Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Bd of Appeals v. Aeronautics Comm
357209
| Mich. Ct. App. | Feb 24, 2022Background:
- Pegasus Wind planned commercial turbines within the Tuscola Area Airport zoning area; FAA issued Determinations of No Hazard (DNH) and MDOT concurred subject to local variance certificates.
- The Tuscola Airport Zoning Administrator approved 7 turbine permits but denied 33; AZBA denied variances for those 33, and Pegasus appealed to Tuscola Circuit Court.
- The Tuscola Circuit Court reversed AZBA and directed issuance of the variances; AZBA thereafter issued 33 variance certificates and MAC (via MDOT) issued Michigan tall-structure permits.
- AZBA and Tuscola Area Airport Authority each appealed MAC’s permit issuances to Ingham Circuit Court under the Tall Structure Act (MCL 259.481 et seq.), claiming they were "aggrieved parties."
- The circuit court dismissed the appeals for lack of an aggrieved party; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding neither AZBA nor Airport Authority showed a concrete, particularized, pecuniary injury required to be an aggrieved party.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AZBA is an "aggrieved party" entitled to appeal MAC's tall-structure permits | AZBA: its enforcement role and interest in limiting structure heights gives it standing to appeal an erroneous MAC permit issuance | MAC/Pegasus: AZBA lacks statutory authority to bring such an administrative appeal and showed no concrete pecuniary injury beyond disappointment | Held: AZBA is not aggrieved—ordinance limits AZBA’s powers, enforcement/appeal authority lies elsewhere, and AZBA showed no concrete, particularized pecuniary injury |
| Whether Airport Authority is an "aggrieved party" entitled to appeal MAC's tall-structure permits | Airport Authority: turbines will likely force steeper approaches, reduce flights/revenue, and risk loss of FAA grants—so it has a sufficient likelihood of economic and safety harm | MAC/Pegasus: alleged harms are speculative; FAA issued DNH finding no substantial adverse effect, and Airport Authority offered no concrete financial or safety evidence | Held: Airport Authority is not aggrieved—alleged harms are speculative, unsupported by evidence, and FAA determinations negate asserted safety/grant risks |
Key Cases Cited
- Olsen v. Chikaming Twp., 325 Mich. App. 170 (2018) (de novo review of standing to invoke appellate review of administrative rulings)
- Federated Ins. Co. v. Oakland Co. Rd. Comm’n, 475 Mich. 286 (2006) (standing requires concrete, particularized injury and pecuniary interest; mere disappointment insufficient)
- Dept. of Consumer & Indus. Servs. v. Shah, 236 Mich. App. 381 (1999) (agency enforcing a statute may have cognizable interest, but not a substitute for injury-in-fact)
- Detroit Downtown Dev. Auth. v. U.S. Outdoor Advertising, Inc., 480 Mich. 991 (2007) (potential economic injury can support standing where claimant shows substantial investments and supervisory authority over affected area)
- Miller v. Allstate Ins. Co., 481 Mich. 601 (2008) (legislature may limit class of persons who may challenge administrative decisions)