Floral Property Lawsuit Blooms: Investment Firm Challenges Plymouth Township Over Rezoning Denial

Plymouth Township, MI – A local investment company, MZY Investments, has initiated legal action against Plymouth Township following the denial of a rezoning application that would have facilitated the redevelopment of a newly acquired property. The suit, seeking damages surpassing $25,000, was filed on June 4 in Wayne County Circuit Court. The litigation spotlights a contentious struggle over property rights and development clashes within the community.

MZY Investments, which acquired the Sparr’s Flowers & Greenhouse site in December 2022, pitched a reimagined use of the five-acre land at the junction of Joy and Lilley roads. Their envisioned development faced a setback following the township’s recent resolution to reject the conversion of the site from R1 single-family residential zoning to C2 general commercial zoning.

In a unanimous decision on April 9, the township board declined MZY Investments’ request for conditional rezoning. The decision is seen by the company as not only a setback to their development plans but as an infringement on their property rights, prompting the lawsuit alleging wrongful taking of property.

The township Supervisor, Kurt Heise, described the lawsuit as anticipated. He commented on the troubled interactions with the property owners, noting that despite multiple submissions of assorted proposals, the plans presented to the board were often seen as incomplete and raised unanswered questions. Heise expressed that the township had exerted considerable effort to accommodate MZY Investments’ proposals but found it challenging to proceed with them.

Residents living near the Sparr’s property have also been vocal at town meetings, expressing their opposition to the proposed developments due to concerns about increased traffic and changes to land use which could alter the character of the neighborhood. Initial proposals from MZY Investments included the construction of three apartment buildings, a drive-thru restaurant, and later revised plans replacing apartments with a 48-unit senior assisted living facility and a mixed-use building.

Despite these adjustments, the township planning commission aligned with community sentiment and recommended against the rezoning, guided by inconsistencies with the township’s master plan. This recommendation was followed by the planning commission’s eventual dismissal of the rezoning application, stonewalling the redevelopment project.

MZY Investments’ representatives, Naji Kahala and Mohammad Nawwas, had already rapidly altered their development proposition from multiple apartment buildings and commercial spaces to a more community-integrated plan featuring senior living and medical offices. However, these changes did not sway the final decision.

The developers argue that the township’s actions, especially in denying the rezoning request without a clear rationale, amount to a violation of their constitutional rights by effectively seizing control over their property. This situation, they claim, has inflicted severe economic damage on their investment and obstructed their proper control over the property’s fate.

Legal experts suggest that MZY Investments’ lawsuit could shine a light on the balance townships must maintain between governing land uses and respecting property rights, particularly when faced with public opposition and developmental pressures. As the case progresses, it could set a precedent for how similar disputes are handled in Michigan and potentially influence the broader discourse on property development and rights.