983 N.W.2d 798
Mich.2022Background
- North Shores proposed a planned-unit residential site-condominium with a private marina on ~300 acres in Saugatuck Township; the Planning Commission granted preliminary and then final approval.
- Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance (a nonprofit) appealed the Commission approvals to the Township Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA), attaching affidavits from members alleging unique harms.
- The ZBA held (in two hearings/resolutions) that the Alliance lacked standing—finding no special damages distinct from the public or similarly situated property owners.
- The Allegan Circuit Court affirmed the ZBA decisions; the Court of Appeals affirmed, relying on Olsen and earlier Michigan appellate precedent, but remanded one claim for plenary review of original causes of action.
- The Michigan Supreme Court granted review (in lieu of leave), rejected the view that only property owners can be “aggrieved,” announced a three-part test for “aggrieved” status under the MZEA, overruled prior appellate decisions to the limited extent they imposed a property-ownership prerequisite, vacated the standing rulings, and remanded for reconsideration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does MCL 125.3605’s “party aggrieved” require showing special damages only by comparison to other similarly situated property owners? | Joseph/Olsen rule is too narrow; non‑owners can be aggrieved and affidavit evidence showed unique harms. | Aggrieved requires special damages different from those of similarly situated property owners; mere proximity or general harms insufficient. | Overruled prior cases to the limited extent they required property ownership or comparison only to similarly situated property owners; special damages still required but not limited to property‑owner comparisons. |
| Does “person aggrieved” (MCL 125.3604(1)) differ in meaning from “party aggrieved” (MCL 125.3605)? Which standard applies? | The terms should be given the same meaning; Alliance qualifies as a person and party. | The statutes serve different procedural stages and could have different scopes. | "Aggrieved" has the same meaning in both statutes; ZBA must first decide if appellant was aggrieved under MCL 125.3604(1), which informs the MCL 125.3605 appellate analysis. |
| Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming dismissal for lack of standing? | Lower courts applied an incorrect, overly restrictive standard (property‑ownership prerequisite). | Lower courts correctly applied controlling precedent (Olsen/Joseph) and properly dismissed appeals. | Because the Court overruled parts of controlling precedent, the standing rulings were vacated and cases remanded for reconsideration under the Court’s clarified test. |
Key Cases Cited
- Olsen v. Chikaming Twp, 325 Mich. App. 170 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018) (applied a property‑owner‑focused “aggrieved” test under the MZEA)
- Joseph v. Grand Blanc Twp, 5 Mich. App. 566 (Mich. Ct. App. 1967) (early articulation that nonabutting owners must show special damages not common to similarly situated owners)
- Unger v. Forest Home Twp, 65 Mich. App. 614 (Mich. Ct. App. 1975) (applied special‑damages requirement in zoning appeals)
- Western Mich. Univ. Bd. of Trustees v. Brink, 81 Mich. App. 99 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978) (aggrieved‑party requirement; statutory notice and adjacency alone insufficient)
- Lansing Sch. Ed. Ass’n v. Lansing Bd. of Ed., 487 Mich. 349 (Mich. 2010) (distinguishes standing doctrines; appellate/injunctive prudential considerations)
- Federated Ins. Co. v. Oakland Co. Rd. Comm’n, 475 Mich. 286 (Mich. 2006) (standing/"aggrieved" concepts in appellate context)