Carlson v. City of Troy, Docket No. 78-2877
Decision Date | 05 June 1979 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 78-2877 |
Citation | 282 N.W.2d 387,90 Mich.App. 543 |
Parties | Harry C. CARLSON, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CITY OF TROY, Defendant-Appellant. 90 Mich.App. 543, 282 N.W.2d 387 |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[90 MICHAPP 545] William S. Wolanin, Troy, for defendant-appellant.
J. Timothy Patterson, Pontiac, for plaintiff-appellee.
[90 MICHAPP 546] Before RILEY, P. J., and KELLY and BEASLEY, JJ.
Plaintiffs sought a writ of mandamus to compel defendant City of Troy to approve an amended preliminary plat which defendant, through its city council, rejected. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant violated sections 106 and 112(2) of the Subdivision Control Act of 1967. 1
Defendant appeals of right the trial court's judgment granting plaintiffs a writ of mandamus.
The record indicates that on March 28, 1978, the plan commission of defendant city passed the following resolution:
On April 24, 1978, the preliminary plat was submitted to defendant's city council with the plan commission recommendation. Plaintiffs' preliminary plat was discussed and the matter was tabled.
On May 8, 1978, after further consideration, defendant's city council denied approval of the preliminary plat, as follows:
[90 MICHAPP 547] "RESOLVED, that Tentative Approval of the Preliminary Plat for Ironwood Subdivision, located in the northeast one-quarter of Section 16, is hereby denied, because the proprietor fails to indicate future subdivision plans for all lands owned by said proprietor and adjoining the plat at the northeast corner and extending along the northern border of the Plat of Scott Lands, No. 2, from the extension of Elgin Street easterly to Livernois."
A copy of the minutes containing this resolution was mailed to plaintiffs on May 11, 1978. Defendant has presented no other reasons for rejection of the preliminary plat.
The requirements for issuance of mandamus are:
" 2
This Court will not interfere with the granting of mandamus if there is evidence to support the trial court's findings. Absent abuse of discretion, the trial court's ruling will not be disturbed. 3
The trial judge's order granting the issuance of the writ of mandamus was based on his interpretation[90 MICHAPP 548] of section 112(2) of the Subdivision Control Act of 1967, 4 which states:
"(2) The governing body, within 90 days from the date of filing, shall tentatively approve and note its approval on the copy of the preliminary plat to be returned to the proprietor, or set forth in writing its reasons for rejection and requirements for tentative approval."
The trial judge's interpretation of the statute is indicated by the following colloquy with the city attorney:
We do not believe the wording of section 112(2) intended the restrictive reading that the trial judge imposed. The last two clauses of the statute are independent clauses as is evidenced by the use of the disjunctive "or" which separates them. 5
According to the language of the statute, if the preliminary plat is accepted, the noting of its acceptance must be set forth on the preliminary plat itself. However, if the preliminary plat is rejected, the last clause of section 112(2) comes into effect and requires the governing body to set forth in writing (not necessarily on the preliminary plat) its reasons for rejection And its requirements for tentative approval. Section 112(2) serves as a notice provision as is apparent from the mandatory language which sets forth the mechanics for approval and rejection.
Review of the Subdivision Control Act of 1967 in its entirety reveals good reason why Approval of the preliminary plat must be made "On the copy of the preliminary plat to be returned to the proprietor ", while rejection need Not be made On the copy of the preliminary plat although the reasons for objection must be in writing.
For example, under section 112(4), tentative approval gives the proprietor approval of "lot sizes, lot orientation and street layout . . . for a period of one year". Under some circumstances, approvals must be obtained from the county road commission, 6 the county drain commission, 7 the state highway department,[90 MICHAPP 550] 8 the water resources commission 9 and the health department having jurisdiction. 10 Each of the foregoing sections of the statute provide substantially as follows:
11
It is evident that while it is practical and important to have the approvals and the dates of approval on the face of the plat, it would be cumbersome and impractical to place on the face of the plat reasons for rejection and requirements for approval. If the Legislature had desired that undesirable result, it would have been easy to provide language to that effect, E. g., "note its approval or rejection on the plat".
Thus, we find that failure to set forth in writing On the face of the plat the reasons for declining tentative approval was not a violation of the statute by defendant city and, consequently, was not a reason for granting mandamus. We further find that the mailing of the minutes of the city council meeting to the plaintiffs satisfies the notice in writing requirement of section 112(2). But, this is not to say that the Contents of the resolution, I. e., the reasons for denying tentative approval, fell within the permitted range of lawful reasons for denial.
Granting of mandamus by the trial court appeared to be based on two premises: (1) that defendant city failed to comply with section 112(2) and (2) that "rejection of Plaintiff's Preliminary Plat was [90 MICHAPP 551] not based upon any requirement found in Section 105 of 1967 P.A. 288".
M.C.L. § 560.106; M.S.A. § 26.430(106) states:
(Emphasis added; footnote omitted.)
Section 105 of the Subdivision Control Act of 1967, M.C.L. § 560.105; M.S.A. § 26.430(105), reads in pertinent part as follows:
Subsections (c) through (g) which follow are not relevant here.
Pursuant to subsection (b) of § 105 of the act, defendant enacted ordinance number 41, which is the subdivision control ordinance for the City of Troy. Section 3.01(a)(4)(E) of this ordinance reads as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Schuette v. Rand
-
G.M. Engineers and Associates, Inc. v. West Bloomfield Tp.
...with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment.' " Carlson v. City of Troy, 90 Mich.App. 543, 547, 282 N.W.2d 387, 388 (1979) (quoting Toan v. McGinn, 271 Mich. 28, 34, 260 N.W. 108, 111 Instead of appealing to the state circuit court or seek......
-
Michigan Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Natural Resources
...343, 348-349, 184 N.W.2d 247 (1970), lv. den. 384 Mich. 824 (1971).15 See n. 14, supra.16 See n. 14, supra.17 Carlson v. City of Troy, 90 Mich.App. 543, 547, 282 N.W.2d 387 (1979); MCR 2.613(C).18 Dafter Twp. v. Reid, 131 Mich.App. 283, 290-291, 345 N.W.2d 689 (1983), lv. den. 419 Mich. 903......
-
McDonalds Corp. v. Township of Canton, Docket No. 105672
...608 (1987), lv. den. 428 Mich. 900 (1987); Cyrus v. Calhoun Co. Sheriff, 85 Mich.App. 397, 399, 271 N.W.2d 249 (1978).2 90 Mich.App. 543, 547, 282 N.W.2d 387 (1979), quoting Toan v. McGinn, 271 Mich. 28, 34, 260 N.W. 108 (1935).3 Childers v. Kent Co. Clerk, 140 Mich.App. 131, 135, 362 N.W.2......