Standing; Aggrieved party to appeal as to a special land use application; Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance v Saugatuck Twp; Tuscola Area Airport Auth v Michigan Aeronautics Comm’n; Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA)

The court concluded that the “circuit court erred by holding that plaintiffs were not an aggrieved party able to appeal” defendant-ZBA’s decision granting a nonparty applicant’s “special land use application. Plaintiffs claimed a legally protected pecuniary interest that would likely be affected by applicant’s car wash operating in close proximity to plaintiffs’ existing car wash.” The applicant filed a special land use application to develop a car wash, which was denied, appealed to the ZBA, and approved. “Applying the Saugatuck criteria to this case, plaintiffs were an aggrieved party of the ZBA’s decision, which granted applicant’s special land use application to operate a Mister Car Wash in close proximity to plaintiffs’ existing car wash, thereby allowing plaintiffs to appeal the decision in the circuit court. As to the first requirement, both parties agree that plaintiffs participated in the challenged proceedings by opposing the application during public comment and by submitting their objections to the ZBA in a written memorandum.” It found that “as to the second requirement, the circuit court erred by holding that plaintiffs failed to claim some legally protected pecuniary right that was likely to be affected by the ZBA’s decision.” The court concluded that read “together, Saugatuck and Tuscola establish that a party must claim, and provide some supporting evidence, that its legally protected pecuniary right is likely to be affected by a ZBA decision. Plaintiffs provided information establishing that they will likely suffer pecuniary loss if the ZBA’s decision is not reversed. Therefore, the circuit court erred in finding that plaintiffs were not an aggrieved party able to challenge the ZBA’s decision.” The court found that plaintiffs “adequately claimed a legally protected pecuniary interest that would likely be affected by the ZBA’s decision, and the circuit court erred by dismissing plaintiffs’ appeal.” Reversed and remanded.