Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/02/1998

Home

Page 2--February 10, 1998 Z.B. Subdivision. Residents challenge subdivision's preliminary plat approval Brookshire-Big Tree Association v. Oneida Township, 570 N.W.2d 294 (Michigan) 1997 Brookshire Estates was a 30-Iot subdivision in Oneida Township, Mich. The lots were situated along a closed, figure-eight roadway that was joined to a highway. Twenty-five of the lots had houses on them; the rest, including Lot 12, were vacant. .. Lot 12 was subject to various restrictive covenants, as were most of the lots in the subdivision except those that abutted the highway. Lot 12 could be used only for residential purposes, and only a single-family dwelling could be built on it. A developer bought LOt 12 and a larger parcel contiguous to Brookshire Estates. The developer decided to develop the larger piece of property into a subdivision, and applied for preliminary plat approval ora development it called Brookshire No. 2. According to the proposed plat, the subdivision would access the existing roadway of Brookshire Estates by a road built over Lot 12. The proposed plat for Brookshire 2 included Lot 12 of Brookshire Estates. The township and the county road commission granted preliminary approval to the proposed plat. The. residents of Brookshire Estates and a related subdi- vision formed the Brookshire-Big Tree Association, a citizens group, and sued the township and the developer. The group sought a court order vacating the preliminary approval of Brookshire 2, and an order preventing the developer from building a road across Lot 12. The citizens group asked the court for judgment without a trial, claiming the proposed plat of Brookshire 2 was improperly approved because it removed Lot 12 from the Brookshire Estates plat and transferred it to the Brookshire 2 plat. The group claimed that although such a transfer could be done, the devel- oper didn't follow the proper procedures to do it. The state Subdivision Control Act set procedures for replatting a subdivi- sion. Under the Act, a replat couldn't be approved until after a court vacated the original plat. There was an exception, though, when all of the owners of the lots to be replatted agreed in writing and recorded the agreement with the register of deeds, and the municipality adopted a resolution vacating all areas dedicated to public use within the proposed replat. The developer claimed it could unilaterally "agree" to the replat of Lot 12 because it owned the lot, so the 'lot could be replatted to become part of Brookshire 2 without the approval of the remaining owners in BrookshireEstates. The court awarded the citizens group judgment, and the developer appealed. D~ON: Affirmed. The preliminary plat for Brookshire 2 was vacated, and the developer could not build a road over Lot 12 unless the lot was properly replatted. The developer could not unilaterally agree to replat Lot 12. Because the developer didn't get the written agreement of all the lot owners of Brookshire Estates concerning the replat of Lot 12, the developer didn't satisfy the Subdi- vision Control Act. The Act provided that unless a court vacated the previous