Zoning; Review of a circuit court’s decision in an appeal rom a zoning board of appeals; Olsen v. Chikaming Twp.; The Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (MZEA) (MCL 125.3101 et seq.); “Aggrieved party”; MCL 125.3606(1); MCL 125.3605; Unger v. Forest Home Twp.; Spohn v. Van Dyke Pub. Sch.

The court held that plaintiff-Our EGR Homeowners Alliance (Alliance) did not show that it was an aggrieved party to challenge the decision of defendant-City’s Commission to approve intervening appellee-Spectrum’s requested zoning variances and site plan. Thus, it affirmed the circuit court’s dismissal of Alliance’s appeal. The case arose out of a construction project at Spectrum. “According to the City, the appeal must fail because Olsen is binding on the court and Alliance” admitted that it could not meet this standard. It was true that Alliance argued that the court improperly interpreted provisions of the MZEA in Olsen. However, it also asserted that, “regardless of the analysis in Olsen, Alliance ‘members plainly meet the statutory test’ as aggrieved parties.” The court held that this case was comparable to Olsen. “Claims of aesthetic changes are insufficient to constitute special damages.” Further, like the septic systems at issue in Olsen, “vibrations from construction may affect nearby landowners. However, as was also the case” there, Alliance did not “show that its claim that the proposed construction will damage the foundations or driveways of nearby homes was ‘more than speculation or anticipation of future harm.’” It did not provide “any evidence disputing Spectrum’s claim that the construction will not cause harm to adjacent homes. Further, Alliance members submitted their own site plan proposals for Spectrum’s consideration that would require construction” and admitted that the existing parking garage had to be replaced. Alliance did not establish that “Spectrum’s requested variances and proposed site plan will result in more damage than their own proposed plans or the simple replacement of the existing parking garage. In addition, Spectrum was granted variances for parking setbacks and maximum lot coverage in 2008.” Alliance did not show that “damage (or additional damage) will occur as a result of the approval of the requested variances.” It failed to present “any evidence that the City Commission’s approval of the current variances and proposed site plan will cause the harm that it anticipates.” Because it failed to show “‘special damages different from those of others within the community,’ it was not ‘aggrieved’ pursuant to MCL 125.3605,” and could not invoke the circuit court’s jurisdiction.