Oshtemo Charter Township v. Kalamazoo County Road Commission
841 N.W.2d 135
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Oshtemo Charter Township adopted a truck-route ordinance in 2007 prohibiting heavy trucks on several county primary roads within the township.
- 2009 amendment to MCL 257.726 added §(3), allowing an adjoining township to object and the county road commission to "approve or void" the ordinance if objections are unresolved; Kalamazoo and Alamo Townships objected to Oshtemo’s ordinance.
- The Kalamazoo County Road Commission investigated and voided Oshtemo’s ordinance in May 2009; Oshtemo sued in circuit court seeking declaratory relief and a preliminary injunction.
- While litigation proceeded, Oshtemo adopted a Uniform Traffic Code traffic-control order (2010) that likewise restricted truck traffic; the Road Commission argued its prior voiding also invalidated that order.
- The trial court upheld MCL 257.726(3), reviewed the Commission’s action for abuse of discretion, and granted summary disposition in favor of the Road Commission; Oshtemo appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oshtemo has judicial review under Const 1963, art 6, § 28 | Oshtemo: constitutional provision allows review of agency actions affecting local rights | Defendants: township is a public entity, lacks "private rights" for §28 review | Held: Oshtemo may seek review; local governments can assert constitutionally reserved rights under §28 |
| Whether a township ordinance conflicts with state law or agency rules | Oshtemo: ordinance reasonable and does not conflict with state law or valid agency rules | Defendants: Road Commission’s voiding made the ordinance contrary to state law; Commission has authority under MCL 257.726(3) | Held: Ordinance did not conflict with state law; county road commissions lack rulemaking authority that would convert their determinations into state law |
| Whether MCL 257.726(3) permits the Road Commission to void a reasonable township ordinance | Oshtemo: statute cannot override constitutional reservation of reasonable local control; Commission must find ordinance unreasonable before voiding | Defendants: statute gives Commission final authority to approve or void; review limited/ deferential | Held: To the extent §(3) allows voiding reasonable ordinances without a finding of unreasonableness, it conflicts with Const art 7 §29 and is unconstitutional as applied |
| Standard of judicial review for the Commission’s action | Oshtemo: court must determine whether Commission action was authorized by law (including constitutionality and reasonableness) | Defendants: Commission’s decision is final; review only for abuse of discretion or barred | Held: Because no contested-case hearing occurred, trial court should review whether the Commission’s decision was authorized by law; here the Commission did not determine ordinance unreasonable, so its voiding was unauthorized |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Taylor v. Detroit Edison Co., 475 Mich 109 (discusses conflict between municipal ordinances and administrative rules promulgated under statutory authority)
- Midland Cogeneration Venture LP v. Naftaly, 489 Mich 83 (legislature may not eradicate constitutional guarantees; standards for judicial review of agency action)
- City of Dearborn v. Sugden & Siviers, Inc., 343 Mich 257 (municipalities entitled to adopt reasonable traffic regulations; legislature exceeded authority when preventing reasonable local regulation)
- Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan v. Governor, 422 Mich 1 (invalid delegation where statute gave agency power to approve/disapprove without guiding standards)
- Robinson Township v. Ottawa County Bd. of Rd. Comm’rs, 114 Mich App 405 (recognizes risk of a "chaotic patchwork" of local truck-route designations)