Court Opinion

ID: 9659914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:58:24.905996+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:12.909304
License: Public Domain

White, P.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree that the township has statutory authority to require the payment of fees to defray the costs of processing applications for rezoning such as that involved in the instant case. I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that because the fees charged here were not fixed at a sum certain, they were not “fees” as contemplated by the statute. I would affirm the order of the circuit court.
While some dictionaries use the term “fixed charge” in defining the word “fee,” that term is generally but one of several definitions of the word. Another definition is quoted by the majority from Black’s Law Dictionary (6th ed), “[a] charge fixed by law for services of public officers or for use of a privilege under control of government.” The second definition in Black’s is “[a] recompense for an official or professional service or a charge or emolument or compensation for a particular act or service.”1 Ballantine’s Law Dictionary does not include the term “fixed charge.” Webster’s *13Third New International Dictionary includes as definitions “a fixed charge for admission (as to a museum)” and “a charge fixed by law or by an institution (as a university) for certain privileges or services.” People v Goulding, 275 Mich 353, 357; 266 NW 378 (1936), relied on by the majority, simply stated that a fee “is usually a fixed charge, a prerequisite charged as a recompense for labor and trouble.” (Emphasis added.)
I conclude that a charge does not have to be fixed at a sum certain to be a “fee.” A charge assessed for certain privileges or services relating to a zoning permit application that is fixed by reference to established policy and procedure can be a fee and is not precluded from being a fee simply because the amount depends on the circumstances of each application.
The only express legislative limitations on the fee authorized by the Township Rural Zoning Act, MCL 125.271 et seq.; MSA 5.2963(1) et seq.\ is that it be for the purposes of obtaining advance information or defraying the cost of enforcing the act in the township and that it be reasonable. Here the circuit court found that the fee was reasonable. See Flama Constr Corp v Franklin Twp, 201 NJ Super 498; 493 A2d 587 (1985). There is no reason to suppose that the Legislature mandated a system where developers seeking approval of small planned unit developments would be required to pay a fee that is unreasonable in relation to their particular application, but reasonable in light of the average costs of processing and investigating all applications, including those related to the largest planned unit developments involving the great*14est amount of review and investigation. For the reasons stated by the circuit court,21 would affirm.

 The third definition in Black’s includes the term “fixed charge”: “A fixed charge or perquisite charged as recompense for labor; reward, compensation, or wage given to a person for performance of services or something done or to be done.”

 The circuit court concluded:
First, the escrow fee policy is fair and reasonable because it is based on actual costs; that is, the actual consulting fee incurred by the township in connection with the particular project. No additional municipal revenue is generated. Any remaining monies in the account are returned to the developer at the conclusion of the process.
Second, the escrow fee policy is fair and reasonable because they are proportionate to the costs of the regulation itself.
[Merrelli v St Clair Shores, 355 Mich 575, 583, 584; 96 NW2d 144 (1959).]
Third, the escrow fee policy is fair and reasonable because it is the developer who benefits from the consulting work rendering a property capable of development, and resulting profit to the developer with no perceived necessary value to the existing residence[sic].
Four [sic], the escrow fee policy is fair and reasonable because it allows the developer a measure of control over the costs, provided that the site plan and other preliminary work is properly done, so that the need for review by outside consultants is minimized.
Fifth, the escrow fee policy is fair and reasonable because to mandate a fixed fee in advance would require a township to create out of vaccum [sic] an arbitrary amount with the disadvantage to its residents of imposing an unforeseen shortfall requiring increased taxes each year or, conversely, creating a windfall of revenue contrary to the intent of the statute itself.
Moreover, the effect of a fixed fee on a developer is equally apparent. It can create a windfall to the developer of a complex project at the expense of one whose project is relatively simple and straightforward.
Certainly, as has been argued and as the court has quoted and as is apparent, to the extent that developer claims that a particular escrow policy fee is unreasonable this Court is of the opinion, as is noted in [Flama Constr Corp v Franklin Twp, 201 NJ Super 498, 503; 493 A2d 587 (1985)].
“All fees ultimately paid are subject to the requirement that they be reasonable, and that determination is subject to review by the courts.”