Good case on interpretation of an ordinance

From Patty Salkin (Albany), "Owner Violated Township’s “Tree Protection” Ordinance By Cutting Trees on Undeveloped Parcel" on her Law of the Land blog:

... [The Township] received complaints from nearby residents [that] defendant was cutting down trees [in violation of a Township ordinance requiring a permit]. ... Defendant argued the trial court’s interpretation of the ordinance was contrary to the plain language of the ordinance. The [Michigan Court of Appeals] held ... [that d]efendant was correct in reading the plain language of [the specific subsection of the ordinance] as requiring a tree removal permit only when a site plan was filed. “A mere intent or mental plan to develop property does not trigger the requirement of applying for a tree removal permit.” However, plaintiff was also correct the ordinance should be read as a whole. Nothing in [the particular subsection] identified it as being the only description of parcels to which the permit requirement applied. Reading it this way, as defendant would like, would render nugatory not only the words “ten acres in size or greater” but also several of the exceptions identified in [the ordinance]. ... The only reasonable reading of the ordinance as a whole was it applied to all parcels of 10 or more acres unless an exception applied, and to all parcels, regardless of size, for which a site plan or plat has been filed. Because there was no dispute defendant’s property was over 10 acres, the ordinance applied and he was required to seek a permit before cutting the trees.

EMM