The interpretation on if an offroad park is an amusement facility and not a recreation area is ultimately up to the board, and if they give some reasons on why they believe that, it's going to be VERY hard for a judge to reverse their decision. Judges don't want to undercut local ordinances. The only way it could be overturned is if their reasoning is arbitrary or capricious, e.g. by making statements like "I don't like it." They will use the noise as an example if they are smart - parks typically don't generate a lot of it. Hopefully they're not smart, but if they have attorneys on board, they're probably not going to let something slip through.Quinlan Zoning Bulletin said:Special Use Permit – Zoning Ordinance Fails To Provide For Motocross tracks
Landowner claims area’s need for motocross tracks makes ordinance illegal.
Citation: Bracelin v. Allegan Township Zoning Board of Appeals, Court of Appeals of Michigan, No. 259758 (2006)
MICHIGAN (08/17/06) – Over the course of five years, Bracelin built a motocross track on his property, which was located in an agricultural district of the township of Allegan.
When neighbors complained, Bracelin applied for and received a special use permit for the track from the planning commission. However, after another hearing, the zoning board of appeals revoked the permit, finding that the planning commission could not grant a special use permit for a motocross track in an agricultural district.
Bracelin sued the board, but the court ruled in its favor.
Bracelin appealed, arguing that the zoning ordinance was illegal because there was no provision for any motocross track or any other type of track at all.
Having no allowance for any motocross track or other type of track did not make the ordinance illegal.
For the zoning ordinance to be invalid, Bracelin had to establish that: 1) there was a demonstrated need for the excluded land use in the township or surrounding area; 2) the use was appropriate for the location; and 3) the use was lawful.
At the board of appeals hearing, a few people commented that there were very few places for them to participate in motocross, and they emphasized that the track was family-oriented. Such comments from a handful of people did not demonstrate a sufficient need for a motocross track in the township or surrounding area, but merely indicated a desire to have the track. Furthermore, there were similar types of tracks in other nearby towns.
Ultimately, Bracelin failed to demonstrate a need for a track at his proposed location. Because the first prong of his argument failed, the decision of the lower court had to be affirmed.
I think the use fits in best in an agricultural area. You have the largest parcels around so neighbors aren't going to be affected as affected by noise as they would be in a denser district. It's better than a commercial zoning where you're going to have a Home Depot or Red Lobster next door.I hate to say it, but I agree with the township that this is not a use that fits an AG zoned area. Their only hope would be to have the parcel re-zoned to commercial or something similar.
Zoning and the permitted uses in each district are a local thing. Just because Municipality A sees it as an acceptable use, that sets no precedent stating that Municipality B must do the same.Arig Zoning includes golf course-parks and recreation, The mounds and Silver lake were arig zoned, and how does this not fit a motorized recreation?
How do you figure they didn't? They looked at if the motorized recreation fit THEIR idea of parks and recreation, decided that it didn't, and gave reasons to support their decision. To be blunt, fighting this will be a waste of money and time. A judge will not reverse a decision unless, as I said before, their decision was arbitrary or capricious. Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but that's just how zoning law works.this meetings was put forth by the courts for one reason, to look at the zoning laws and decide if it fit. During this meeting the topwnship and residents did not follow what the court put them into the meeting to do, so this will go again into the courts hands and continue on from their
From what I heard of the first meeting that was called to answer this question, they never even answered it. Didn't they just jump straight to the point that they didn't want it there?How do you figure they didn't? They looked at if the motorized recreation fit THEIR idea of parks and recreation, decided that it didn't, and gave reasons to support their decision. To be blunt, fighting this will be a waste of money and time. A judge will not reverse a decision unless, as I said before, their decision was arbitrary or capricious. Sorry to be Debbie Downer, but that's just how zoning law works.