Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/1998

Home

Page 4 -- March 25, 1998 goB. later adopted the Michigan Trailways Act, which stated that the acquisition, development, and maintenance of Michigan trailways was in the state's best interest and was declared to be a public purpose. The state Legislature also passed an appropriations bill for the state department of transportation identifying certain rail lines, including RLTD's line, as "essential corridors" to the state's transportation infrastructure. The federal National Trails System Act (Act) gave the Federal_. Surface Transportation Board jurisdiction over such rail corridors. In accordance with the Act, RLTD sought the transportation board's permission to abandon the rail line so it might be used by the Leelanau Trails Association as a "rail trail" -- a process known as "railbanking." The transportation board granted RLTD's request but required that the corridor be converted back to a rail line if the need arose. The trails association developed the corridor into a bicycle and commuter trail. The township sued RLTD and the trails association. It asked the court to determine the parties' rights with regard to the trail and sought a court order prohibiting the trails association from constructing and advertising the trail until the court issued it's decision. According to the township, the trails association had publicly stated that when the trail was fully developed it could be used by 60,000 to 70,000 people per year. It also claimed the association's plans included paving a 10-foot wide trail and building bathrooms, a trail office, trail fee booths, an equipment building, picnic pavilions, a trail visitors center, rest benches, handicapped- accessible exercise stations, and bike racks. The city said the trails association had refused to submit its plan for the trail to the township's zoning administra- tor, as required by the township zoning ordinance. The court held that the township couldn't use its zoning powers to prevent the trails association from building a recreational trail on the old railway line because its zoning powers were preempted by both federal and state law. The court granted RLTD's request for judgment without a trial, and refused to issue the temporary court order the township requested. (After the court issued its decision, the federal transportation board reversed its prior ruling, holding it didn't have jurisdiction over the corridor because the rail line had previously been abandoned. This decision was appealed to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a separate lawsuit.) The township appealed. It argued state law didn't prohibit it from applying its zoning powers to a rail corridor that was railbanked. DECISION: Affirmed. The court properly found that state law preempted the township's zoning powers over the recreational corridor. There was no need to address whether federal law preempted the township's zoning ordinances, because the court could affirm the trial court's decision based on state law. The preservation of old railway lines required exclusive state regulation to achieve the state's goal of maintaining the availability of transportation corridors.