Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 247.327 (2026)

Correction of driveway in violation of rules; applicability; notice; failure to correct; reimbursement; "constructed or reconstructed" defined.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

DRIVEWAYS, BANNERS, AND PARADES


Act 200 of 1969


247.327 Correction of driveway in violation of rules; applicability; notice; failure to correct; reimbursement; "constructed or reconstructed" defined.

Sec. 7.

    This act does not apply to a driveway in existence on August 6, 1969, except that if the use of the land served by the driveway is changed or expanded, and the change or expansion causes the existing driveway to be a safety hazard, the driveway shall be considered a new driveway subject to this act. A driveway that is constructed or reconstructed after the effective date of the rules issued under this act that is in violation of the rules shall be corrected by the owner within a period of time, not less than 30 days, specified in a notice of violation sent by certified mail to the owner. If not corrected within the period required by the notice, the highway authority or its agents may perform the necessary correction and the owner shall reimburse the highway authority for the reasonable cost of correction. As used in this section, "constructed or reconstructed" does not include maintenance activities performed on a driveway, including, but not limited to, the placement of additional gravel.

History: 1969, Act 200, Imd. Eff. Aug. 6, 1969 ;-- Am. 1978, Act 83, Imd. Eff. Mar. 29, 1978 ;-- Am. 2016, Act 455, Eff. Apr. 5, 2017

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1985–2017 · leading case: Carney v. Department of Transportation
Carney v. Dep't of Transp., 378 N.W.2d 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985). “A supervisory design engineer employed by defendant testified that driveway openings should be as narrow as is "practical”, given the angle of the driveway and the size and speed of vehicles which are used to enter it.”
Brad Lee Tubbs v. Lapeer Cnty. Road Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “See MCL 247.327 (“[t]his act does not apply to a driveway in existence on August 6, 1969”).”
Brad Lee Tubbs v. Lapeer Cnty. Road Comm'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “See MCL 247.327 (“[t]his act does not apply to a driveway in existence on August 6, 1969”).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.