Kasson Township has received a legal boost in the form of a brief in support of an appeal of a court decision that involved planning and zoning.

The American Planning Association and the Michigan Association of Planners joined to file a document supporting the township appeal of a May 2006 Circuit Court ruling that effectively reversed the township’s denial of a special use permit for gravel extraction.

“The American Planning Association considers many requests each year to file a brief,” county Planning Director Trudy Galla said. “They only select a few.”

Township officials were disappointed with the court ruling that allowed gravel extraction on a 115.6-acre parcel near M-72 and Coleman Road to proceed despite denial of a rezoning request.

Edith Kyser filed suit against the township in 2004 after the board failed to vote on her request to rezone the south half of her property from Agriculture to Gravel Extraction. The board cited a “conflict of interest” by three members of the 5-member board. They were trustee Roger Noonan; his wife, Beth, who serves as township treasurer; and then-trustee Ed Peplinski. The Noonans have an interest in Kasson Sand & Gravel, the family business. Peplinski claimed a conflict because he received royalty payments on property he sold for gravel extraction.

A newly seated board ultimately turned down the request.

Expert witnesses took the stand during a 4-day trial last year and estimated the amount of quality gravel in Kasson Township at 130 million tons.

Judge Thomas G. Power stated that past court decisions established precedent-making conditions favorable for property owners when mineral extraction is at issue. He also said that the township was unable to illustrate how “very serious consequences” would result from the rezoning and the proposed use.

The appellate brief, prepared by Gerald A. Fisher, professor of law at Thomas M. Cooley Law School, and Richard Norton, assistant professor of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Michigan, states that the court decision “usurped the authority” of townships to regulate land use by “misreading” an earlier court ruling, Silva vs. American Aggregate.

The importance of the court decision in this case is reflected in the board’s decision to appeal, despite mounting legal fees. The largest expense for the township in 2006-07 was for the line item. Township officials estimated that they’d spent just over $142,000 on the issue in 2007-08.

Township officials could not be reached for comment this week.