LAND DIVISION ACT
Act 288 of 1967
560.112 Preliminary plat; tentative approval; time period; extension.
Sec. 112.
(1) The proprietor shall submit 4 but not more than 10 copies of the preliminary plat and other data to the clerk of the municipality.
(2) The governing body shall tentatively approve and note its approval on the copy of the preliminary plat, or tentatively approve it subject to conditions and note its approval and conditions on the copy of the preliminary plat, to be returned to the proprietor, or set forth in writing its reasons for rejection and requirements for tentative approval, within the following time period, as applicable:
(a) Within 60 days after it was submitted to the clerk, if a preapplication review meeting was conducted under section 111(3).
(b) Within 90 days after it was submitted to the clerk, if a preapplication review meeting was not conducted under section 111(3).
(3) The governing body may require the submission of other related data as it deems necessary, if the requirement for such data has previously been adopted and published.
(4) Tentative approval under this section confers upon the proprietor for a period of 1 year from date, approval of lot sizes, lot orientation, and street layout, and application of the then-current subdivision regulations. The tentative approval may be extended if applied for by the proprietor and granted by the governing body in writing.
History: 1967, Act 288, Eff. Jan. 1, 1968 ;-- Am. 2004, Act 525, Eff. July 1, 2005
PopularName Notes:
Plat Act
PopularName Notes:
Subdivision Control
Notes of Decisions
Carlson v. City of Troy, 282 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
· cites it 2× “In summary, while we do not believe that reasons for rejection of a proposed preliminary plat need to be set forth on the face of the plat, we find that, on this record, defendant has not indicated good and sufficient reasons under the cited statutes for denying approval, nor…”
Conlin v. SCIO TP., 686 N.W.2d 16 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“To be approved, a plat must meet the requirements of §§ 131 to 151, which concern form, substance, and the certificates of approval necessary for recording a final plat.”
Conlin v. Scio Twp., 262 Mich. App. 379 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“To be approved, a plat must meet the requirements of §§ 131 to 151, which concern form, substance, and the certificates of approval necessary for recording a final plat.”
Eversdyk v. Wyoming City Council, 421 N.W.2d 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“[See MCL 560.112(2); MSA 26.430(112X2).] If the rejection is improper, an action for mandamus is available.”
Mich. Comp. Laws § 560.112(2): 4 cases
Carlson v. City of Troy, 282 N.W.2d 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
“In summary, while we do not believe that reasons for rejection of a proposed preliminary plat need to be set forth on the face of the plat, we find that, on this record, defendant has not indicated good and sufficient reasons under the cited statutes for denying approval, nor…”
Conlin v. SCIO TP., 686 N.W.2d 16 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“To be approved, a plat must meet the requirements of §§ 131 to 151, which concern form, substance, and the certificates of approval necessary for recording a final plat.”
Conlin v. Scio Twp., 262 Mich. App. 379 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“To be approved, a plat must meet the requirements of §§ 131 to 151, which concern form, substance, and the certificates of approval necessary for recording a final plat.”
Eversdyk v. Wyoming City Council, 421 N.W.2d 574 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
“[See MCL 560.112(2); MSA 26.430(112X2).] If the rejection is improper, an action for mandamus is available.”
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.