The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us) STATE OF MICHIGAN FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL Opinion No. 5509 July 20, 1979 CITY AND VILLAGE PLANNING ACT: Adoption of master plan MUNICIPALITIES: Adoption of master plan ZONING AND PLANNING: Adoption of master plan pursuant to city and village planning act The city and village planning act requires that the planning commission make and adopt a master plan for the physical development of the municipality. Therefore, a city ordinance may not provide that the master plan be adopted by the city council. Honorable Richard D. Fessler State Representative The Capitol Lansing, Michigan 48909 Mr. David M. Fried City Attorney 20840 Southfield Road Suite 320 Southfield, Michigan 48075 You have requested my opinion on the following question: 'In the light of the city, village and municipal planning act (1), Sec. 6, can the City of Novi adopt an ordinance which provides that the Master Plan for the physical development of the City shall be adopted by the City Council?' Section 2 of the city and village planning act authorizes any municipality to adopt a 'municipal plan . . . and create by ordinance the planning commission with the powers and duties herein set forth.' Novi Ordinance 70-09, Sec. 8.01(a) provides that the city planning board prepare a recommendation for the physical development of the city. It will be noted that the Novi Planning Board was not created by the Novi Charter, pursuant to section 2 of the city and village planning act, supra. Section 6 of the city and village planning act provides in part: 'The [planning] commission shall make and adopt a master plan for the physical development of the municipality. . . .' [Emphasis added] This language clearly vests the planning commission with the sole power to adopt the master plan; see Raabe v City of Walker, 383 Mich 165; 174 NW2d 789 (1970). To the extent that Novi Ordinance 70-09 does not authorize the planning commission to make and adopt a master plan for the physical development of the city, its provisions conflict with sections 2 and 6 of the city and village planning act, supra. Eg, Gordon v City of Warren Planning and Urban Renewal Commission, 29 Mich App 309, 323-324; 185 NW2d 61 (1971), aff'd 388 Mich 82; 199 NW2d 465 (1972). An ordinance or provision thereof in direct conflict with a controlling statute is void; People v McGraw, 184 Mich 233; 150 NW 836 (1915). Under the home rule cities act, 1909 PA 279, Sec. 36, MCLA 117.36; MSA 5.2116, provisions of the city charter or ordinances may not conflict with a general law of the state; City of Grand Haven v Grocers Cooperative Dairy Company, 330 Mich 694; 48 NW2d 362 (1951). Therefore, it is my opinion that 1931 PA 285, Secs. 2 and 6, supra, accord to the planning commission created by ordinance sole power to make and adopt a master plan for the physical development of the city. Frank J. Kelley Attorney General (1)