TWP OF GROVELAND V ELSIE BOWRENAnnotate this Case
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
TOWNSHIP OF GROVELAND,
November 3, 1998
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 89-370464 CZ
ELSIE BOWREN and CINDY BOWREN,
Before: Holbrook, P.J., and Sawyer and McDonald, JJ.
This case involves a permanent injunction issued by the trial court in 1990 enjoining defendant
Rademacher (hereinafter “defendant”) from operating a dog kennel on her property. The essential
facts, set forth in Twp of Groveland v Bowren, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of
Appeals, issued April 23, 1993 (Docket No. 135151), are:
Defendant owns more than sixteen acres of land in Groveland Township and it
is zoned for agricultural use. After . . . defendant constructed a breeding and boarding
kennel, . . . plaintiff sought an injunction against the kennel’s operation as a nuisance per
se because it violated the zoning ordinance. The trial court found that the kennel was a
nuisance per se. The trial court reasoned that the exclusion of kennels from
[agricultural] . . . zones was not unconstitutional because the zoning ordinance provides
for the establishment of kennels in local business zones. [Id. at 1.]
In our April 1993 opinion, we affirmed the granting of the permanent injunction, concluding that
the ordinance was constitutional on its face. Id. at 1. We also declined to address (1) whether the
ordinance was constitutional as applied to defendant, and (2) whether the
ordinance violated the Michigan Right to Farm Act, MCL 286.471 et seq.; MSA 12.122(1) et seq.
(hereinafter “RFTA”), because those two issues were unpreserved, and because we found no
miscarriage of justice. Id. at 2. Defendant then sought leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court.
In lieu of granting leave, the Supreme Court remanded the case to this Court for consideration as on
rehearing granted. Twp of Groveland v Bowren, 445 Mich 908; 515 NW2d 740 (1994). We then
“remand[ed] the matter to the trial court to permit it to make supplemental findings of fact and
conclusions of law on” the remaining two issues. Twp of Groveland v Bowren, unpublished opinion
per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued September 26, 1994 (Docket No. 175732). Subsequently,
the trial court held that the ordinance was not unconstitutional as applied, and that the ordinance did not
violate the RFTA.
After reviewing the record, we affirm the trial court’s disposition of the case. As did the trial
court, we reject defendant’s contention that her kennel is akin to a farming operation. Accordingly, we
also reject defendant’s contentions that (1) because the kennel was located on land zoned for
agricultural use, the application of the ordinance to defendant was arbitrary and capricious, Delta
Charter Twp v Dinolfo, 419 Mich 253, 268; 351 NW2d 831 (1984); and (2) that the ordinance
violates the RFTA. Furthermore, we note that “[b]ecause this cause of action was filed to enforce a
zoning ordinance, the RFTA is not a defense.” City of Troy v Papadelis (On Remand), 226 Mich
App 90, 96; 572 NW2d 246 (1997).
/s/ Donald E. Holbrook, Jr.
/s/ David H. Sawyer
/s/ Gary R. McDonald