Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 125 / Act 110 of 2006
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3405 (2026)

Use and development of land as condition to rezoning.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN ZONING ENABLING ACT


Act 110 of 2006


125.3405 Use and development of land as condition to rezoning.

Sec. 405.

    (1) An owner of land may voluntarily offer in writing, and the local unit of government may approve, certain use and development of the land as a condition to a rezoning of the land or an amendment to a zoning map.

    (2) In approving the conditions under subsection (1), the local unit of government may establish a time period during which the conditions apply to the land. Except for an extension under subsection (4), if the conditions are not satisfied within the time specified under this subsection, the land shall revert to its former zoning classification.

    (3) The local government shall not add to or alter the conditions approved under subsection (1) during the time period specified under subsection (2) of this section.

    (4) The time period specified under subsection (2) may be extended upon the application of the landowner and approval of the local unit of government.

    (5) A local unit of government shall not require a landowner to offer conditions as a requirement for rezoning. The lack of an offer under subsection (1) shall not otherwise affect a landowner's rights under this act, the ordinances of the local unit of government, or any other laws of this state.

History: 2006, Act 110, Eff. July 1, 2006

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2014–2025 · leading case: Ronald a Jostock v. Mayfield Twp. (Mich. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ronald a Jostock v. Mayfield Twp. (Mich. 2024). · cites it 27× “In May 2021, A2B filed a conditional-rezoning agreement with the township in accordance with the procedures set forth in MCL 125.3405, seeking to have the property rezoned to C-2, with limitations on when the dragway could operate.”
Julie E Visser Trust v. City of Wyoming (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 5× “The revision stated that the conditions were voluntary in accordance with MCL 125.3405, which prohibits a municipality from requiring a landowner to agree to certain conditions in exchange for an agreement to rezone.”
Ronald a Jostock v. Mayfield Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “” MCL 125.3405(1). “[T]he keystone of a conditional rezoning is that the conditions are voluntarily offered by the property owner in writing, and the local unit of government cannot require the landowner to offer conditions as a requirement for rezoning.”
Ronald a Jostock v. Mayfield Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “” MCL 125.3405(1). “[T]he keystone of a conditional rezoning is that the conditions are voluntarily offered by the property owner in writing, and the local unit of government cannot require the landowner to offer conditions as a requirement for rezoning.”
Oakland Tactical Supply, LLC v. Howell Twp. (E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 2× “It might have done so by seeking conditional rezoning of that 6 parcel, see Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3405 ; or by applying for a special use permit, see Howell Township Zoning Ordinance, Art.”
Eureka Bldg. Inc v. City of Troy (E.D. Mich. 2020). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3405 . And the Troy Zoning Ordinance provides that a conditional rezoning “may only be approved upon a finding and determination” that five relevant factors are met: (1) the rezoning is consistent with the city’s Master Plan, (2) the rezoning will not…”
Chestnut Dev. LLC v. Twp. of Genoa (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “MCL 125.3405(2) also provides that when conditions for rezoning are not satisfied “the land shall revert to its former zoning classification.”
Teridee LLC v. Charter Twp. of Haring (Mich. 2017). “” 64 And, indeed, our Constitution encourages legislation such as Act 425 that allows local governments to “enter into contractual undertakings or agreements with one another . . . for the joint administration of any of the functions or powers which each would have the power to…”
Tollbrook, LLC v. City of Troy (6th Cir. 2019). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3405 (2006) (emphasis added).”
Karen Connell v. Lima Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “[MCL 125.3405.] Thus, the keystone of a conditional rezoning is that the conditions are voluntarily offered by the property owner in writing, and the local unit of government cannot require the landowner to offer conditions as a requirement for rezoning.”
Tollbrook LLC v. City of Troy (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “” Plaintiffs attached preliminary sketches of three-story mixed-use and apartment buildings, but because these were not conditional rezoning requests under MCL 125.3405(1), the illustrations did not bind the applicants to a particular use.”
Teridee LLC v. Charter Twp. of Haring (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “While defendants correctly note that the Legislature has authorized other forms of contract zoning, see MCL 125.3405, MCL 125.3503, and MCL 125.3504, those statutory provisions, by their plain language, specifically provide a mechanism for contract zoning and provide the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3405(1) — 4 cases
Ronald a Jostock v. Mayfield Twp. (Mich. 2024). “In May 2021, A2B filed a conditional-rezoning agreement with the township in accordance with the procedures set forth in MCL 125.3405, seeking to have the property rezoned to C-2, with limitations on when the dragway could operate.”
Ronald a Jostock v. Mayfield Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” MCL 125.3405(1). “[T]he keystone of a conditional rezoning is that the conditions are voluntarily offered by the property owner in writing, and the local unit of government cannot require the landowner to offer conditions as a requirement for rezoning.”
Ronald a Jostock v. Mayfield Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” MCL 125.3405(1). “[T]he keystone of a conditional rezoning is that the conditions are voluntarily offered by the property owner in writing, and the local unit of government cannot require the landowner to offer conditions as a requirement for rezoning.”
Tollbrook LLC v. City of Troy (Mich. Ct. App. 2025). “” Plaintiffs attached preliminary sketches of three-story mixed-use and apartment buildings, but because these were not conditional rezoning requests under MCL 125.3405(1), the illustrations did not bind the applicants to a particular use.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3405(2) — 3 cases
Chestnut Dev. LLC v. Twp. of Genoa (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “MCL 125.3405(2) also provides that when conditions for rezoning are not satisfied “the land shall revert to its former zoning classification.”
Ronald a Jostock v. Mayfield Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” MCL 125.3405(1). “[T]he keystone of a conditional rezoning is that the conditions are voluntarily offered by the property owner in writing, and the local unit of government cannot require the landowner to offer conditions as a requirement for rezoning.”
Ronald a Jostock v. Mayfield Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “” MCL 125.3405(1). “[T]he keystone of a conditional rezoning is that the conditions are voluntarily offered by the property owner in writing, and the local unit of government cannot require the landowner to offer conditions as a requirement for rezoning.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3405(5) — 1 case
Julie E Visser Trust v. City of Wyoming (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “The revision stated that the conditions were voluntary in accordance with MCL 125.3405, which prohibits a municipality from requiring a landowner to agree to certain conditions in exchange for an agreement to rezone.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.