Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance v. Saugatuck Twp.

• Decision Date: 22 July 2022
• Docket Number: s. 160358-9
• Citation: 509 Mich. 561,983 N.W.2d 798
• Parties: SAUGATUCK DUNES COASTAL ALLIANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP, Saugatuck Township Zoning Board of Appeals, and North Shores of Saugatuck, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

509 Mich. 561

983 N.W.2d 798

SAUGATUCK DUNES COASTAL ALLIANCE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.SAUGATUCK TOWNSHIP, Saugatuck Township Zoning Board of Appeals, and North Shores of Saugatuck, LLC, Defendants-Appellees.

Nos. 160358-9

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued on application for leave to appeal October 7, 2021.

Decided July 22, 2022.

Olson, Bzdok & Howard, PC (by Scott W. Howard, Traverse City and Rebecca L. Millican ) for Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance.

Straub, Seaman & Allen, PC (by James M. Straub, St. Joseph and Sarah J. Hartman ) for Saugatuck Township and the Saugatuck Township Zoning Board of Appeals.

Gabrielse Law, PLC (by Carl J. Gabrielse, Holland) and Warner Norcross + Judd LLP, Grand Rapids (by Gaëtan Gerville-Réache and Ashley G. Chrysler ) for North Shores of Saugatuck, LLC.

Margrethe Kearney for the Environmental Law & Policy Center and the National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States, amici curiae.

McClelland & Anderson, LLP, Lansing (by Melissa A. Hagen and David E. Pierson ) for Michigan Realtors, amici curiae.

Rosati Schultz Joppich & Amtsbuechler PC, Farmington Hills (by Matthew J. Zalewski and Carol A. Rosati ) for the Michigan Municipal League.

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH

Welch, J.

This case requires us to determine what it means to be aggrieved for purposes of appealing certain land-use decisions to a zoning board of appeals, MCL 125.3604(1), and appealing a zoning board of appeals’ decision to the circuit court, MCL 125.3605. Appellant, Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance,¹ argues that the lower courts erred when they found that the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA), MCL 125.3101 et seq. , denied it standing to appeal the decisions of the Saugatuck Township Planning Commission (Commission). Prior Court of Appeals decisions relied on by the Saugatuck Township Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) and lower courts have repeatedly and erroneously read the term "party aggrieved" too narrowly. Specifically, we hold that the MZEA does not require an appealing party to own real property and to demonstrate special damages only by comparison to other real-property owners similarly situated. Cf. Olsen v Chikaming Twp , 325 Mich App 170, 924 N.W.2d 889 (2018), lv den sub nom Olsen v Jude & Reed, LLC , 503 Mich. 1018, 925 N.W.2d 850 (2019) ; Joseph v Grand Blanc Twp , 5 Mich App 566, 147 N.W.2d 458 (1967). We overrule Olsen , Joseph , and related Court of Appeals decisions to the limited extent that they require (1) real-property ownership as a prerequisite to being "aggrieved" by a zoning decision under the MZEA and (2) special damages to be shown only by comparison to other real-property owners similarly situated.

As explained later in this opinion, to be a "party aggrieved" under MCL 125.3605 and MCL 125.3606, the appellant must meet three criteria. First, the appellant must have participated in the challenged proceedings by taking a position on the contested proposal or decision. Second, the appellant must claim some protected interest or protected personal, pecuniary, or property right that will be or is likely to be affected by the challenged decision. Third, the appellant must provide some evidence of special damages arising from the challenged decision in the form of an actual or likely injury to or burden on their asserted interest or right that is different in kind or more significant in degree than the effects on others in the local community. We agree with the parties’ arguments that "aggrieved" has the same meaning in MCL 125.3604(1) and MCL 125.3605. We also agree with the parties that appellant in this matter meets the definition of a "person," MCL 125.3604(1), and a "party," MCL 125.3605.

It is not clear whether the lower courts would have reached the same result as to appellant's standing in the absence of errors in then-binding precedent. Accordingly, we vacate Part IV of the Court of Appeals opinion and the Allegan Circuit Court's judgments as to standing and remand both cases to the circuit court for reconsideration of appellant's standing arguments under MCL 125.3604(1) and MCL 125.3605. On remand, the circuit court shall also address appellant's original causes of action as directed by Part V of the Court of Appeals opinion and conduct such other proceedings as may be necessary or appropriate under MCL 125.3606.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

At issue are two separate zoning decisions the Commission made concerning a proposed residential site condominium project that includes a marina and boat basin with boat slips² on property owned by North Shores of Saugatuck, LLC (North Shores). North Shores owns approximately 300 acres of land with frontage on the north shore of the Kalamazoo River and on Lake Michigan. The proposed development that is the subject of the appeal occupies a residentially zoned subset of the larger parcel that North Shores refers to as the "Harbor Cluster."

North Shores applied for approval of a planned unit development.³ The planned unit development would include 23 residential site condominium units⁴ surrounding the boat basin, a community building, a private marina with 33 "dockominium" boat slip condominium units, and open spaces designated as general common elements. The marina was proposed as a supplement to North Shores’ application and required special use approval.

A. PLANNING COMMISSION AND ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS DECISIONS

The Commission granted conditional, preliminary approval of the proposed planned unit development and the special use approval for the marina on April 26, 2017. Invoking Saugatuck Township Ordinance, § 40-72 and the MZEA, appellant appealed these preliminary approvals to the ZBA in June 2017 and provided supplemental arguments in September 2017. With the supplemental arguments, appellant attached affidavits from some of its members to establish standing to appeal under MCL 125.3604(1) given that North Shores had challenged appellant's standing.

The affidavits alleged ways in which the members claimed they would be uniquely harmed by the approved development.⁵

At a hearing on October 11, 2017, the ZBA heard comments from the public, including from members of appellant and from appellant's counsel. The ZBA adopted a resolution that relied on Unger v Forest Home Twp , 65 Mich App 614, 237 N.W.2d 582 (1976), and decided that appellant lacked standing to appeal the Commission's decision. The ZBA framed the allegations raised by appellant's members as complaints that might be true of any proposed development in the area and found that appellant had not demonstrated any special damages—environmental, economic, or otherwise—that would be different from those sustained by the general public as a result of the proposed development. Appellant appealed the ZBA's decision in the Allegan Circuit Court and added two original claims: one for declaratory and injunctive relief and another seeking abatement of an alleged nuisance.

While the first appeal was pending, North Shores obtained various state and federal approvals and applied to the Commission for final approval of the planned unit development, which included the marina. The Commission granted final approval on October 23, 2017. Appellant appealed this decision to the ZBA in a written statement dated December 7, 2017. Prior to the public hearing scheduled for April 9, 2018, appellant again submitted a letter providing a detailed basis for its standing and the alleged merits of its appeal. The letter raised arguments regarding the depositing of dredge spoils within 300 feet of some members’ property and the potential adverse effects on sturgeon restoration, local hydrology, and the nearby Patricia Birkholz Natural Area. Appellant requested that the ZBA revisit and reverse its prior decision that appellant did not have standing to appeal. On April 9, 2018, after another public hearing, the ZBA adopted a resolution that largely mirrored the prior resolution and denied standing to appellant. Appellant also appealed this decision in the Allegan Circuit Court.

B. CIRCUIT COURT DECISIONS

The appeal from the October 11, 2017 ZBA decision was assigned Case No. 17-058936-AA. In that case, the circuit court incorporated by reference a prior circuit court opinion addressing appellant's standing to appeal a different land-use decision involving different portions of property that North Shores now owns. Relying on this prior opinion and its analysis of Lansing Sch Ed Ass'n v Lansing Bd of Ed , 487 Mich. 349, 792 N.W.2d 686 (2010), the circuit court affirmed the ZBA's decision and dismissed the appeal on February 6, 2018. The circuit court did not, however, address the original claims that appellant raised in this case. The appeal from the April 9, 2018 ZBA decision was assigned Case No. 18-059598-AA. On November 14, 2018, relying on the oral statements made on the record, the circuit court affirmed the ZBA's decision and dismissed the appeal.

C. COURT OF APPEALS DECISION

Appellant appealed both circuit court decisions in the Court of Appeals, and the Court of Appeals consolidated the cases.⁶ Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance v Saugatuck Twp , unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 22, 2019 (Docket Nos. 342588, 346677, and 346679).⁷ After determining that it had jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's and ZBA's decisions holding that appellant lacked standing to appeal because appellant was not a "party aggrieved" by the approvals. Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance v Saugatuck Twp , unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 29, 2019 (Docket Nos. 342588 and 346677), pp. 3-5.

The panel relied on Olsen , 325 Mich App 170, 924 N.W.2d 889, and MCL 125.3605. It observed that in Olsen , the Court had explained that "the term ‘standing’ generally refers to the right of a plaintiff initially to invoke the power of a trial court to adjudicate a claimed injury." Olsen , 325 Mich App at 180, 924 N.W.2d 889. But under MCL 125.3605, " ‘a party seeking...