NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Act 451 of 1994
324.35305 Hearing; judicial review.
Sec. 35305.
(1) If an applicant for a permit or a special exception or the owner of the property immediately adjacent to the proposed use is aggrieved by a decision of the department in regard to the issuance or denial of a permit or special exception under this part, the applicant or owner may request a formal hearing on the matter involved. The hearing shall be conducted by the department as a contested case hearing in the manner provided for in the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328.
(2) Following the hearing provided for under subsection (1), a decision of the department in regard to the issuance or denial of a permit or special exception under this part is subject to judicial review as provided for in the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328.
History: Add. 1995, Act 59, Imd. Eff. May 24, 1995 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 297, Imd. Eff. Aug. 7, 2012
PopularName Notes:
Act 451
PopularName Notes:
NREPA
Notes of Decisions
Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 655 N.W.2d 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “35304 spells out detailed and specific procedures dictating those “uses” not including mining in critical dune areas, while MCL 324.35305 provides a specific procedure for persons aggrieved by an issuance or denial of a permit for those “uses” not including mining and expressly…”
Lakeshore Grp. v. Dep't of Env't Quality (Mich. 2021).
· cites it 42× “It would likely insulate all sand dune development from review—how often do people build on the border of their property? It’s no wonder that such an interpretation has not been embraced by EGLE or any tribunal.”
Lakeshore Grp. v. Dep't of Env't Quality (Mich. 2021).
· cites it 42× “It would likely insulate all sand dune development from review—how often do people build on the border of their property? It’s no wonder that such an interpretation has not been embraced by EGLE or any tribunal.”
Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Bd of Appeals v. Aeronautics Comm (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“As MAC points out, the Legislature can make that limitation very strict, as it did in MCL 324.35305(1), which limits those who can contest a permit or decision to the applicant or the “owner of the property immediately adjacent to the proposed use.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 324.35305(1) — 4 cases
Preserve the Dunes, Inc v. Dep't of Env't Quality, 655 N.W.2d 263 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
“35304 spells out detailed and specific procedures dictating those “uses” not including mining in critical dune areas, while MCL 324.35305 provides a specific procedure for persons aggrieved by an issuance or denial of a permit for those “uses” not including mining and expressly…”
Lakeshore Grp. v. Dep't of Env't Quality (Mich. 2021).
“It would likely insulate all sand dune development from review—how often do people build on the border of their property? It’s no wonder that such an interpretation has not been embraced by EGLE or any tribunal.”
Lakeshore Grp. v. Dep't of Env't Quality (Mich. 2021).
“It would likely insulate all sand dune development from review—how often do people build on the border of their property? It’s no wonder that such an interpretation has not been embraced by EGLE or any tribunal.”
Tuscola Area Airport Zoning Bd of Appeals v. Aeronautics Comm (Mich. Ct. App. 2022).
“As MAC points out, the Legislature can make that limitation very strict, as it did in MCL 324.35305(1), which limits those who can contest a permit or decision to the applicant or the “owner of the property immediately adjacent to the proposed use.”
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.