MSU Extension Planning

Maybe the most forgotten part of the Michigan Planning Enabling Act – or the most ignored – is the requirement for the planning commission review of a government’s proposed construction or purchase of a street, square, park, playground, public way, ground, other open space, new building, addition or other structure.

Following adoption of a master plan, Section 61 of the Michigan Planning Enabling Act (MCL 125.3861) requires a planning commission to review the “location, character, and extent of the street, public way, open space, structure, or utility…” before construction or authorization for construction begins (MCL 125.3861(1)).

The planning commission only has 35 days to act on the review (MCL 125.3861(1)). If it does not meet that deadline, the project is considered approved and work on the project may proceed without planning commission review.

The Michigan Planning Enabling Act also requires that “[t]he planning commission shall submit its reasons for approval or disapproval to the body having jurisdiction. If the planning commission disapproves, the body having jurisdiction may overrule the planning commission” (MCL 125.3861(1)). The override vote is 2/3 of the entire membership of the legislative body in a city, village, or township with a planning commission originally created under the now repealed Municipal Planning Act, or a majority of the membership in other townships (MCL 125.3861(1)).

Similar language for planning commission review of any acquisition of land, erection of structures, or extension, construction, or improvement of any physical facility exists in the Michigan Planning Enanbling Act for counties after the adoption of a master plan. There is one difference – that the county planning commission does not give approval or disapproval but rather the report and advice of the planning commission on the proposal is received by the county board of commissioners and by the county board, department, or agency submitting the proposal within 35 days of receipt (MCL 125.3861(2)).

There are a number of reasons for the planning commission’s involvement in the decision to expend public resources on infrastructure and other capital projects. This added level of review can help ensure that expenditures for public works construction follow the adopted master plan and therefore work toward the goals and best interests of the community.

Another reason to involve the planning commission is because of that body’s unique make-up. The Michigan Planning Enabling Act requires that the planning commission be representative of “the important segments of the community” and be “representative of the entire territory of the local unit of government to the extent practicable” (MCL 125.3815(3)).

Another reason for planning commission review of capital expenditures is related to the fact that, based on current case law, a local government is not subject to its own zoning ordinance when performing a governmental function (Morrison et al. v. City of East Lansing, 255 Mich. App. 505 (2003)). In many communities with the watchful eye of the public, this presents practical and public perception challenges if government is not going through the process to obtain a zoning permit from itself. The public works review is an additional means for the planning commission to review and comment on similar things that would be covered during the process of obtaining zoning approval.

The review by the planning commission should focus on whether the proposed public construction project is consistent with the adopted master plan. This review is to determine if the project fits within the future direction for the community.

Each review comment made by a planning commission should be specific and should include a direct citation to the chapter and section of the master plan (e.g., page number, paragraph, or goal, objective, strategy enumeration). It may be the case that the master plan does not reference particular capital improvements, or the plan is very general in terms of envisioned public facilities and services. In such cases, the planning commission will want to be careful in connecting any comments made to the demands for public facilities and services that can reasonably be anticipated by the development or redevelopment envisioned by the future land use map in the master plan.

If the concern or comment cannot be tied to the current master plan, then the comment should not be made by the planning commission. If that is the case, it may be best to respond to the request for review by saying something to the effect that “the planning commission has no comment” or allow the 35-day review period to expire without making comment.

The Michigan Planning Enabling Act also gives planning commissions a role in the local government capital improvements program for public structures and improvements. More information about capital improvement programs and the planning commission role can be found in MCL 125.3865 or the Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series: Checklist #1K: Review of Infrastructure and Public Capital Expenditures.

A planning commissioner wondering about the approach followed in their community could discuss this topic with the planning department director, chief administrative official, or chief elected official for their local government.