Bell River Associates v. China Charter Tp.

• Decision Date: 18 April 1997
• Docket Number: Docket No. 176879
• Citation: Bell River Associates v. China Charter Tp., 565 N.W.2d 695, 223 Mich.App. 124 (Mich. App. 1997)
• Parties: BELL RIVER ASSOCIATES a/k/a Belle River Associates, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHINA, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 695

565 N.W.2d 695

223 Mich.App. 124

BELL RIVER ASSOCIATES a/k/a Belle River AssociatesPlaintiff-Appellant, v.CHARTER TOWNSHIP OF CHINA, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 176879.

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted Aug. 20, 1996, at Detroit.

Decided April 18, 1997, at 9:40 a.m.

Released for Publication July 16, 1997.

Before CORRIGAN, P.J., and JANSEN and M. WARSHAWSKY^*, JJ.

York, Dolan & Ciaramitaro, P.C. by John A. Dolan, Clinton, for plaintiff-appellant.

Anthony, Seibert, and Dloski by Robert J. Seibert, Mount Clemens, for defendant-appellee.

CORRIGAN, Presiding Judge.

In this zoning action, plaintiff appeals by right the circuit court judgment denying rezoning of plaintiff's property from agricultural to multifamily housing.We affirm in part and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.UNDERLYING FACTS

In 1989, plaintiff's predecessor in interest, Sandstone Investment, ¹ initiated the purchase of approximately 292 acres of property in China Township, which currently has 2,500 residents.Although the property was zoned for agricultural use, Sandstone intended to develop about 150 acres of the property as a 454-unit mobile home park, ² with a projected 1,000 residents.The property, however, was not serviced by public water or sewer.The closest connections were over four miles away.

In August and October 1989, Sandstone requested that China Township rezone the 150 acres from agricultural to multifamily residential.The China Township Planning Commission and the St. Clair County Planning Commission each denied Sandstone's request.The China Township Board of Trustees later voted to deny the rezoning request.

The property sale became final in February 1990, although the township had not rezoned the property.In August 1990, Sandstone assigned its interest to plaintiff.Plaintiff then sued to compel the township to change the zoning.

After a four-day bench trial, the circuit court denied plaintiff's request for a rezoning.The court found that China Township properly denied plaintiff's request for a zoning change because of "[t]he unavailability of public utilities, the [in]compatibility with surrounding uses, the remoteness of the site, and the impact of a relatively large population on township resources."³The court decided that plaintiff had provided insufficient evidence that the existing agricultural zoning classification precluded use of the property for other purposes.Finally, the court ruled that China Township's zoning ordinance was not exclusionary.

II.SPECIAL USES PERTAINING TO MOBILE HOMES ONLY

Plaintiff asserts that the township demands impermissible special-use requirements that solely pertain to mobile homes.China Township zoning ordinance § 1812 requires site specifications that apply to mobile homes only: (1) a minimum site size of twenty acres; (2) direct access to a paved public road with a planned right of way of not less than 120 feet; and (3) the site cannot abut any suburban residential district.⁴Plaintiff argues that the ordinance violated M.C.L. § 125.2307(6);M.S.A. § 19.855(107)(6), which provides:

A local government ordinance shall not contain roof configuration standards or special use zoning requirements that apply only to, or excludes [sic],mobile homes.A local government ordinance shall not contain a manufacturing or construction standard that is incompatible with, or is more stringent than, a standard promulgated by the federal department of housing and urban development pursuant to the national manufactured housing construction and safety standards act of 1974, 42 U.S.C. §§ 5401 to 5426.A local government ordinance may include reasonable standards relating to mobile homes located outside of mobile home parks or seasonal mobile home parks which ensure that mobile homes compare aesthetically to site-built housing located or allowed in the same residential zone.

[Emphasis added.]

Defendant did not address plaintiff's argument on this point in its brief.During oral argument, defense counsel merely asserted that the special-use requirements under the ordinance were "not substantial criteria."Counsel explained that several sites within the township were zoned for multiple residential use, adding that plaintiff's proposal called for substantial development in what was otherwise an essentially all-rural community.

Defendant conceded in its brief and during argument, however, that mobile-home parks are permitted in China Township only upon special land-use approval.That policy violates the clear mandate of the above statute--that a zoning ordinance not contain special-use zoning requirements that only apply to mobile homes.M.C.L. § 125.2307(6);M.S.A. § 19.855(107)(6).The township's ordinance § 1812 therefore is infirm as written.Thus, we remand this matter with directions to strike § 1812 because it impermissibly contains special-use zoning requirements that pertain to only mobile homes, contrary to M.C.L. § 125.2307(6);M.S.A. § 19.855(107)(6).⁵

Nonetheless, we decline to overturn the circuit court's decision because the agricultural zoning classification does not violate due process and does not constitute a taking, and because plaintiff's proposed use of the property is unreasonable as will be indicated.

III.DUE PROCESS

Plaintiff first argues that China Township's zoning classification violated its substantive due process rights.We review de novo a court's ruling on a constitutional challenge to a zoning ordinance.Scots Ventures, Inc. v. Hayes Twp., 212 Mich.App. 530, 532, 537 N.W.2d 610(1995).We give considerable weight, however, to the factual findings of the trial court.A & B Enterprises v. Madison Twp., 197 Mich.App. 160, 162, 494 N.W.2d 761(1992).

Ordinances are presumed to be valid and constitutional.Gackler Land Co., Inc. v. Yankee Springs Twp., 427 Mich. 562, 571, 398 N.W.2d 393(1986).To prevail on a substantive due process theory, a plaintiff must prove that the zoning classification advances no reasonable governmental interest.Id.;Rogers v. Allen Park, 186 Mich.App. 33, 37, 463 N.W.2d 431(1990).A plaintiff also must show "that the ordinance is an arbitrary and unreasonable restriction upon the owner's use of his property" so much so that "[i]t must appear that the clause attacked is an arbitrary fiat, a whimsical ipse dixit, and that there is no room for a legitimate difference of opinion concerning its reasonableness."Gackler, supra at 571, 398 N.W.2d 393(citation omitted).

The zoning classification at issue is Article IV, §§ 15.115--15.123, which delineates the parameters for agricultural (AG) zoning.Section 15.120 provides:

The intent of this district is to provide and protect those areas which are best suited for agricultural and rural residential uses.Densities are to be kept low due to generally poor soil characteristics for onsite sewage disposal and the fact that public sewer, water, and other services are not planned to be extended to these areas.

Under § 15.121, the uses permitted in AG districts include: (1) one-family detached dwellings; (2) farms and agricultural activities; (3) sales of agricultural products; (4) public parks, recreational facilities, and schools; (5) garage sales; and (6) accessory buildings and uses customarily incident to the above-mentioned uses.Special uses under § 15.122 include: (1) special uses as permitted in the residential district; (2) airports; (3) cemeteries; (4) raising of livestock and farm animals; (5) large-scale recreation; (6) kennels and animal clinics; (7) mining and extraction; (8) commercial composting facilities; (9) similar uses; and (10) accessory buildings and uses incident to the above.The AG district also regulates the minimum lot size and the maximum density permitted, § 15.123.

Plaintiff posits that the agricultural zoning classification is an unreasonable restriction on its property because the rental of its property to farmers does not produce monies in excess of the property taxes.Plaintiff contends that the other special uses of the property, such as airports, cemeteries, kennels, and raising farm animals, likewise are unreasonable.Plaintiff also asserts that using the property as single-family residential is unreasonable because the cost to construct single-family homes far exceeds their market value.

China Township officials testified that the township denied the zoning change because the mobile-home development did not conform to the township's master plan, which was adopted in 1982.⁶Courts may consider a master plan as a general guide for future development.Biske v. Troy, 381 Mich. 611, 619, 166 N.W.2d 453(1969);Troy Campus v. Troy, 132 Mich.App. 441, 457, 349 N.W.2d 177(1984).The property abutted agricultural zones, not residential zones, in neighboring townships.SeeSchwartz v. Flint, 426 Mich. 295, 328, 395 N.W.2d 678(1986);A & B Enterprises, supra at 163, 494 N.W.2d 761.Also, the site lacked proximity to urban facilities, including schools, hospitals, and community services.The development would increase the township's number of residents by forty percent, which would increase the need for police and fire services.The township contracts with other communities for police and fire protection and does not provide police protection twenty-four hours a day.SeePeacock Twp. v. Panetta, 81 Mich.App. 733, 738, 265 N.W.2d 810(1978);Rossi v. Richfield Twp., 60 Mich.App. 34, 36-38, 230 N.W.2d 553(1975).The above reasons comprise legitimate governmental interests and constitute a reasonable exercise of police power for public health and safety.Gackler, supra at 570, 398 N.W.2d 393.The AG classification is a reasonable means to advance these legitimate government interests.Rogers, supra at 38, 463 N.W.2d 431.

Plaintiff has not shown that the ordinance is arbitrary and that it unreasonably restricts the use of its property.The stated intent for the AG zoning supports a finding that the...