Court Opinion

ID: 9519400
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:15:59.118286+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:20.954969
License: Public Domain

Levin, J.
(concurring separately). The majority declares that the Township Rural Zoning Act1 "permits townships to regulate riparian rights, such as dockage of boats, as part of their zoning power.”2
The majority so declares although the provision3 of the West Bloomfield Charter Township Zoning Ordinance here at issue does not — as West Bloom*567field ácknowledged, indeed stressed, in the circuit court — "regulate riparian rights.”
Outlot A, the land in issue, fronts on Pine Lake. The plaintiffs did indeed apply for a special use permit to dock and launch boats from outlot a. But the provision of the zoning ordinance here at issue does not, either in terms or in substance, seek to regulate the use of lake frontage or use of the lake. The provision regulates, rather, the use of land — without regard to whether it fronts on a lake — as a park for outdoor recreation, stating that the township board may authorize use of land, such as outlot a, as a park for outdoor recreation on a finding that such use would not be "incompatible with already existing uses in the area” and, in particular, " 'that such use does not impair the natural appearance of such land or tend to produce unreasonable noise or annoyance to surrounding properties.’ ”4
Under this provision of its zoning ordinance, the only provision here at issue, West Bloomfield denied plaintiffs a special use permit to increase from two to eleven the number of boats that might be docked at outlot a. That denial of a special use permit was in accordance with the terms of the ordinance if such use would in fact have impaired the natural appearance of outlot A or have tended to produce unreasonable noise or annoyance to surrounding properties.
The majority reverses the order of summary disposition for the plaintiffs entered by the circuit court and remands for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court. I agree with this disposition, and suggest that an issue on remand might be whether the special use sought by the plaintiffs would in fact impair the natural *568appearance of outlot A or tend to produce unreasonable noise or annoyance to surrounding properties.
I write separately to express my disagreement with the majority’s decision to declare whether a township has the authority to regulate riparian rights or the docking of boats pursuant to the trza in a case where the zoning ordinance provision at issue does not purport to regulate riparian rights or the docking of boats.
I
The circuit court, in granting Hess’ motion for partial summary disposition, declared that West Bloomfield’s zoning ordinance was invalid "insofar as it purports to regulate dock construction and boat dockage.” The judge based his ruling on the decision of the Court of Appeals in Fox & Associates, Inc v Hayes Twp, 162 Mich App 647; 413 NW2d 465 (1987), which the judge said was "controlling.” He said that the Court of Appeals there held that "Hayes Township had no authority under the trza to regulate dock construction and boat dockage through its zoning ordinance.”5 The Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal.
I concur in reversal of the circuit court. I would, however, reverse on the basis that the circuit *569court erred in concluding, first, that West Bloomfield was "attempting to regulate boat dockage” under the provision of its zoning ordinance here relied on, requiring a special use permit to use land as a park for outdoor recreation, and, second, that Fox & Associates barred West Bloomfield from denying plaintiffs a special use permit to increase from two to eleven the number of boats docked at outlot A.
I thus agree with the position advocated by West Bloomfield in the circuit court, where West Bloomfield argued that the ordinance involved in Fox & Associates "attempted to regulate water, use rights. That's not what we have in this case.” (Emphasis added.)
West Bloomfield further argued that when the plaintiffs sought permission to increase the number of boats that could be docked at outlot a, the issue under the pertinent provision of its zoning ordinance was whether the proposed increased use of outlot A was reasonable in a residential area, and whether, as set forth in the ordinance,6 "the use of the land was going to tend to produce unreasonable noise and annoyance to neighbors. Very simple, very simple, if you remove the water context, this kind of administrative issue comes up every month at a normal Township proceeding. Is the use of this property going to be interfering with adjoining property.”7 (Emphasis added.)
*570Disposition of this appeal does not require or justify addressing the issue decided by the Court of Appeals in Fox & Associates. All that need be said to decide this appeal is that, first, entirely apart from whether Fox & Associates correctly ruled that the trza does not authorize a township to regulate water use or riparian rights, a township has the authority under the trza to regulate land use, and thus to permit the use of land as a park for outdoor recreation only to the extent that such use does not either impair the natural appearance of the land or tend to produce unreasonable noise or annoyance to surrounding properties. And, second, that the circuit court erred in ruling that the Court of Appeals decided in Fox & Associates that the trza proscribes regulation of land use that affects in any way "dock construction and boat dockage.”
II
It is not appropriate for this Court to seek to decide in this case, where there truly is no issue regarding the authority of a township to regulate water use or riparian rights, the question whether the Legislature has delegated such authority to a township under the trza. The authority of a township to regulate riparian rights and docking of boats properly can be decided only in a case where the zoning provision at issue regulates riparian rights or the docking of boats and the validity of such a regulatory provision is truly at issue._
*571To be sure, West Bloomfield, by denying a special use permit to increase from two to eleven the number of boats that might be docked at outlot A, did seek to regulate the docking of boats at outlot a. But it asserted the authority to do so not on the basis that it had the right under the trza to regulate water use or riparian rights, but on the basis that it had the right to regulate the use of the land at which the dock was sited so that any increase in the number of boats docked would neither impair the natural appearance of the land nor tend to produce unreasonable noise or annoyance to surrounding properties.
While it may be of little importance to the plaintiffs here whether they are. denied an increase in boat dockage on one basis or the other, in another case it might be of considerable importance whether a township may, under the trza, regulate a riparian owner’s use of the water or the docking or launching of boats irrespective of whether such use might, in a recreational park setting, result in unreasonable noise or annoyance to surrounding properties.
III
This Court, first in Square Lake Hills Condominium Ass’n v Bloomfield Twp, 437 Mich 310; 471 NW2d 321 (1991), and now in this case, has been striving to address the question whether Fox & Associates was correctly decided. That the issue has not been squarely presented in either case may be frustrating, but does not justify departure from the norms of decision making.
After the parties resolved the controversy underlying Fox & Associates, this Court declined to provide an advisory opinion regarding the law applicable in the factual situation presented in *572that case.8 This Court should adhere to the principle underlying its refusal to render such an opinion in Fox & Associates, by declining to render such an opinion in a case that does not even present the issue there presented.
iv
It appears that West Bloomfield is largely a developed community. Any zoning of water use or riparian rights by West Bloomfield would most often affect land that has been subdivided and intensively developed and used for some time. Any effort to rezone against existing uses would confront the rights of pérsons who then would become nonconforming users.
While it may be reasonable to regulate land use with an eye to water use, especially where the entire body of water lies, as in the instant case, within a single township, different questions will arise where the water is bordered by land located in several townships, as in Fox & Associates.9 Where several townships border the water, one township may not, as a practical matter, be able effectively to regulate water use.10 This would im*573plicate the power of the state to regulate water use and plaintiffs’ claim that the state has preempted the regulation of water use and riparian rights.11
v
It is asserted that there is a need to recognize a power in townships to regulate water use and riparian rights to provide a means for controlling overuse of lakes by backlot owners in funnel developments. The asserted need arises where a township’s zoning ordinance permits12 the use of lakefront land for a use other than single or multiple family residences fronting on the lake.
Where, however, township zoning does not in effect permit the recreational use of lakefront land *574by persons who are not the owners of single or multiple family residences fronting on the lake, a township may not need an expansive construction of the zoning power to prevent overuse resulting from funnel development. Townships, in the exercise of their undoubted power to zone land use, might proscribe for future subdivisions the use of lakefront land except for single family residences or, possibly, multiple family residences with a family density limitation13 based on lakefront footage.14
*575As set forth in Square Lake, supra, p 335, and to that extent I there agreed with the majority, " 'townships have the authority to regulate boat docking and launching for the protection of the health, safety, and welfare of persons and property within their communities under the township ordinance act,’ ”15 even though they may not have such power under the trza. I suggested that "[a] township could, accordingly, appropriately enact, under the township ordinance act, a regulation barring the docking of motorboats in an unsafe or hazardous manner, or the launching of motorboats during usual sleeping hours.” Id.
In sum, there is neither need nor justification for addressing a fundamental question of water and zoning law in a case where the issue is not truly presented.

 MCL 125.271 et seq.; MSA 5.2963(1) et seq.

 Ante, pp 565-566.

 "The following uses may be permitted in an R-10, R-12.5 and R-15 one-family residential district after review and approval of the site plan by the planning commission and provided that the planning commission finds that the use would not be incompatible with already existing uses in the area or would not interfere with orderly development of the area and will not be detrimental to the safety or convenience of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, subject to the conditions imposed for each use, and subject to final approval by the township board:
"(4) Land may be used for privately owned and operated parks, picnic groves or similar facilities for outdoor recreation which may not he operated for profit; provided, that such use does not impair the natural appearance of such land or tend to produce unreasonable noise or annoyance to surrounding properties, and provided further that no use shall be made of any open land or water for boat liveries or commercial bathing beaches. [Section 26-73.]” [Ante, p 554, n 2. Emphasis in opinion of the Court.]

 Id.

 He also quoted the following passage in the opinion of the Court of Appeals:
Even with the liberal construction of the provisions of the constitution in mind, we do not believe that the trza grants authority to townships to regulate or limit boat dockage construction or riparian access rights. After consideration of all the applicable rules of statutory construction, we can only conclude that the Legislature, in enacting the trza, granted authority to townships to zone land use but not water use or to regulate riparian rights. [Fox & Associates v Hayes Twp, supra, p 656.]

 See n 3.

 West Bloomfield further argued:
In this case we happen to have a lake next door or adjoining the property.
And the question before the Township is just what can be done on this out lot as a recreational piece of property, not as a boat issue. It’s not a situation like in Fox where they’re saying how many boats can you have, how many docks can you put in, *570period. The question is how can you use this recreational piece of land.
So it’s completely distinguishable from Fox because it’s not a matter of how are you going to regulate the water. It’s a matter of how you’re going to regulate the land and using this water use thing as a tool or a measure. [Emphasis added.]

 On July 19, 1989, this Court entered an order, after briefing and oral argument in this Court, vacating its earlier order granting leave to appeal in Fox & Associates. The order stated that "in light of the proposed consent judgment agreed to by the parties, leave to appeal is denied because the Court is no longer persuaded that it should review the questions presented.” Two justices, in a separate statement, said that they "would retain the appeal for plenary consideration.” 432 Mich 932 (1989).

 Lake Charlevoix is bordered by three or more townships and three cities or villages.

 The majority therefore overstates the matter when it writes:
Similarly, the conservation of natural resources, which clearly includes water, cannot be undertaken if there is no means for regulating riparian rights. Finally, the stated purpose of the trza is to allow townships to balance the most *573advantageous uses of the lands, resources, and properties within their boundaries and to create zoning districts and ordinances in accordance with such evaluations. Such a balance could not be achieved if riparian rights are excluded from any zoning control by the township. [Emphasis added. Ante, p 563.]
While such a "balance” might be achieved if the Legislature were to grant townships authority to zone respecting riparian rights where the entire body of water is located in a single township, such balance probably cannot be achieved by recognizing or delegating such authority to townships where the entire body of water is, as in the case of Lake Charlevoix, bordered by three cities or villages and at least three townships.

 The Legislature has enacted a number of laws to protect and preserve the state’s natural resources, including water.
Those acts include the Natural River Act, MCL 281.761 et seq.; MSA 11.501 et seq.; the Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Act, MCL 282.101 et seq.; MSA 13.1820(1) et seq.; the Wilderness and Natural Areas Act, MCL 322.751 et seq.; MSA 13.734(1) et seq.; the Inland Lakes and Streams Act, MCL 281.951 et seq.; MSA 11.475(1) et seq.; the Shorelands Protection and Management Act, MCL 281.631 et seq.; MSA 13.1831 et seq.; the Environmental Protection Act, MCL 691.1201 et seq.; MSA 14.528(201) et seq.; the Farmland and Open Space Preservation Act, MCL 554.701 et seq.; MSA 26.1287(1) et seq.; the Sand Dune Protection and Management Act, MCL 281.651 et seq.; MSA 18.595(1) et seq.; and the Wetland Protection Act, MCL 281.701 et seq.; MSA 18.595(51) et seq.

 In Fox & Associates, pursuant to a planned unit development.

 In contrast with a boat-dockage limitation.
The limitations in the zoning ordinance involved in Fox & Associates are set forth in Judge McDonald’s dissenting opinion in Fox & Associates, supra, p 657.

 The majority again overstates the matter when it writes that townships "must” have the ability to regulate the exercise of riparian rights, and that to deny them such authority would permit the destruction or impairment of natural resources:
In order for townships to properly protect the bodies of water from destruction or impairment, pursuant to their zoning power within the trza, there must be an ability to regulate the exercise of riparian rights. To prohibit townships from exercising such regulatory zoning authority over riparian rights would permit the destruction or impairment of the natural resources associated with such bodies of water. To construe the trza in the manner asserted by plaintiffs, and the Court of Appeals majority in Fox, supra, would essentially prohibit townships from protecting the natural resources located within their communities that happen to be associated with bodies of water. [Ante, p 565.]
The majority’s statement ignores the legislation concerning the use of inland waters (see n 11) and the power of the Legislature to enact additional legislation as may be thought necessary to protect the natural resources associated with bodies of water.
The majority goes even further when it appears to constitutionalize the power of townships to protect the environment:
Thus, by granting townships the authority to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare through enactment of zoning ordinances, the Legislature was complying with this constitutional mandate to protect the environment, including bodies of water, from impairment or destruction. \Ante, p 565. Emphasis added.]

 MCL 41.181; MSA 5.45(1).