A judge has dismissed Grand Sakwa's lawsuit against Northfield Township.

Washtenaw County Circuit Court Judge David Swartz came to the decision following seven years of litigation that divided the community. The plaintiffs, real estate developer Grand Sakwa and members of Northfield Township’s Leland family, from whom Grand Sakwa agreed to purchase land that was at the center of the dispute, have filed an appeal.

Had the judge ruled in Grand Sakwa's favor, it's expected the developer would have sought $20 million to $30 million in damages.

Grand Sakwa argued that the township unconstitutionally took land when it reversed its rezoning of 213 acres of farmland the developer agreed to purchase from the Leland family to use as the site for a dense residential subdivision.

Grand Sakwa charged that the new zoning — which allowed one home per every two acres of land instead of four homes on each acre — wouldn’t allow it to recoup the $6.56 million it agreed to spend to buy the land at North Territorial and Five Mile roads.

Grand Sakwa has made some payments to the Leland family to extend their option of purchasing the land, but never actually completed the purchase.

When Grand Sakwa signed the agreement in late 2003, the township’s Board of Trustees initially changed the zoning from agricultural to the more dense single-family residential zoning to accommodate the project. But many residents opposed the development, and a successful referendum on the issue organized by a group of residents called the Northfield Neighbors returned the land to agricultural by a margin of more than 2-1.

A subsequent application for a variance was denied. Then in 2005, less than a year after Grand Sakwa filed its suit, a newly elected board composed mostly of Northfield Neighbors updated the township’s growth management plan to zone the land limited residential, which would allow one home for every two acres.

The new board reasoned that the land-use was more compatible with the surrounding area and helped “preserve a predominantly rural character.” According to Swartz’s order, the surrounding area is primarily occupied with large-lot homes, Whitmore Lake High School to the east, and some commercial property nearby, including a Meijer. The 213 acres is also outside of the township’s sewer district.

In his order, Swartz wrote that Grand Sakwa’s challenge of the limited residential zoning was driven by the density restrictions and an argument that it was “dead land without value”. Grand Sakwa alleged single-family is the “only reasonable and feasible zoning” for the area because of a lack of demand for and excess of agricultural land in the area.

Swartz wrote that a more dense use would be more profitable and serve a nearby urban center, but said questioning the “wisdom” of trustees' decision to zone the land limited residential doesn’t make it unconstitutional.

The judge added that the township made clear their goals of preserving the area’s rural aesthetic, preventing overcrowding and stress on the road system, preserving farmland and ensuring that adequate infrastructure and public services are in place to support a denser population.

“The evidence showed that while (the) defendant’s zoning scheme may not be the best plan, or may not allow the most wise or profitable use of the land, it is a reasonable plan based on defined zoning goals and objectives,” Swartz wrote.

Grand Sakwa also argued it had spent $1.9 million making payments on the property and pursuing zoning approvals with the expectation it would be able to build the development and recoup its investment. But Swartz noted no building permits were pulled, construction never commenced and no building plans were ordered. Therefore, he wrote, the investment doesn’t meet legal standards demonstrating an investment was made under the expectation the zoning was at the higher-density single-family zoning.

He added Grand Sakwa was aware the land was zoned agricultural and lacked municipal sewer access when it was purchased.

“Plaintiff presented no evidence that it engaged in, or made significant expenditures for, planning development or construction of the site,” Swartz wrote.

Paul Burns, an attorney for the township, said it was never made clear what Grand Sakwa spent $1.9 million on.

He also highlighted that Grand Sakwa paid $10,000 per acre when most of the land was appraised at $3,500 per acre. Several expert witnesses testified that they had purchased or sold land or both in the area zoned limited residential for similar or higher figures. Swartz said that indicated that the land wasn’t valueless when zoned limited residential, as Grand Sakwa contended.

An attorney representing Grand Sakwa declined to comment.

"We're very happy with the result," Burns said. "We thought the judge's analysis was exactly on point."

Township Supervisor Deb Mozurkewich said she was pleased the court ruled in favor of "allowing the township the right to plan." She added construction for the project would have started right as the real estate bubble burst, and many other similar developments started at that time around the state were either halted or only partially built. The lack of a market bankrupted developers or left the municipalities “holding the bag” in many cases, she said.

“I would think the developer would have been happy they were prevented from moving forward, especially when you look back and ask ‘was that really a good thing?’” Mozurkewich said.

David Gordon is one of the Northfield Neighbors who was elected to the board in 2004. He said Grand Sakwa was trying to use a tactic developers commonly use when a municipality opposes their plans.

"Grand Sakwa never had a chance to win this case," he said. "It was an intimidation plan, plain and simple: 'If you don’t do what we want, then we’ll make you pay,'" he said. "That's very cynical, but it wasn't like they were going to win.

"To them a couple hundred grand isn’t a big deal ... and this original rezoning was never acceptable to the residents of this township."