Request for a dimensional variance; Standard of review for Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) decisions; Competent, material, & substantial evidence; Authorized by law; MCL 125.3606(1); Zoning Ordinance (ZO) requirement that the practical difficulty not be self-created; ZO requirement that the owner show strict compliance will unreasonably prevent use or be unnecessarily burdensome; Requirement that the requested variance is the minimum necessary to do substantial justice; Crooked Laked Yacht Club (CLYC)

Concluding that defendant-ZBA’s findings did not show “that its decision was based on substantial evidence or proper application of the law, the” court held that the trial court did not err in reversing the ZBA’s decision denying plaintiff-CLYC’s request for a dimensional variance. The trial court granted the variance on appeal. Three standards in defendant-county’s ZO were at issue. Standard 1 required “that an applicant must meet to show that the proposed practical difficulty was not self-created[.]” The court found that in light of “where the clubhouse was located and the unique circumstances of the land where the patio was to be located—all of which predated the 25-feet zoning requirement—CLYC introduced substantial evidence in the record that this practical difficulty was not self-created. The building location and lot size were set before the ordinances were enacted. Based on these pre-existing conditions, if CLYC built a patio in the same size and location as requested, it necessarily would encroach on the waterfront setback. And CLYC introduced evidence that the patio had to be of that size and at that location. (Whether the evidence was, in fact, sufficient to show such necessity was subject to Standard 2.) Thus, in this respect, the ZBA decision for Standard 1 was based on neither sound application of the law nor competent, material, and substantial evidence.” As a result, the trial court did not err in finding “that, if the ZBA had reviewed the request as if the patio had not been built, the standard would have been met because of the grandfathered building, location, lot size, and configuration.” The record also indicated “that the ZBA failed to consider the second prong of Standard 2. . . . Standard 2 can be satisfied by showing either prong: (a) unreasonably prevent use, or (b) unnecessarily burdensome. Therefore, the ZBA’s findings on this standard did not represent a ‘reasonable exercise of discretion.’” Further, CLYC presented “substantial evidence that it would be unnecessarily burdensome to comply with the ordinance.” Finally, the court held that “the trial court properly analyzed the criteria when it found that Standard 3 was met” and correctly concluded “the ZBA’s decision on Standard 3 was not a reasonable exercise of discretion.” Affirmed.