## Facts

- Ridgefield Land Company owned an 80-acre tract in Detroit and submitted a subdivision plat for approval.
- Detroit had adopted a general street plan setting required widths for major streets to address traffic and safety.
- The plan called for Pembroke Avenue to be wider than 66 feet and Livernois Avenue to be 120 feet, while Ridgefield’s plat showed both streets as 66 feet.
- The city plan commission gave only conditional approval, requiring (1) a 10-foot building line on Pembroke Avenue and (2) an additional 17-foot dedication along Livernois Avenue beyond the standard dedication.
- Ridgefield refused to accept the conditions and sought unconditional approval of the plat.
- Relevant authority included Detroit charter provisions establishing a city plan commission with power over plat acceptance and a 1925 statute requiring streets in plats to conform to an adopted general plan for width and location and directing rejection of nonconforming plats.
- Ridgefield argued the conditions lacked legal authority and amounted to an uncompensated taking of property.

## Issues

1. Whether statutory and charter authority permitted Detroit to require conformance with a general street-width plan as a condition of plat approval, including an additional 17-foot dedication and a 10-foot building line.
2. Whether these plat-approval conditions constituted a taking of private property for public use without just compensation.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed denial of mandamus compelling unconditional approval of the plat.
- The court held the city had statutory and charter authority to condition plat approval on conformance with the general street plan, including the specified dedication and building-line requirement.
- The court held the conditions were a valid exercise of the police power and did not constitute an unconstitutional taking requiring compensation.

## Legal Principles

- When authorized by statute and charter, a municipality may adopt a general street plan and require subdivision plats to conform to it as to street width and location.
- A governing body may reject, or condition approval of, a plat that conflicts with an adopted general plan where the governing statute directs nonconforming plats to be rejected.
- Conditioning plat approval on additional street-width dedication and building lines, when reasonably tied to traffic and public safety objectives implemented through a general plan, is regulation under the police power rather than a compensable taking.
- A developer seeking the legal benefits of recording and acceptance of a plat may be required to meet lawful planning conditions attached to plat approval.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Detroit’s authority to require additional street-width dedication and a building line to implement an adopted street plan, treating these requirements as reasonable police-power conditions on plat approval rather than an uncompensated taking.


Ridgefield Land Co. v. City of Detroit, 241 Mich. 468, 217 N.W. 58 (1928)