Plaintiffs were owners of the sole residential property on a street in the Township within whatremained of a platted subdivision after a portion of the subdivision was subsumed into a site condominium development. That development had a boundary along Plaintiffs’ street, across from Plaintiffs’ home. When a home across the street and down the road from Plaintiffs’ home had been demolished to make way for the condominium project, a portion of that house’s driveway leading to the street was left behind. Over 15 years later, the condominium unit corresponding to the lot with the driveway remnant was purchased. In preparing to construct a home on the site, the purchasers obtained approval of a zoning variance to allow a fence to beon the unit’s property line, which in turn would enclose the driveway remnant and allow the purchaser to develop it as part of their home’s yard. Plaintiffs then sued the Township and the condominium unit owners, claiming violations of Township codes, the Land Division Act, seeking declaratory relief, and seeking compensation for a taking. In essence, Plaintiffs claimed that the driveway remnant was a “turnaround” that had become part of the platted road and/or that Plaintiffs enjoyed prescriptive easement rights over the remnant. Plaintiffs also separately filed an appeal of the ZBA’s decision, which was denied. The circuit court granted summary disposition in favor of the Township. Among other findings, the court held that the lawsuit was a collateral attack on the ZBA’s decision, that Plaintiff lacked standing to sue the Township over the driveway remnant since it was not Township property and the adjoining road was not under the Township’s jurisdiction, and the title to the property showed no easement rights in favor of Plaintiffs or the public over the driveway remnant. Plaintiffs did not appeal.