Zoning variances; Standing; MCL 125.3604(1); MCL 125.3606(1); “Party aggrieved” by a zoning decision; Saugatuck Dunes Coastal Alliance v Saugatuck Twp; Special damages requirement; Tuscola Area Airport Auth v Michigan Aeronautics Comm’n; Beverly Hills Racquet & Health Club (BHC); Beverly Hills Zoning Board of Appeals (BHZBA)

The court held that while appellant-BHC lacked standing to challenge one of the two zoning variances at issue, it had standing to challenge the other. It also concluded the circuit court correctly rejected BHC’s arguments that two nonparties (the applicants) were not aggrieved persons who could seek a variance from the BHZBA. A planned childcare facility was involved in this dispute. The applicants successfully sought multiple zoning variances. After unsuccessfully objecting to the grant of the variances, BHC appealed to the circuit court, which ruled that BHC lacked standing to appeal. One of the variances at issue allowed “for a smaller-than-required outdoor play area” and the other allowed “closer proximity to another licensed childcare facility. While BHC lacks standing to challenge the play area variance, it has standing to challenge the proximity variance.” The court noted that BHC seemed “to abandon any challenge to the play area variance, focusing only on the proximity variance. Regardless,” the court concluded it clearly could not establish standing as to “this variance. BHC’s only claim of special damages is financial; BHC claims that granting the variances will cause them to lose business. We can discern no basis upon which to conclude that allowing the applicants to have a smaller outdoor play space would harm BHC’s business prospects.” But as to the proximity variance, the court found Tuscola “controlling, and the takeaway from Tuscola is that the Saugatuck Dunes test is a low bar.” The court determined that “the potential for harm to the health club requires smaller leaps of logic” than were required in Tuscola – “it is reasonable to infer that the presence of a facility across the street offering the same services as BH[C]’s facility would cause people who would otherwise patronize BH[C] to instead patronize the business across the street. The Tuscola decision suggests that even one parent dropping their kids across the street who would otherwise have used BH[C] is enough to establish special damages. BHC’s concerns might not ultimately warrant relief, but they were sufficient to support its status as an aggrieved party with a statutory right to appeal to the circuit court.” Reversed and remanded for consideration of the merits of BHC’s appeal and a determination of whether competent, material, and substantial evidence on the record supported the BHZBA’s decision.