## Facts

- Owners and a developer sought to rezone approximately 115 acres in Holland Charter Township from agricultural (A) to single-family residential (R-1); the planning commission recommended denial, including after the request was reduced to about 100 acres.
- After the rezoning effort failed, the owners sought a use variance from the township zoning board of appeals (ZBA) to permit a high-density residential project on agriculturally zoned land; after a sale to Vistiana Properties, LLC, the request was amended to a 250-unit development.
- Following public hearings, the ZBA granted the use variance, finding the property could not yield a reasonable economic return under existing agricultural uses, given rental-income evidence and tax/maintenance burdens.
- The ZBA also found the area was transitioning from agricultural to residential use, and that the township master plan anticipated eventual residential development on the site; the township had approved numerous residential uses within agricultural districts.
- Neighboring landowners challenged the decision as an unlawful attempt to rezone through a variance and as unsupported by the record; the circuit court affirmed, and the neighbors appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether granting a use variance for a roughly 100-acre agriculturally zoned parcel is impermissible rezoning because of the parcel’s size.
2. Whether the ZBA’s findings supporting the use variance, including unnecessary hardship and inability to realize a reasonable return, were supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record.

## Decision

- The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s judgment upholding the ZBA’s grant of the use variance.
- The court held parcel size, by itself, does not convert a use variance into an unauthorized rezoning because governing variance standards do not impose a size limitation.
- The court held the ZBA’s determination that the property could not yield a reasonable return under existing agricultural zoning, and that hardship existed, was supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence.
- The court concluded the ZBA did not abuse its discretion in granting the variance in light of the record evidence and the findings concerning surrounding development patterns and the master plan.

## Legal Principles

- A zoning board of appeals may grant a use variance when statutory and ordinance criteria are satisfied; the mere acreage of the parcel is not a categorical bar and does not alone establish impermissible rezoning.
- Reviewing courts defer to a ZBA’s factual findings and discretionary determinations and will uphold them if supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record and not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
- Evidence bearing on “reasonable return” and “unnecessary hardship” may include the economic feasibility of permitted uses under current zoning (including income relative to tax and maintenance burdens) and property-specific circumstances affecting viable use.
- Consistency with the locality’s character and long-term planning documents may support a finding that a variance does not violate the spirit and intent of the zoning ordinance.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a use variance authorizing a 250-unit residential development in an agricultural district, rejecting a per se “large-parcel” rezoning argument and finding substantial record support for the ZBA’s hardship and reasonable-return determinations.


Janssen v. Holland Charter Township Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 252 Mich. App. 197, 651 N.W.2d 464 (2002)