Standing to appeal a zoning board’s decision; MCL 125.3605; Olsen v. Chikaming Twp.; Standing to bring a nuisance per se claim; Towne v. Harr

The court held that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to address plaintiff’s administrative appeal of defendant-township’s zoning board’s decision to grant intervening defendant a special use permit for a cell tower. As such, it also held that the circuit court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s remaining claims was null and void and must be remanded for consideration. Plaintiff claimed defendant’s decision to approve intervening defendant’s special use permit for the erection of a wireless tower was contrary to law, and that the proposed tower was a nuisance per se because it was in violation of defendant’s ordinances. The circuit court upheld defendant’s grant of the special use permit and dismissed plaintiff’s remaining claims. On appeal, the court found the circuit court was “without jurisdiction to address plaintiff’s appeal of” defendant’s zoning board’s decision. “Because plaintiff failed to plead facts to establish that he is an aggrieved party,” he could not “invoke the jurisdiction of the circuit court with respect to the” zoning board’s decision. Consequently, the circuit court’s predicate findings for dismissing plaintiff’s remaining claims—that no zoning violation occurred—were null and void and required remand for consideration. Vacated in part and reversed in part.