Dispute over a land-division variance; Judicial review of a decision by a zoning board of appeals (ZBA); Pegasus Wind LLC v Tuscola Cnty; Whether a ZBA decision was “based on proper procedure”; MCL 125.3606(1)(b); The substantial-evidence test; Reenders v Parker

Holding that appellee-township’s ZBA did not provide sufficient factual findings, the court vacated the trial court’s order affirming the ZBA’s order and remanded to the ZBA for further explanation of its decision to grant a land-division variance. Appellee’s ZBA granted a land-division variance allowing a parcel of real property owned by third-party intervenor to comply with relevant ordinances, despite the fact that the parcel did not comply with the requirement that its depth-to-width ratio must not exceed 4:1. The trial court affirmed. On appeal, the court rejected appellant’s argument that the procedure used to approve the land division in 2020, which created the subject parcel, rendered the ZBA’s 2023 variance award invalid. “We cannot see how an alleged procedural deficiency in the 2020 land-division approval process could have any impact on the 2023 variance request, given the fact that the 2020 land-division approval had been deemed invalid by the time of the 2023 variance request.” However, the “ZBA provided insufficient factual findings on” the five necessary “elements to permit us to meaningfully review the ZBA’s decision to grant a variance.” Because the ZBA “gave no meaningful explanation for its decision, the [trial] court grossly misapplied the substantial-evidence test to the ZBA’s factual findings when it affirmed the ZBA’s order.”