Grant of a special land use permit for construction of an industrial-scale solar panel facility; Whether zoning ordinance requirements were met; Competent, material, & substantial evidence; Impartial decision-maker; Effect of a township supervisor’s participation in the application & review process where he had a direct pecuniary interest he allegedly failed to disclose; “Aggrieved” parties; The court’s jurisdiction; MCR 7.203(A)

The court vacated the circuit court’s order affirming the decision of appellee-Macon Township Board of Trustees to grant a special land use permit (SLUP) to intervening appellee-Mustang Mile Solar Energy for the construction of an industrial-scale solar panel facility in the township, and remanded. Initially, the court held that the trial court “did not err by determining that appellants are aggrieved parties permitted to appeal to the circuit court as of right the” Township Board’s decision granting the permit. It found that “appellants participated in the proceedings before the Township Board. They claimed a legally protected interest or protected property right likely to be affected by the [SLUP], and they have alleged facts supporting their claims that the alleged damage from the [SLUP] will affect their properties differently or more significantly in degree than the effect on others in the community.” Next, the court agreed with appellants “that because the Township Board’s decision was not authorized by law or supported by the requisite evidence, the circuit court did not apply the correct legal principles and misapprehended or grossly misapplied the substantial evidence test to the Township Board’s factual findings when it affirmed the Township Board’s decision.” The court held that the “Township Board failed to articulate a basis for its decision beyond merely restating the ordinance requirements, contrary to the requirements of MCL 125.3502(4), and its decision resulted from the participation of a township supervisor who allegedly had an undisclosed conflict of interest. Without the Township Board addressing these matters, the circuit court did not have a record before it sufficient to apply correct legal principles nor to properly apply the substantial evidence test. Although the circuit court was charged with considering the whole record before it, the paucity of the Township Board’s decision left the circuit court to search the record for information that might have been relied upon by the Township Board in reaching its decision. Because the Township Board gave no meaningful explanation for its decision, the circuit court misapplied the substantial evidence test when affirming the Township Board’s decision, and” the court was “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake” was made.