“Dangerous building” in violation of a township ordinance; MCL 125.539; Competent, material, & substantial evidence

Concluding that appellant-Simonte (homeowner) failed to establish that the circuit court erred by determining that appellee-Township’s decision requiring her to either repair or demolish the home was “supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence,” the court affirmed. Simonte argued that the record failed “to establish that the structure is likely to collapse or that parts of it are likely to fall or become detached.” She asserted “that the photos presented in the circuit court showed discoloration rather than deterioration of the decks, and the photos refute the circuit court’s indication that the metal roof sheeting extends off the roofline by ‘a foot or more.’” But Simonte did not provide the court “with the photos that were presented to the circuit court or to” the Township Board. As the appellant, Simonte bore the burden of providing the court “with a record that verifies the factual bases of her claims. An appellant waives appellate review by failing to provide this Court with ‘a complete record for review.’” The court concluded that without the photos, its “ability to engage in any meaningful review of the circuit court’s decision” was impaired. However, it noted “that the minutes of the [3/5/24] hearing indicate that neighboring residents expressed concern that the roof ‘flops’ around, which is consistent with the Township attorney’s assertion at the circuit court hearing that the roof moves and levitates off the structure during strong winds.” Thus, based on the limited record provided to the court, “it appears that the condition of the home is such that part of the structure is likely to detach and injure persons or property.”