ROY SMITH CO V CITY OF DETROIT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
ROY SMITH CO. and ROY SMITH
INVESTMENT CO.
UNPUBLISHED
October 11. 1996
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 176318
LC No. 92-229133 CE
CITY OF DETROIT and AARO WASTE PAPER
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellees.
Before: Reilly, P.J., and Michael J. Kelly, and C.L. Bosman,* JJ.
MICHAEL J. KELLY, J (dissenting)
This courts’ review of the findings of the Circuit Court and BZA is de novo. Great weight is
given to the findings of the lower court and the BZA. Appellate relief is available only when our review
of the record convinces this court that it would have reached a different result. Rogers v City of Allen
Park 186 Mich App 33, 36-37; 463 NW2d 431 (1990); Cryderman v City of Birmingham 171
Mich App 15, 20, 429 NW2d 625; 1988. Appellants do not argue that the BZA decision was
contrary to law or based upon improper procedures.
The BZA required the facility to meet all health, safety, air pollution and traffic flow regulations.
It conditioned it’s grant with the imposition of 22 specific compliance requirements which must be met
and maintained at all times. Participating agencies overwhelmingly supported the grant of the Use
Permit.
The BZA decision was supported by competent, material and substantial evidence on the
record, and represented a reasonable exercise of discretion granted to it by law. Where there is
sufficient evidence, a reviewing court must not substitute its discretion for that of the administrative
tribunal even if the court might have reached a different result. Black v DSS 195 Mich App 27, 30;
489 NW2d 493 (1992). A reviewing court must give due deference to the agency’s regulatory
expertise and may not invade the province of exclusive administrative fact finding by displacing an
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
agency’s’ choice between two reasonable differing views. Gordon v Bloomfield Hills 207 Mich App
231, 232 523 NW2d 806, (1994); Davenport v Grosse Pointe Farms Zoning Bd. 210 Mich App
400, 405-406, 534 NW2d 143 (1995)
I would affirm the Circuit Courts findings of 3/18/94 affirming the BZA decision granting
appellee Aaro Waste Paper Co.’s special use permit to construct and operate the waste facility in
question.
Dissenting
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
