without stating whether he had actually examined “all the potential gravel pits or mines [i]n
Watson Township.” The court ruled, “So in regards to the issue of whether or not there is need
when there’s already existing gravel mines or pits in Watson Township the record supported the
[WTPC’s] statement more than it did [Northstar’s].”

        Additionally, on the issue of “need,” the circuit court pointed to page 15 of the Van Stensel
report, in which the author, describing the planned future aggregate mining operation, stated that
“[t]he aggregate material will be stockpiled in a delineated stockpile area until needed.” (Emphasis
added.) The circuit court commented:

               So if in fact the material was to be stockpiled when needed does that mean
       there is a need currently and I think that might be also an issue of need that the
       Court found to be concerning in regards to whether or not . . . [Northstar] had a
       need. Does the need have to be in the future? Does the need have to be current? The
       Court did not receive any arguments about that but the - - the need in that report
       somewhat contradicted to a certain extent the affidavit of [Double] in that [Double]
       was certainly in his affidavit was more forceful in indicating that he needed the
       business now. So that inconsistency was of concern to the Court.

8
 “Although MCR 7.215(C)(1) provides that unpublished opinions are not binding under the rule
of stare decisis, a court may nonetheless consider such opinions for their instructive or persuasive
value.” Cox v Hartman, 322 Mich App 292, 307; 911 NW2d 219 (2017).

                                                -20-
        The circuit court then explained that even if Northstar’s position on “need” were correct,
the court was still obligated to assess whether the WTPC’s decision was authorized by law and
supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. The court noted
that Hughes v Almena Twp, 284 Mich App 50; 771 NW2d 453 (2009), indicated that relevant
public comments can be considered evidence. In Hughes, this Court did briefly note that “[p]ublic
comment before the township board also supported” a particular factual finding. Id. at 75. In our
case, the circuit court moved on to acknowledge the competing reports and studies that the parties
had submitted to the WTPC concerning the impact of a mining operation on surrounding property
values. The court remarked that although Northstar claimed that the Upjohn report given to the
WTPC had been discredited, there was no evidence to that effect. Indeed, the circuit court
concluded that none of the reports and studies had been discredited. Given the Upjohn report and
the Healthy Waters Alliance study indicating that mining operations cause a decrease in the market
value of properties near a gravel pit, the court found that there was competent, material, and
substantial evidence on the whole record to support the WTPC’s position. The circuit court
explained that under the caselaw reversal is not justified simply because there is evidence that
could support an alternate determination. The court then made the following broad, vague
statement:

              In addition Watson Township considered its Master Plan, citizen input, the
       need in the community, and they had several evidentiary issues before them that
       they could consider and they were substantial. They were not insignificant reports.

        The circuit court next acknowledged Northstar’s argument that there were comments and
remarks by WTPC members in the record suggesting that denial of the SUP application was
predetermined. The court appeared to agree with Northstar, stating that “there’s no doubt about
it[.]” But, according to the circuit court, this did not mean that there was a lack of substantial
evidence to support the WTPC’s decision to deny the SUP application. The court commended
Northstar for doing “its work” with respect to the submission of all the reports and studies to the
WTPC. The circuit court observed, however, that its ruling could not be based on which party
presented the most reports and studies; rather, the court’s ruling had to evaluate whether there was
substantial evidence supporting the WTPC’s decision, i.e., more than a scintilla of evidence that
need not amount to a preponderance. The court stated that despite Northstar’s argument to the
contrary, there was evidence supporting the denial of the SUP application. The circuit court
concluded its opinion as follows:

              So based on my review of the case first of all I would indicate that I don’t
       believe it meets that Northstar met a need but even if the Court did determine they
       did meet that part of the statute the Court would still determine that the [WTPC]
       made a decision that was supported by competent material and substantial evidence
       on the whole record.[9]

9
 At no point during the court’s bench opinion did the court reference the phrase “very serious
consequences.”

                                               -21-
        On October 13, 2022, the circuit court entered an order affirming the WTPC’s decision for
the reasons set forth in the court’s bench opinion. Northstar then filed a claim of appeal in this
Court.

                                        IV. ANALYSIS

                               A. THE PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS

        Northstar argues that the WTPC’s decision was not supported by competent, material, and
substantial evidence on the whole record. Northstar contends that the WTPC rejected its
compelling evidence for spurious reasons, as reflected in some of the remarks by WTPC members
during the proceedings, and that the WTPC did not produce any material, substantial, and
compelling evidence of its own to support denial of the SUP application. Northstar complains that
one WTPC member revealed personal bias when he indicated that no evidence would convince
him to vote in favor of the SUP request. Further, Northstar maintains that the WTPC ignored the
mandates of MCL 125.3205 and wrongly denied the SUP application on the basis, in part, that the
project was located in a residential zone. Additionally, Northstar asserts that the WTPC
improperly rejected its property-value-impact reports absent relevant evidence to the contrary.
Northstar posits that the property-value-impact studies that the WTPC relied on addressed
properties that were not comparable to Northstar’s land and had nothing to do with the township.
Next, Northstar argues that the WTPC rejected its data on wetlands and water resources on the
basis of incompetent evidence from some unqualified “professional expert” who neither reviewed
Northstar’s studies nor visited the property. Indeed, the “professional expert” did not even submit
a study, report, or analysis to the WTPC.

        Moreover, Northstar contends that the WTPC ignored its professional reports regarding the
adequacy of the roadway for the proposed mining operation, relying instead on personal beliefs
and opinions. Northstar claims that one of WTPC’s members essentially conceded that the WTPC
did not have its own competent, material, and substantial evidence. Turning to the issue of “need,”
Northstar asserts that it provided clear and convincing evidence of need, which was countered with
incompetent data and personal opinion and bias. Northstar also argues that the WTPC’s decision
denying the SUP application was not authorized by law, considering that WTPC members
indicated that they would not support the application for spurious reasons, that the WTPC failed
to produce competent evidence for the denial, rendering its decision arbitrary and capricious, and
that the WTPC took the position that the project would not be allowed in a residential zone under
any set of circumstances. Finally, Northstar maintains that the circuit court erred by drawing its
own conclusions from the evidence instead of applying the substantial-evidence test, by ignoring
substantial and relevant parts of the record, and by concluding that all public comments are
evidence.

        The WTPC makes an initial argument that this Court lacks jurisdiction because Northstar
filed a claim of appeal when it was required to pursue the appeal by application for leave. The
WTPC argues that its decision to deny the SUP application was authorized by law and supported
by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. The WTPC contends that
it was within its authority to deny the SUP application where there was competent, material, and
substantial evidence that Northstar had failed to demonstrate a “need” for the sand and gravel to
be mined. The WTPC asserts that MCL 125.3205 governs and that “need” under the statute

                                               -22-
requires a showing of a lack of resources such that a supply must be obtained. The WTPC claims
that the circuit court properly construed the term “need” pursuant to Metamora Twp, which
Northstar does not challenge on appeal. The WTPC maintains that its decision to deny the SUP
request due to lack of “need” was authorized by law in light of the evidence showing lack of need.

         The WTPC next argues that even if Northstar demonstrated the requisite “need” for the
aggregate, the WTPC was authorized by law to deny the SUP application because there existed
competent, material, and substantial evidence that Northstar failed to meet its burden of showing
that the proposed mining operation would result in no very serious consequences. The WTPC
notes that the “very serious consequences” test balances the public interest in the materials to be
mined with the anticipated consequences, which required Northstar to meet a high burden of
demonstrating no very serious consequences. According to the WTPC, Northstar failed to meet
its burden in light of the evidence of harm to residential property values, problems concerning
traffic safety, road conditions, and maintenance costs, and a detriment to the township’s future
land use plan for growth and potential tax revenue.

         The WTPC contends that Northstar’s arguments for reversal lack merit. The WTPC asserts
that the comments and questions raised by its members did not support reversal, that evidence of
substantial harm to property values was properly considered, that Northstar failed to raise an
objection regarding the continuing presence of the WTPC member who abstained from voting due
to a conflict of interest, thereby waiving the issue,10 and that if the WTPC’s record was inadequate,
the appropriate remedy would be a remand to the WTPC. Finally, the WTPC maintains that the
circuit court employed the appropriate standard of review and did not engage in improper de novo
review.

                                 B. STANDARDS OF REVIEW

        The ZO creates a zoning board of appeals (ZBA), but with respect to the appellate power
of the township’s ZBA, ZO 25.11(b) excludes the ZBA from reviewing “any requirements,
decisions or determinations made with regards to special uses.” (Emphasis added.) MCL
125.3606(1) provides, in part, that “[a]ny party aggrieved by a decision of the zoning board of
appeals may appeal to the circuit court for the county in which the property is located.” In this
case, there was no decision by the ZBA because the ZO did not allow the ZBA to review a decision
regarding special uses. MCR 7.122(G)(2) provides that “[i]n an appeal from a final determination
under a zoning ordinance where no right of appeal to a zoning board of appeals exists, the [circuit]
court shall determine whether the decision was authorized by law and the findings were supported
by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record.”

         This Court in Ansell v Delta Co Planning Comm, 332 Mich App 451, 457; 957 NW2d 47
(2020), observed that “MCR 7.122(G)(2) substantially mirrors MCL 125.3606(1) and Const 1963,
art 6, § 28[.]” According to the Ansell panel, when a township’s zoning ordinance fails to provide

10
   Northstar raises an argument on the matter. After the WTPC member declared the conflict of
interest and abstention from voting at the very first WTPC meeting, the member nevertheless was
present at all of the remaining meetings.

                                                -23-
for review of a township board’s or planning commission’s decision on a request for a special
land-use permit by a zoning board of appeals, the decision is considered to be final and subject to
appellate review by the circuit court under Const 1963, art 6, § 28. Ansell, 332 Mich App at 458.
And Const 1963, art 6, § 28, states:

               All final decisions, findings, rulings and orders of any administrative officer
       or agency existing under the constitution or by law, which are judicial or quasi-
       judicial and affect private rights or licenses, shall be subject to direct review by the
       courts as provided by law. This review shall include, as a minimum, the
       determination whether such final decisions, findings, rulings and orders are
       authorized by law; and, in cases in which a hearing is required, whether the same
       are supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the whole record.
       ...

        As recognized by this Court in Ansell, the review standards in MCR 7.122(G)(2)—whether
a decision was authorized by law and whether findings were supported by competent, material,
and substantial evidence on the whole record—parallel those found in Const 1963, art 6, § 28. A
decision or action is “authorized by law” when it is “allowed, permitted, or empowered by law.”
Northwestern Nat’l Cas Co v Comm’r of Ins, 231 Mich App 483, 488; 586 NW2d 563 (1998).11
“Therefore, it seems clear that an agency’s decision that is in violation of statute [or constitution],
in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the agency, made upon unlawful procedures
resulting in material prejudice, or is arbitrary and capricious, is a decision that is not authorized by
law.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted; alteration in original).

       The substantial-evidence test encompasses a quantitative aspect, and “substantial
evidence” is evidence that a reasonable person would accept as sufficient to support a particular
conclusion. Hughes, 284 Mich App at 61. “While this requires more than a scintilla of evidence,
it may be substantially less than a preponderance.” Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted).
Under the substantial-evidence test, it is irrelevant that the contrary position is supported by more
evidence, that is, which way the evidence preponderates; rather, the circuit court must only be
concerned with whether the position adopted by the agency is supported by evidence from which
legitimate and supportable inferences were drawn. McBride v Pontiac Sch Dist, 218 Mich App
113, 123; 553 NW2d 646 (1996). When there is sufficient evidence, a reviewing court is not
permitted to substitute its discretion for that of the administrative tribunal, even when the court
might have reached a different result. Id. “Great deference must be given to an agency’s choice
between two reasonable differing views as a reflection of the exercise of administrative expertise.”
Id.

11
  We note that review of a site-plan and the approval or denial of a SUP request are essentially
administrative in nature. Sun Communities v Leroy Twp, 241 Mich App 665, 669; 617 NW2d 42
(2000). And a township planning commission is considered to be an administrative agency.
Keating Int’l Corp v Orion Twp, 51 Mich App 122, 125; 214 NW2d 551 (1974).

                                                 -24-
       “This Court reviews the circuit court’s decision de novo because the interpretation of the
pertinent law and its application to the facts at hand present questions of law.” Ansell, 332 Mich
App at 456; see also Hughes, 284 Mich App at 60. The Hughes panel further explained:

                 This Court reviews the circuit court’s determination regarding [factual]
       findings to determine whether the lower court applied correct legal principles and
       whether it misapprehended or grossly misapplied the substantial evidence test to
       the . . . factual findings. This standard regarding the substantial evidence test is the
       same as the familiar “clearly erroneous” standard. A finding is clearly erroneous if
       the reviewing court, on the whole record, is left with the definite and firm
       conviction that a mistake has been made. [Hughes, 284 Mich App at 60 (citation
       omitted).12]

      Finally, jurisdiction is a question of law that this Court reviews de novo. Jeffrey v Rapid
American Corp, 448 Mich 178, 184; 529 NW2d 644 (1995).

                             C. DISCUSSION AND RESOLUTION

                                        1. JURISDICTION

        The WTPC argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Northstar’s claim of appeal
because there was no appeal by right and Northstar was required to file an application for leave to
appeal under the procedural circumstances of the case. MCR 7.203(A), which pertains to the
jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals, provides, in pertinent part:

              The court has jurisdiction of an appeal of right filed by an aggrieved party
       from the following:

              (1) A final judgment or final order of the circuit court, or court of claims, as
       defined in MCR 7.202(6), except a judgment or order of the circuit court

               (a) on appeal from any other court or tribunal[.] [Emphasis added.]

12
  In the oft-cited opinion in Boyd v Civil Service Comm, 220 Mich App 226, 234-235; 559 NW2d
342 (1996), this Court similarly declared:
               We therefore hold that when reviewing a lower court’s review of agency
       action this Court must determine whether the lower court applied correct legal
       principles and whether it misapprehended or grossly misapplied the substantial
       evidence test to the agency’s factual findings. This latter standard is
       indistinguishable from the clearly erroneous standard of review that has been
       widely adopted in Michigan jurisprudence.

                                                -25-
MCR 7.202(6)(a)(i) defines a “final judgment” or “final order” in a civil case as including, in part,
“the first judgment or order that disposes of all the claims and adjudicates the rights and liabilities
of all the parties . . . .”

        The circuit court’s ruling constituted a final judgment or order, but it did concern an appeal.
We conclude, however, that the WTPC is not a tribunal.13 A “tribunal” encompasses an
administrative agency when it is acting in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity. Natural Resources
Defense Council v Dep’t of Environmental Quality, 300 Mich App 79, 86; 832 NW2d 288 (2013).
“Quasi-judicial proceedings include procedural characteristics common to courts, such as a right
to a hearing, a right to be represented by counsel, the right to submit exhibits, and the authority to
subpoena witnesses and require parties to produce documents.” Id. at 86. While some of these
characteristics might apply, overall we cannot find that the WTPC acted in a quasi-judicial
capacity. See Ansell, 332 Mich App at 453 n 1 (“the appeal in the circuit court was not taken from
a court or tribunal because the planning commission is not a court and did not act as a tribunal in
issuing the permits in question”).

         Finally, assuming that Northstar was required to file an application for leave to appeal, we
shall treat the claim of appeal as an application for leave, grant leave, and substantively address
Northstar’s arguments. See Wardell v Hincka, 297 Mich App 127, 133 n 1; 822 NW2d 278 (2012)
(In the interest of judicial economy, this Court may exercise its discretion and treat a party’s claim
of appeal as an application for leave to appeal, grant leave, and then address the substantive issues).

                                              2. NEED

        We initially note that for purposes of MCL 125.3205(4), there is no dispute that valuable
natural resources are located on Northstar’s property. MCL 125.3205(4) placed the initial burden
on Northstar to demonstrate to the WTPC that there was a “need for the natural resources by”
Northstar “or in the market served by” Northstar. (Emphasis added.) Northstar’s “need” analysis
focused on Northstar’s need, not the market served by Northstar. The primary evidence that
Northstar relied on to establish “need” was the affidavit of its co-owner Matt Double. Northstar
also produced an aggregate price list covering several area sand and gravel companies, which
reflected significant increases in the price of aggregate from 2017 to 2021. Because we find it
persuasive, we adopt the dictionary definition of “need” employed by the panel in Metamora Twp.
Accordingly, in order for the sand and gravel or aggregate to be needed by Northstar, it had to be
requisite, desirable, or useful, and there had to be a lack of aggregate such that a supply was
required. See Metamora Twp, unpub op at 10.

       With respect to the WTPC’s fact-finding on the issue of “need,” the WTPC’s actual
findings were sparse. The WTPC found that “in order for there to be ‘need,’ there must be a lack
of supply.” The WTPC further found that “[t]here are several gravel pits/mines available in
Allegan County as well as Watson Township[.]” Additionally, the WTPC stated that it had “no
aversion to mining, as to date there are 4-6 mines located within the township, and others that have

13
     Obviously, the WTPC is not a court.

                                                 -26-
been grandfathered in under old regulations. Watson Township within Allegan County has 36
mines.”14 Effectively, the WTPC concluded that Northstar did not have a need for the natural
resources, i.e., the sand and gravel, because there were other mines in the township and county
that had available aggregate.

        The circuit court concluded that the WTPC’s finding of lack of need was supported by
competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record. The court agreed with the
WTPC’s stance that Northstar did not “need” the natural resources because there were already four
to six sand and gravel mines in the township. The circuit court also relied on the statement in the
Van Stensel report that the sand and gravel would be stockpiled until needed, extrapolating from
the statement that there would be no immediate need for the aggregate, which conflicted with
Double’s affidavit.

        Double’s affidavit indicated that the cost of aggregate had increased quite dramatically in
the past five years due to increasing demand for and resulting shortages in aggregate and that
transportation and maintenance costs had also risen, making it quite expensive to obtain sand and
gravel from further distances, which was becoming necessary. Double averred that USA
Earthworks was at times eliminated as a competitor in the bidding process for projects due to the
increased costs. Double asserted that “USA Earthworks needs a ready supply of sand and gravel
and its own source of sand and gravel to stay competitive in the marketplace.” (Emphasis added.)
Double reiterated “that USA Earthworks cannot compete with competitors in the marketplace who
own their own supplies and that even now the need to go further away from projects to obtain
materials at higher prices and higher transportation costs has taken away the ability in many cases
to make competitive winning bids for projects.” (Emphasis added.) The WTPC and the circuit
court did not appear to appreciate that the main thrust of Double’s affidavit and Northstar’s
position was that USA Earthworks needs its own supply of aggregate to remain competitive and
stay in business. Additional averments by Double drive this point home, along with showing that
the presence of other gravel mines in the township and county was not truly relevant:

              USA Earthworks needs a ready supply of sand and gravel to maintain its
       business. Your affiant and USA Earthworks have attempted to purchase land with
       sand and gravel deposits or to otherwise purchase sand and gravel deposits but such
       land and materials are not available to USA Earthworks for its own ownership.

                                              ***

             Northstar Aggregates is the owner of significant sand and gravel deposits in
       Watson Township which are the subject of this application.

              Your affiant states that sand and gravel resources of the types used in its
       business have become increasingly unavailable in the Southwest Michigan market.
       For example, USA Earthworks attempted to purchase pea stone for a Kent County

14
   We believe that the WTPC meant to indicate that Allegan County had 36 mines. Although the
WTPC members certainly made a variety of comments and remarks at the six meetings in regard
to “need,” the ultimate findings of fact govern our analysis.

                                               -27-
        road project and was only allowed to purchase 150 tons from the aggregate
        industries because the remainder of the material had already been sold. USA
        Earthworks required 600 tons of pea stone material and was unable to purchase it
        in markets nearby its project.

                 Your affiant states [that] in order to obtain the types of materials required
        for its projects, it has to go further and further outside of its area of operations in
        order to obtain material. [Emphasis added.]

         Taking into consideration Double’s affidavit and the aggregate price list, and without yet
contemplating the WTPC’s evidence, Northstar’s ability to mine and use the sand and gravel on
its own property is certainly requisite, desirable, and useful for purposes of remaining competitive
in the marketplace in relation to its construction business. With respect to the question whether
there is a lack of aggregate such that a supply is required, the issue of price or cost absolutely must
be taken into consideration when the context concerns the sustainability of a business. In other
words, it would be beyond ridiculous to conclude that a company did not “need” sand and gravel
because there existed available aggregate that if purchased by the company at the particular going
cost would render the company defunct or bankrupt. Double’s affidavit makes abundantly clear
that for USA Earthworks to remain competitive it needs its own supply of aggregate; implicit in
his averments is that there is no available alternative that would keep it competitive.

        The WTPC and the circuit court believe that the mere presence of other gravel pits in the
township and county defeats Northstar’s argument regarding “need.” Assuming the existence of
the gravel mines in the township and county as found by the WTPC and circuit court, there was
no evidence whatsoever that these mining operations had the capacity to take USA Earthworks on
as a customer, that they could supply USA Earthworks with the quantities of aggregate needed by
the company, and, importantly, that they could supply USA Earthworks with aggregate at a price
that would allow the company to be competitive in the marketplace.

        Moreover, the WTPC’s claims regarding township and county sand and gravel mines were
dubious to say the least. The WTPC claims that there is comparable gravel throughout the
township, citing in support a resident’s e-mail. The e-mail is a lengthy diatribe against granting
the SUP application, mentioning that the township “is rife with sand and gravel deposits,” which
are contained in 2/3 of the township, and that there are five “obvious unclaimed gravel mines along
13th St.” Accepting for the sake of argument that some comments or remarks by citizens can
constitute evidence, there needs to be some associated foundational evidence establishing that the
citizen has personal knowledge and is otherwise qualified to speak on an issue. The e-mail does
not provide such evidence. Moreover, the remarks in the e-mail do not effectively counter or
contradict the averments in Double’s affidavit.

        The WTPC next relies on another citizen’s written comment that there are eight sand and
gravel mines in the area. Again, even if true, the lack of any details regarding these gravel pits
makes this “evidence” irrelevant for purposes of undermining Double’s affidavit. The WTPC also
points to a letter by a resident who stated that “[t]he Adrianson pit is an existing use and is currently
being wasted due to its abandonment by the prior operator.” We have no foundation, no
information on personal knowledge, insufficient details, and yet another failure to effectively
contradict the averments in Double’s affidavit. Another resident informed the WTPC, “I don’t

                                                  -28-
believe that there is a need for gravel as several pits are not functioning right now because of a
lack of need.” Reliance by the WTPC on this statement again fails for the reasons alluded to above.

        The WTPC next complains that on the issue of “need,” Double answered a question posed
to him by the WTPC that he simply desired to obtain sand and gravel at less cost. But we note
that as part of that answer, Double also indicated that he could not source the aggregate from other
mines at relatively the same cost. We strain to understand the WTPC’s argument. When Double’s
or Northstar’s answer is considered in conjunction with the other evidence, primarily Double’s
affidavit, it becomes clear that the lower price or cost was needed so that USA Earthworks could
compete in the marketplace. In answering the WTPC’s question whether there were any lost jobs
because of the absence of available aggregate, Double or Northstar responded that “[t]here are a
number of examples where jobs were not bid on because the cost of material was too high and
material is not available from this site.” (Emphasis added.)

        The WTPC argues that Double did not provide any evidence that he lacked the ability to
obtain aggregate from other sources. This argument misses the point; Northstar needs to access
sand and gravel at a cost that makes USA Earthworks able to compete in the marketplace, and this
assertedly can only be accomplished by the company having its own source of aggregate, which
assertion the WTPC never disproved. We also note that, as quoted earlier, Double gave one
example in his affidavit in which he could not obtain pea gravel from any source for a project in
Kent County. The WTPC additionally contends that the record included documentation regarding
gravel mines in the township, citing the 2014 e-mail from the zoning administrator. This was six
years before Northstar submitted its SUP application. The fact that the WTPC and the township
did not place into the record up-to-date documentary evidence on gravel pits in the township, which
seemingly would be easily obtainable by governmental entities, and instead relies on citizen
commentary, is puzzling.15 Regardless, even if the 2014 information on gravel pits remained
accurate in 2020-2021, the mere existence of these gravel pits, operational or not, does not
effectively undermine Northstar’s evidence that it is in need of the natural resources on its own
property to remain competitive. There is no evidence regarding aggregate availability and pricing
as to the other gravel pits. The WTPC cites a few more examples of evidence demonstrating no
shortage of aggregate, but as we tediously explained above, it is the cost of available aggregate
that forms Northstar’s contention that it needs to have its own supply to compete in the
marketplace.

15
   We do note that the meeting minutes from August 25, 2021, reflect that one of the WTPC
members indicated that there were six to eight operating mines in the township, 36 mines in
Allegan County, 41 mines in Kent County, and 24 mines in Barry County, which information was
followed by a parenthetical to the Office of Mineral Management.

                                               -29-
       In sum, we conclude that the circuit court clearly erred by determining that there was
competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record supporting the WTPC’s factual
finding that Northstar did not have a need for the natural resources located on its property.16

                           3. NO VERY SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES

        MCL 125.3205(4) placed the initial burden on Northstar to show “that no very serious
consequences would result from” the planned mining operation. And under MCL 125.3205(5),
the Legislature dictated that the Silva standards must be applied when determining whether very
serious consequences would result from extracting natural resources. A court may also consider,
if applicable, the relationship between mining and existing land uses and the impact of extracting
minerals on property values, on pedestrian and traffic safety, on the health, safety, and welfare
interests held by the local governmental unit, and on the overall public interest in extracting natural
resources. MCL 125.3205(5)(a)-(f).

        The WTPC effectively determined that Northstar had failed to establish that no very serious
consequences would result from the extraction of aggregate at the site. Accordingly, the circuit
court had to assess whether there was competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole
record supporting the WTPC’s finding that Northstar had failed to demonstrate that no very serious
consequences would result from the proposed mining operation.

         With respect to the findings of fact by the WTPC, the members found that Northstar’s
planned sand and gravel mine would seriously impact and lower property values in the area, that
it would result in a decrease in tax revenue because of the lower property values, that it would be
incompatible with the Master Plan, and that it would pose a serious risk to the safety and lives of
its citizens because of the many dangers and hazards associated with trucks hauling aggregate on
the local roadways. The WTPC further found that a gravel pit would create an undue financial
burden on the cash-strapped township in relation to the cost of road repairs necessitated by the
truck traffic, that it would cause a huge impact on the neighborhood and general welfare of the
community because of the excessive presence of gravel trucks on the roads, and that it would
diminish the quality of life of residents who had chosen a rural lifestyle. In the eyes of the WTPC,
all of these projected consequences amounted to very serious consequences that would result if it
granted Northstar’s SUP application.

        We conclude that the circuit court’s ruling on the issue of “very serious consequences” was
woefully inadequate. Indeed, the court never even mentioned the statutory terminology (very
serious consequences), let alone apply it in the context of its ruling. The circuit court focused

16
   With respect to the circuit court’s reliance on a single sentence in the Van Stensel report that the
sand and gravel on Northstar’s property would be stockpiled until needed, we fail to see any logic
in the court’s determination that this showed that Northstar did not need to mine the natural
resources on its property. Van Stensel was simply describing the logistical aspects of mining, and
clearly Northstar would have to stockpile aggregate at times in between different construction
projects. The circuit court essentially concluded that only by immediately removing aggregate
from its property could Northstar demonstrate need. We disagree with this view.

                                                 -30-
almost exclusively on the impact of a mining operation on property values. On the basis of the
Upjohn report and the study by the Healthy Waters Alliance which both indicated that mining
operations cause a decrease in the market value of surrounding properties, the court found that
there was competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record to support the
WTPC’s decision. The circuit court determined that these studies or reports had not been
discredited. The court was correct that the Upjohn report and the Healthy Waters Alliance study
had not been directly discredited. But the circuit court did not appear to take into consideration
that the Upjohn report was 15 years old and concerned different properties in a different township
and a different mine operator and that the Healthy Waters Alliance study also pertained to a
different township and operator, whereas Northstar offered two current studies of the impact of its
proposed mining operation on the value of relevant properties in the relevant township. We are
not holding that the circuit court’s ruling on the matter constituted error, but on remand the court
needs to address these distinctions between the competing studies and reports.

        More importantly, even assuming that the circuit court properly found that there was
competent, material, and substantial evidence demonstrating that Northstar’s planned mining
operation would decrease property values in the township, the court failed to take the necessary
next step in the analysis. The circuit court had to evaluate whether there was competent, material,
and substantial evidence showing that the decrease in value would constitute a very serious
consequence, which analysis would rationally entail a determination regarding the extent of any
decrease in value and the number of properties that would actually or likely suffer a decline in
value due to a gravel pit. Moreover, there needs to be at least some contemplation of whether one
lone consequence—a decrease in market value—can amount to very serious consequences. To be
clear, we take no position on the matter.

         Aside from the issue regarding the impact on property values, the circuit court, as noted
earlier, stated:

               In addition Watson Township considered its Master Plan, citizen input, the
       need in the community, and they had several evidentiary issues before them that
       they could consider and they were substantial. The[re] were not insignificant
       reports.

        This vague conclusory statement without any details provides no support for the circuit
court’s ruling. There is no dispute that the WTPC considered multiple issues, that the WTPC had
substantial evidentiary issues presented to it, and that there were significant reports. The circuit
court, however, was tasked with assessing whether there was identifiable competent, material, and
substantial evidence supporting the WTPC’s particular findings on the various issues, which the
court did not do, except in connection with the property-value issue, and even then the court’s
analysis was inadequate and incomplete.

        Finally, the circuit court appeared to accept Northstar’s contention that the vote on its SUP
application was predetermined as gleaned by comments and remarks made by WTPC members.
But the court made short shrift of the issue by concluding that such predetermination did not
correlate to a lack of competent, material, and substantial evidence supporting the WTPC’s
decision. While we do not necessarily disagree with the circuit court’s reasoning, the problem is
that the issue does not truly have a bearing on the substantial-evidence test but goes to the issue

                                                -31-
whether the WTPC’s SUP denial was authorized by law. And more particularly whether the
WTPC’s decision was arbitrary and capricious. Northwestern Nat’l Cas Co, 231 Mich App at 488.
An arbitrary decision is one based on whim or arrived at without consideration of principles,
circumstances, or significance, and a capricious decision is one that is apt to change suddenly or
is freakish, whimsical, or humorous. In re Keast, 278 Mich App 415, 424-425; 750 NW2d 643
(2008). In this case, if the circuit court finds on remand in favor of the WTPC on the issue of “very
serious consequences,” the court shall entertain the issue whether the WTPC’s denial of the SUP
application was authorized by law.

        We reverse and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.17 We do not retain
jurisdiction. Having prevailed on appeal, Northstar may tax costs under MCR 7.219.

                                                              /s/ Michael J. Riordan
                                                              /s/ Jane E. Markey
                                                              /s/ Christopher P. Yates

17
  We granted Northstar’s motion to supplement the record. Northstar Aggregates LLC v Watson
Twp, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered June 22, 2023 (Docket No. 363567). For
purposes of remand, the circuit court is to take into consideration the expanded record when ruling
on the various matters that need further examination as outlined in this opinion.

                                                -32-