Update, 7/23: Michigan Court of Appeals will hear case

OSCEOLA COUNTY, MI -- A mid-Michigan township plans to keep fighting food and beverage giant Nestle in court over a zoning decision that denied the company approval to build infrastructure it needs to move more spring water to its bottling plant.

On Wednesday, Jan. 2, the Osceola Township Board of Trustees voted 4-1 to appeal a circuit court judge's decision in favor of Nestle to the Michigan Court of Appeals, which could decline to hear the case.

Judge Susan Sniegowski sided with Nestle Waters North America in a Dec. 20 opinion ordering the township to issue Nestle a special land use permit to build a pumping booster station along a water pipeline that feeds a tanker loading dock in Evart.

The station is a crucial part of Nestle's plans to significantly increase water extraction on a controversial Osceola County wellhead; a stalled application under review by state environmental regulators which has generated significant public backlash over the past year.

The local dispute involves a complicated interpretation of the township zoning ordinance, which Osceola officials content Nestle's plans do not conform to. In July, the zoning appeals board upheld the planning commission's April project denial.

Nestle says its plans meet zoning standards and should be approved.

Arlene Anderson-Vincent, resources manager at Nestle's Ice Mountain bottling plant in Stanwood, said Nestle "firmly believes" Sniegowski's decision was appropriate.

Township officials believe the opposite.

The township says Nestle needs to request the Spring Hill Camps property where the station is planned be rezoned before it could approve a permit because the agricultural zoning on the camp property doesn't allow the building as proposed.

In her eight-page opinion, Sniegowski agreed with the township that Nestle's application was properly classified under the "essential services" section of agricultural zoning, but disagreed that Nestle's proposal had to be considered a "public convenience and necessity" by the township board, according to the zoning language.

"Since this finding was the stated reason for denial of the zoning permit to NWNA, the denial was in error," she wrote.

Tim Ladd, Osceola Township supervisor, disagreed with Sniegowski's opinion, and "if we accepted that, then her decision is going to play into our zoning into the future."

About 25 people attended the township board's special meeting. About 10 spoke -- all in favor of the township seeking an appeal. The township has until Jan. 10 to file its appeal application.

The township has incurred about $30,000 in legal costs so far defending its zoning decision. Those costs were covered by a crowdfunding campaign organized by the group SumOfUs.

Ladd said the township plans to seek additional crowdfunding support if the court agrees to hear the appeal.