The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (“MZEA”) MCL § 125.3606, provides “any party aggrieved by a decision of the zoning board of appeals may appeal to the circuit court for the county in which the property is located.” In other words, if someone wishes to appeal in circuit court a land use or zoning decision from their local board, that person must be aggrieved.
While the MZEA does not define what constitutes an “aggrieved party” for purposes of bringing an appeal in circuit court, the Michigan Supreme Court articulated requirements to meet under this term. In the case, Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance v. Saugatuck Twp., 509 Mich. 561 (2022) (“Saugatuck”), the Michigan Supreme Court provided that to be an “aggrieved party” it must be established that:
- The appellant must have participated in the proceedings at issue by taking a position on the contested decision, such as through oral public comment or a letter;
- The appellant must claim some legally protected interest or protected personal, pecuniary, or property right that is likely to be affected by the challenged decision;
- Lastly, the appellant must provide some evidence of special damages arising from the disputed decision in the form of an actual or likely injury to or burden on their asserted interest or right that is different in kind, or more significant in degree than the effects on others in the local community.
In setting forth these three criteria, the Court also overturned long-established precedent requiring that property ownership be a prerequisite to qualifying as an aggrieved party under MZEA. Moreover, the Court made clear it is not required to show special damages only through comparison of other property owners in the area who are similarly situated to the appellant. As a result of Saugatuck Dunes, the state Supreme Court opened the door more for those seeking to contest a zoning board decision in circuit court.
As to the first element under the above subsection (a), someone wishing to appeal a land use decision must have engaged with the proposal at the local level. Generally, this first element is an easier requirement to satisfy. Participation could be in the form of either publicly stating one’s position before a local board at a public hearing or submitting a written letter.
With respect to subsection (b), under Saugatuck Dunes, legally protected interests, property rights, etc., can come in the form of various claims. For instance, known interests can involve easements likely to be affected by the proposed land development project. Or in another case, Michigan courts have recognized generally that use and enjoyment of one’s land is a protected property interest or right as well. Additionally, such interests or rights need not be actually or already affected by the challenged decision; rather they must be “likely affected” as the Court provided in its ruling under Saugatuck Dunes. While property ownership can contribute to reasons for why a party is aggrieved, as mentioned above, it is no longer a requirement. At the same time, a person who only disagrees with a land use or zoning decision will not be enough to constitute as an aggrieved party under MZEA.
The last element under subsection (c) speaks to the Michigan Supreme Court’s new analysis on special damages. In Saugatuck Dunes, the Court provided further guidance on what kind of evidence is required, stating relevant factors include:
- The type of scope of the change or activity proposed, approved, or denied;
- The nature and importance of the protected right or interest asserted;
- The immediacy and degree of the alleged injury or burden and its connection to the challenged decision as compared to others in the local community;
- If the complaining party is a real-property owner or lessee, the proximity of the property to the site of the proposed development or approval and the nature and degree of the alleged effect on that real property.
In regard to the kind of evidence needed to show an injury as an aggrieved party, the Court detailed further that it must be “different in kind or more significant in degree from others in the relevant community who suffer incidental inconvenience as a result of the contested decision.” But, an appellant “need not show an injury different in kind or more significant in degree from others who also stand to suffer actionable damage or injury to their real property that derogates from their reasonable use and enjoyment of it.”
Under these factors, generalized concerns such as concerns over traffic volumes, are typically not sufficient to satisfy this third element. The reason being those generalized concerns are not sufficient to demonstrate harm different from that suffered by people in the community generally. See, Olsen v Chikaming Twp, 325 Mich App 170, 924 NW2d 889 (2018). However, the Michigan Supreme Court recognized a specific change or exception to local zoning restrictions might burden certain properties or individuals’ rights more heavily than others. Therefore, “[a] party who can present some evidence of such disproportionate burdens likely will have standing to appeal under MCL 125.3605 and 3606.” Saugatuck Dunes, 509 Mich. At 597.
Following the Saugatuck Dunes decision, defining who constitutes as an “aggrieved party” under MZEA has broadened allowing potentially more land use decisions to be appealed in circuit court. It remains critical however, for those seeking an appeal to participate at the local level, establish a protected interest or right, and provide evidence of distinct harm that is different in kind or degree from the general public.
For those looking to contest a zoning board decision, understanding these criteria is vital, and seeking legal advice early in the process can help ensure that all necessary requirements are met. The attorneys at Dalton & Tomich, PLC, have advocated for parties contesting these decisions in numerous cases, obtaining plenty of experience in this arena. If you wish to speak to one of our attorneys or have any related questions, please call (313) 859-6000. We would be happy to speak with you.
