Opinion ID: 2191796
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: arrowhead

Text: Finally, the condition for plat approval imposed by the township board in this case  that the developer construct a direct access route from his initial proposed plat to Haslett Road, across the developer's own land slated for eventual development and as envisioned by the developer's own overall development plan  does not conflict with this Court's decision in Arrowhead. The contrary argument rests on a strained and overbroad reading of Arrowhead that disregards the many distinguishing features of this case. In Arrowhead, the developer submitted for approval a subdivision plat adjoining Chilson Road, a public county road. A steep hill on Chilson Road threatened to create a hazardous sight obstruction for traffic entering and leaving the proposed subdivision by Navajo Trail, one of three planned entrances to the subdivision. [7] The Livingston County Road Commission approved the plat subject to the condition that the developer remove the hill on Chilson Road and perform related regrading and resurfacing work to eliminate the sight obstruction. See id., 413 Mich 507-509. We stated the dispositive issue as follows: Whether a county road commission has authority to require a subdivision developer to make improvements on a county road located entirely outside the platted subdivision as a condition precedent to plat approval.... [ Id. at 510.] Not surprisingly, we answered the question in the negative. In the first place, we noted that the county road law, MCL 224.21; MSA 9.121, places upon counties themselves the duty to maintain and improve public county roads, and specifies borrowing and taxation as the permissible methods for financing such improvements, not the imposition of such costs on the developers of nearby subdivisions. 413 Mich 512-513. In the second place, we noted that the SCA simply did not authorize a condition such as that imposed by the road commission in Arrowhead. Id. at 513-516. The only purported statutory basis for the disputed condition was SCA § 183(1)(b), which provides that a road commission may require [a]dequate provision for traffic safety in laying out drives which enter county roads and streets .... (Emphasis added.) This clearly did not authorize a requirement that the developer improve the county road itself. We expressly emphasized two other crucially important factors in Arrowhead. First, we noted that conditioning plat approval on the developer's improvement of land totally outside his own property would exceed the authority of local governments under the SCA because only the parcel or tract of land in which the proprietor has an ownership interest can be partitioned or divided by him.... 413 Mich 517 (emphasis added). [W]e think the Legislature cannot be said to have intended implicitly to extend the requirements of § 183(1)(b) to roads outside the subdivision which are not `required to be shown on a plat.' Id. at 518. Second, we noted that serious constitutional problems might arise from requiring a developer to improve a public road, conferring substantial benefits on other persons and property, without any compensation or allocation of costs. [N]owhere does there exist any statutory provision defining suitable standards governing cost allocation of off-site improvements. Apart from the constitutionality of the proposed exaction in this case, a question we neither reach nor decide, it is clear that it would be impermissible to impose the entire cost of an off-site improvement on a single subdivision developer where other persons or property would be specially benefited. [ Id. at 519. Emphasis added.] Significantly, this Court noted in Arrowhead that under § 183(1)(b) the commission could have required that Arrowhead lay out Navajo Trail in a way which would locate its intersection with Chilson Road at a safe distance from the hazardous sight obstruction .... 413 Mich 518 (emphasis added). This hypothetical condition bears a remarkable similarity to the condition that the township board has imposed in this case, which is essentially that the developer locate the main access road to his subdivision at a safe distance from the sight obstruction (the s-curve) on Haslett Road. The developer in this case has not been asked to remedy the sight obstruction on the county road itself, as was the developer in Arrowhead. The distinctions between this case and Arrowhead are thus self-evident and fundamental. The disputed condition in this case would not require the developer to undertake any improvement of public land, or of any land outside his own property that he himself has slated for eventual development. The required access road would not confer any special benefits on the public or on other persons or property; it would primarily benefit the developer's own property and would further his overall development plans. As discussed in part II(B), the township board has ample statutory authority to require that the developer provide for safe and suitable access to his own proposed subdivision. While the required access road would extend beyond the boundaries of the initial plat submitted by the developer, it does not constitute, as did the county road in Arrowhead, a road outside the subdivision which [is] not `required to be shown on a plat.' 413 Mich 518. To the contrary, the required access road would traverse the developer's own property across the overall planned subdivision, which the developer himself has already slated for eventual platting and development. In sum, nothing more has been asked of the developer in this case than that he develop his own property in a manner consistent with governing statutes, local regulations, and legitimate safety concerns. The duty to provide suitable access in accordance with such statutes and regulations rests with the developer. The township board's request in furtherance of that goal does not in any way conflict with Arrowhead, and is, indeed, arguably endorsed by Arrowhead. [8]