The Short Version
Under Michigan law, zoning ordinances must be based upon a plan (MCL 125.3203). Mason's Master Plan emphasizes small-town charm, preserving the rural context, and lighter uses at city fringes. The City claims M-3 aligns with the plan by "cherry-picking" a single economic development factor while ignoring 16 other criteria the plan requires be considered. This approach may not withstand legal scrutiny.
The Legal Requirement
The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act establishes clear requirements for how zoning decisions must be made:
MCL 125.3203(1)
"The zoning ordinance shall be based upon a plan designed to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare... be made with reasonable consideration of the character of each district, its peculiar suitability for particular uses, the conservation of property values and natural resources, and the general and appropriate trend and character of land, building, and population development."Michigan Zoning Enabling Act
MCL 125.3501(4)
Local land-use decisions must be made on the basis of zoning requirements, other applicable ordinances, and "other statutorily authorized and properly approved local unit of government planning documents."Michigan Zoning Enabling Act
This statutory framework reflects a core principle of Michigan zoning law: zoning ordinances must be based upon a plan, not on the interests of a particular developer or project.
What Mason's Master Plan Actually Says
Mason's Master Plan identifies three overarching shared principles to guide City-wide decision-making:
"Welcoming"
Promoting Mason as a welcoming place
"Charming"
Preserving its small-town charm
"Safe"
Providing safe infrastructure through forward-thinking planning
Mason's Master Plan, p. 99
The Master Plan's Future Land Use vision provides specific guidance:
On Responsible Growth
The Master Plan's "How to Grow Responsibly" section emphasizes keeping growth in strategic locations where infrastructure exists or can reasonably be extended, while limiting intensive development at the City's periphery unless it matches surrounding character and preserves Mason's rural context.
See "How to Grow Responsibly," Mason's Master Plan, p. 68On Infrastructure
"[T]here is presently vacant or underutilized land within Mason's service boundary that can be served by public water and sewer. By focusing new development and infill in these areas first, the city can more efficiently provide the necessary infrastructure to support new growth."Mason's Master Plan, p. 69
On Rural Character
The Master Plan describes the future desires of the community to be preservation of neighborhoods and new neighborhoods that are:
"harmonious with the existing city fabric"
And emphasizes that community members:
"enjoy the rural context of the city"
And that the:
"green ring of farms surrounding the community is an asset which should be maintained by the Future Land Use plan via lighter uses at the city fringes."Mason's Master Plan, p. 76
The City's "Cherry-Picking" Problem
In its FAQs for the M-3 ordinance, the City argues alignment with the Master Plan:
"Under the 'Investment' goal, the [Master] plan states that the City must 'consider long-term efficiency, resiliency, and the next generation's needs,' specifically asking whether a project 'diversifies Mason's tax base' or merely expands an already dominant sector. Data centers align with the plan's goal of increasing high-value, low-impact development, enhancing our economic resiliency: properties that use utilities and generate tax revenue but have minimal long-term effects on housing demand, public services, traffic, and schools."City's FAQs, p. 10
The Problem
The City has "cherry-picked" a single element from the "Safe" guiding principles to support the M-3 ordinance. However:
- There are 5 elements under the "Safe" guiding principle, and only one involves "tax base diversity"
- There are 11 additional criteria under "Welcoming" and "Charming" that the City must also consider
- The City cannot isolate one factor and place undue weight on it to justify their action while ignoring the other 16 criteria
Economic development is an important municipal goal, but the Master Plan makes clear that this goal is not pursued in isolation. It must be balanced against the Plan's guiding principles, land-use framework, and infrastructure constraints.
Where M-3 Conflicts with the Master Plan
Contradicts "Lighter Uses at City Fringes"
The Master Plan explicitly calls for "lighter uses at the city fringes" to maintain the "green ring of farms." Hyperscale data centers, which the City acknowledges require special noise, traffic, and environmental regulations, are the opposite of "lighter uses."
Contradicts "Small-Town Charm"
One of three overarching principles is preserving Mason's "small-town charm." Industrial facilities spanning 100+ acres with 24/7 operations, cooling towers, and security fencing are fundamentally incompatible with this principle.
Contradicts "Rural Context"
The Plan emphasizes that residents "enjoy the rural context of the city." Converting agricultural land to intensive industrial use permanently eliminates rural context.
Contradicts Infrastructure Guidance
The Plan recommends focusing development where infrastructure exists. Data centers require massive new infrastructure investment: new power plants, transmission lines, and utility upgrades that don't currently exist.
The Legal Risk
Material Departure
The proposed M-3 ordinance represents a material departure from Mason's Master Plan. Pursuant to Michigan law, the ordinance must be based on a plan, not a single element that has been divorced from the entirety of the plan.
Zoning decisions that contradict an adopted Master Plan can be challenged in court as arbitrary and capricious. Approving M-3 zoning without proper Master Plan support exposes the City to potential litigation.
Review the Documents
Hold Officials Accountable
Ask your City Council members: How does the proposed M-3 zoning align with ALL of our Master Plan's guiding principles, not just one cherry-picked element?