Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 125 / Act 110 of 2006
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3702 (2026)

Repeal of MCL 125.581 to 125.600, 125.201 to 125.240, and 125.271 to 125.310; construction of section.

✓ 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


125.3702 Repeal of MCL 125.581 to 125.600, 125.201 to 125.240, and 125.271 to 125.310; construction of section.

Sec. 702.

    (1) The following acts and parts of acts are repealed:

    (a) The city and village zoning act, 1921 PA 207, MCL 125.581 to 125.600.

    (b) The county zoning act, 1943 PA 183, MCL 125.201 to 125.240.

    (c) The township zoning act, 1943 PA 184, MCL 125.271 to 125.310.

    (2) This section does not alter, limit, void, affect, or abate any pending litigation, administrative proceeding, or appeal that existed on June 30, 2006 or any ordinance, order, permit, or decision that was based on the acts repealed under subsection (1). The zoning ordinance need not be readopted but is subject to the requirements of this act, including, but not limited to, the amendment procedures set forth in this act.

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

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2023 · leading case: Hendee v. Putnam Twp., 786 N.W.2d 521 (Mich. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hendee v. Putnam Twp., 786 N.W.2d 521 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 6× “See MCL 125.3702. While the previous statute applied only to townships, the current statute applies to all local units of government.”
Hughes v. Almena Twp., 771 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “” MCL 125.3702(2). Under the TZA, a circuit court reviewing a zoning decision had to affirm the agency decision unless it (a) did not comply with the constitution and laws of the state, (b) was based on improper procedure, (c) was not supported by competent, material, and…”
Whitman v. Galien Twp., 808 N.W.2d 9 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Hughes v Almena Twp, 284 Mich App 50, 59 ; 771 NW2d 453 (2009); MCL 125.3702(1)(c). The provisions governing the issuance of special-use permits under the TZA were substantively identical to the language used in the MZEA.”
Houdek v. Centerville Twp., 741 N.W.2d 587 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 125.3702(2). We note that the prohibition against exclusionary zoning formerly found in MCL 125.”
Detroit City Council v. Mayor of Detroit, 770 N.W.2d 117 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “…11 That statute was repealed by 1998 PA 58 . See MCL 436.2301(a). 12 2006 PA 110 repealed MCL 125.584a. See MCL 125.3702(l)(a).”
Coldsprings Twp. v. Kalkaska Cnty. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 755 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Respondent maintained that petitioner lacked standing to appeal the zoning decision because it was not “a person having an interest affected by the zoning ordinance” within the meaning of MCL 125.”
English Gardens Condo., LLC v. Howell Twp., 729 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 125.3702(1)(c). 3 Defendants assert that plaintiff did not invoke § 21.”
Herman v. Berrien Cnty., 739 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “A superficial review of the MZEA seems to reveal nothing that would mandate a different result had it been in force at the relevant times, and although legislative analysis is not authoritative, it indicates that the new legislation was intended to clarify the law rather than…”
Anspaugh v. Imlay Twp., 729 N.W.2d 251 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “See MCL 125.3702(2). We note further that the prohibition against *129 exclusionary zoning formerly found in MCL 125.”
Frenchtown Charter Twp. v. City of Monroe, 737 N.W.2d 328 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See MCL 125.3702. However, MCL 125.3702(2) provides that “[t]his section shall not be construed to alter, limit, void, affect, or abate any pending litigation, administrative proceeding, or appeal *5 that existed on the effective date of this act or any ordinance, order, permit,…”
Crystal Lake Prop. Rights Ass'n v. Benzie Cnty., 760 N.W.2d 802 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “MCL 125.3702 lists the repealed acts, but provides in subsection 2: This section does not alter, limit, void, affect, or abate any pending litigation, administrative proceeding, or appeal that existed on June 30, 2006 or any ordinance, order, permit, or decision that was based…”
Coloma Charter Twp. v. Berrien Cnty., 317 Mich. App. 127 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “” The TZA was repealed by MCL 125.3702(1)(c) of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (ZEA), 2006 PA 110 , MCL 125.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3702(1) — 1 case
Hendee v. Putnam Twp., 786 N.W.2d 521 (Mich. 2010). “See MCL 125.3702. While the previous statute applied only to townships, the current statute applies to all local units of government.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3702(1)(c) — 3 cases
Whitman v. Galien Twp., 808 N.W.2d 9 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “Hughes v Almena Twp, 284 Mich App 50, 59 ; 771 NW2d 453 (2009); MCL 125.3702(1)(c). The provisions governing the issuance of special-use permits under the TZA were substantively identical to the language used in the MZEA.”
English Gardens Condo., LLC v. Howell Twp., 729 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 125.3702(1)(c). 3 Defendants assert that plaintiff did not invoke § 21.”
Coloma Charter Twp. v. Berrien Cnty., 317 Mich. App. 127 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “” The TZA was repealed by MCL 125.3702(1)(c) of the Michigan Zoning Enabling Act (ZEA), 2006 PA 110 , MCL 125.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3702(2) — 7 cases
Hughes v. Almena Twp., 771 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” MCL 125.3702(2). Under the TZA, a circuit court reviewing a zoning decision had to affirm the agency decision unless it (a) did not comply with the constitution and laws of the state, (b) was based on improper procedure, (c) was not supported by competent, material, and…”
Hendee v. Putnam Twp., 786 N.W.2d 521 (Mich. 2010). “See MCL 125.3702. While the previous statute applied only to townships, the current statute applies to all local units of government.”
Houdek v. Centerville Twp., 741 N.W.2d 587 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “MCL 125.3702(2). We note that the prohibition against exclusionary zoning formerly found in MCL 125.”
Whitman v. Galien Twp., 808 N.W.2d 9 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010). “Hughes v Almena Twp, 284 Mich App 50, 59 ; 771 NW2d 453 (2009); MCL 125.3702(1)(c). The provisions governing the issuance of special-use permits under the TZA were substantively identical to the language used in the MZEA.”
Herman v. Berrien Cnty., 739 N.W.2d 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007). “A superficial review of the MZEA seems to reveal nothing that would mandate a different result had it been in force at the relevant times, and although legislative analysis is not authoritative, it indicates that the new legislation was intended to clarify the law rather than…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3702(l)(a) — 1 case
Detroit City Council v. Mayor of Detroit, 770 N.W.2d 117 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “…11 That statute was repealed by 1998 PA 58 . See MCL 436.2301(a). 12 2006 PA 110 repealed MCL 125.584a. See MCL 125.3702(l)(a).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 125.3702(l)(c) — 1 case
Hughes v. Almena Twp., 771 N.W.2d 453 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). “” MCL 125.3702(2). Under the TZA, a circuit court reviewing a zoning decision had to affirm the agency decision unless it (a) did not comply with the constitution and laws of the state, (b) was based on improper procedure, (c) was not supported by competent, material, and…”
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.