Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606 (2026)

Circuit court; review; duties.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN ZONING ENABLING ACT

Act 110 of 2006

125.3606 Circuit court; review; duties.

Sec. 606.

(1) Any party aggrieved by a decision of the zoning board of appeals may appeal to the circuit court for the county in which the property is located. The circuit court shall review the record and decision to ensure that the decision meets all of the following requirements:

(a) Complies with the constitution and laws of the state.

(b) Is based upon proper procedure.

(d) Represents the reasonable exercise of discretion granted by law to the zoning board of appeals.

(2) If the court finds the record inadequate to make the review required by this section or finds that additional material evidence exists that with good reason was not presented, the court shall order further proceedings on conditions that the court considers proper. The zoning board of appeals may modify its findings and decision as a result of the new proceedings or may affirm the original decision. The supplementary record and decision shall be filed with the court. The court may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision.

(3) An appeal from a decision of a zoning board of appeals shall be filed within whichever of the following deadlines comes first:

(a) Thirty days after the zoning board of appeals issues its decision in writing signed by the chairperson, if there is a chairperson, or signed by the members of the zoning board of appeals, if there is no chairperson.

(b) Twenty-one days after the zoning board of appeals approves the minutes of its decision.

(4) The court may affirm, reverse, or modify the decision of the zoning board of appeals. The court may make other orders as justice requires.

History: 2006, Act 110, Eff. July 1, 2006 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 12, Imd. Eff. Feb. 29, 2008 ;-- Am. 2010, Act 330, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 2010

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 68 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Get Back Up, Inc. v. City of Detroit, 878 F. Supp. 2d 794 (E.D. Mich. 2012).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Get Back Up, Inc. v. City of Detroit, 878 F. Supp. 2d 794 (E.D. Mich. 2012). · cites it 19× “) 4 Both Get Back Up and the BZA asserted that the basis of the circuit court’s jurisdiction was Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606 , which, as noted, permits a party aggrieved by a zoning board of appeals’ decision to file an administrative appeal in state circuit court.”

City of Detroit v. City of Detroit Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 926 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “3606 provides, in pertinent part, the standard used to review the decision of a zoning board of appeals: (1) Any party aggrieved by a decision of the zoning board of appeals may appeal to the circuit court for the county in which the property is located. The circuit court shall…”

Great Lakes Soc'y v. Georgetown Charter Twp., 761 N.W.2d 371 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 3× “MCL 125.3606. The determination of “ ‘the facts which, taken together, can be said to describe the situation’ ” presented by GLS’s practices and building proposal is a factual matter, and the ZBA decisions in that regard are entitled to deference.”

Kay v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes, 504 F.3d 803 (9th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “40A, § 17 (20 days); Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606 (30 days); Minn.”

Martha Cares Olsen v. Chikaming Twp., 924 N.W.2d 889 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “The circuit court is authorized under the MZEA to review the decision of a ZBA to determine whether the decision of the ZBA (a) complied with the Constitution and laws of this state, (b) was based on proper procedure, (c) was supported by competent, material, and substantial…”

Hughes v. Almena Twp., 771 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “As the prevailing party, respondent-appellant may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.”

Edw C Levy Co. v. Marine City Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 810 N.W.2d 621 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “7 MCL 125.3606(1). Dowerk v Oxford Charier Twp, 233 Mich App 62, 72 ; 592 NW2d 724 (1998).”

Adam Cmty. Ctr. v. City of Troy, 381 F. Supp. 3d 887 (E.D. Mich. 2019). · cites it 3× “Specifically, Defendants state that Plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies because it did not appeal the ZBA's decision to the circuit court as permitted by Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 125.3606 , which provides that "[a]ny party aggrieved by a decision of the zoning…”

Risko v. Grand Haven Charter Twp. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 773 N.W.2d 730 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “585(11) (now repealed and replaced by MCL 125.3606[1]). “The interpretation of a zoning ordinance presents a question *459 of law subject to review de novo.”

Systematic Recycling LLC v. City of Detroit, 635 F. App'x 175 (6th Cir. 2015). “The Board conducted a de novo hearing at which both parties were permitted to admit new evidence — a situation that was perfectly proper under its own rules of procedure, see City of Detroit, Board of Zoning Appeals Rules and Procedures, Art.”

Houdini Props., LLC v. City of Romulus, 743 N.W.2d 198 (Mich. 2008). “585(11) is now codified as MCL 125.3606(1), which is substantively identical.”

Saugatuck Dunes Coastal All. v. Saugatuck Twp. (Mich. 2022). · cites it 30× “3605 provides, in pertinent part, that a party aggrieved by the decision of the ZBA may appeal to the circuit court for the county in which the property is located as provided under MCL 125.3606. MCL 125.3606(1) provides, in pertinent part, that any party aggrieved by a decision…”

Show all 68 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606(1) — 47 cases

City of Detroit v. City of Detroit Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 926 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “3606 provides, in pertinent part, the standard used to review the decision of a zoning board of appeals: (1) Any party aggrieved by a decision of the zoning board of appeals may appeal to the circuit court for the county in which the property is located. The circuit court shall…”

Hughes v. Almena Twp., 771 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “As the prevailing party, respondent-appellant may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.”

Edw C Levy Co. v. Marine City Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 810 N.W.2d 621 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “7 MCL 125.3606(1). Dowerk v Oxford Charier Twp, 233 Mich App 62, 72 ; 592 NW2d 724 (1998).”

Houdini Props., LLC v. City of Romulus, 743 N.W.2d 198 (Mich. 2008). “585(11) is now codified as MCL 125.3606(1), which is substantively identical.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606(1)(a) — 2 cases

Five Star Outdoor Media LLC v. Charter Twp. of Harrison (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606(1)(b) — 2 cases

Keep Whitewater Twp. Rural Inc v. Twp. of Whitewater (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

Five Star Outdoor Media LLC v. Charter Twp. of Harrison (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606(1)(c) — 2 cases

Salvatore Dimercurio v. City of Royal Oak (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

Five Star Outdoor Media LLC v. Charter Twp. of Harrison (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606(1)(d) — 1 case

Crooked Lake Yacht Club Inc v. Emmet Cnty. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606(2) — 6 cases

Get Back Up, Inc. v. City of Detroit, 878 F. Supp. 2d 794 (E.D. Mich. 2012). “) 4 Both Get Back Up and the BZA asserted that the basis of the circuit court’s jurisdiction was Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606 , which, as noted, permits a party aggrieved by a zoning board of appeals’ decision to file an administrative appeal in state circuit court.”

Js Beck Rd LLC v. Charter Twp. of Northville (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).

Miriam Hiser v. Vill. of MacKinaw City (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

Saugatuck Dunes Coastal All. v. Saugatuck Twp. (Mich. 2022). “3605 provides, in pertinent part, that a party aggrieved by the decision of the ZBA may appeal to the circuit court for the county in which the property is located as provided under MCL 125.3606. MCL 125.3606(1) provides, in pertinent part, that any party aggrieved by a decision…”

Saugatuck Dunes Coastal All. v. Saugatuck Twp. (Mich. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606(3) — 10 cases

Judith Reynolds v. Huron Charter Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

Green Skies Healing Tree LLC v. Flint Zoning Bd. of Appeals (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

Safet Stafa v. City of Troy (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

Edward H Green Trust v. Martin W Joseph (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

Carter Williams v. City of Harbor Springs (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606(3)(b) — 3 cases

Judith Reynolds v. Huron Charter Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).

Carter Williams v. City of Harbor Springs (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).

David Hoffman v. Porter Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606(4) — 5 cases

Ryan S Nixon v. Webster Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

Miriam Hiser v. Vill. of MacKinaw City (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).

Kingsbury Country Day Sch. v. Addison Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).

Carter Williams v. City of Harbor Springs (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).

Nsc Walker LLC v. City of Walker (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606(a) — 1 case

Nat. Resources Manageent, LLC v. Parma, Twp. of (E.D. Mich. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606(l) — 1 case

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3606(l)(c) — 1 case

Great Lakes Soc'y v. Georgetown Charter Twp., 761 N.W.2d 371 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “MCL 125.3606. The determination of “ ‘the facts which, taken together, can be said to describe the situation’ ” presented by GLS’s practices and building proposal is a factual matter, and the ZBA decisions in that regard are entitled to deference.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.