Court Opinion

ID: 9573484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:55:54.52708+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:41:22.108482
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, P. J.
(dissenting). Since I do not see how a decision either way could compound the existing confusion in the law applicable to judicial *598review of zoning cases, I would hold that for purposes of this case the trial court’s order on remand gave the board ample opportunity to satisfy the requirements of both tests. (Kropf v Sterling Heights, 391 Mich 139; 215 NW2d 179 [1974], Sabo v Monroe Twp, 394 Mich 531; 232 NW2d 584 [1975]). The defendant board disdained.
I would affirm.