In Bell River Associates v. China Charter Twp, 223 Mich App 124, 133; 565 NW2d 695 (1997), the plaintiff owned 292 acres in a rural township with 2,500 residents. The property was zoned for agricultural use, but the plaintiff sought to develop some of the property for use of a 454-unit mobile home park with a projected 1,000 residents. Id. at 126. The zoning ordinance permitted a number of uses for the property: (1) one-family detached dwellings; (2) farms and agricultural activities; (3) sales of agricultural products; (4) public parks, recreational facilities, and schools; (5) garage sales; (6) accessory buildings and uses customarily incident to the above-mentioned uses. Id. at 130. A number of other uses were permissible with permission of the township including airports, cemeteries, raising of livestock and farm animals, large-scale recreation, kennels and animal clinics, mining and extraction, and commercial composting facilities. Id. at 130. The property was not serviced by public water or sewer and the closest connections were four miles away. Id. The township denied that rezoning request. Id. at 126. The plaintiff then sued to compel the township to change the zoning, but the circuit court denied the rezoning and found that the township had properly denied the zoning change based on the unavailability of public utilities, the proposed use's incompatibility with the area, the remoteness of the site, and the impact that the influx of a relatively large population would have on township resources. Id. at 127. The circuit court further ruled that the plaintiff had not shown that the existing agricultural zoning classification precluded use of the property for other purposes. Id. The plaintiff appealed, emphasizing that leasing its property as farmland was not economically viable, but this Court noted that the mere diminution in value alone cannot constitute a taking. Id. at 133. The Court ruled that the plaintiff had not established that the land could not be used for other adaptable purposes and failed that to show that the agricultural zoning precluded use of the property for any purpose. Id. The plaintiff claimed that the circuit court erred in focusing on the parcel's lack of water and sewer services in affirming the denial, contending that any large development would be subject to the same sewer and water considerations. Id. at 134. The Court stated that a large development on plaintiff's property, given its remote location, would demand a costly and complex solution to the existing water- and sewer-connection problem. Id.