Christine Bldg. Co. v. City of Troy
| Decision Date | 10 September 1962 |
| Docket Number | J,Nos. 38,s. 38 |
| Citation | 116 N.W.2d 816,367 Mich. 508 |
| Parties | CHRISTINE BUILDING CO., Inc., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. CITY OF TROY, a Michigan municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. Mae KLIPFEL, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. CITY OF TROY, a Michigan municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. CAMPUS ESTATES, INC., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. CITY OF TROY, a Michigan municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee. an. Term, 39, Jan. Term, 40, Jan. Term. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Nedwin L. Smokler, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee and cross-appellant. Travis, Warren & Nayer, Detroit, of counsel.
Burke & Osgood, Royal Oak, (Stanley E. Burke, Royal Oak, of counsel), for defendant-appellant and cross-appellee.
Irvin H. Yackness, Detroit, amicus curiae for Builders Assn. of Metropolitan Detroit.
Before the Entire Bench.
Defendant city appeals from a decree of the circuit court for the county of Oakland holding void as to the plaintiffs' property a provision in defendant city's zoning ordinance pertaining to a lot size restriction of 21,780 square feet as unreasonable and not in any way related to the general welfare of the community.
Plaintiffs cross appeal with reference to a particular provision of the decree wherein the court refused to pass upon the question of minimum lot sizes other than that specified in the ordinance of 21,780 square feet, on the theory this was a legislative function and the court would only have the right to pass on the ordinance after it had been adopted by the legislative body.
The 3 cases were consolidated for trial below because they involved similarly situated lands and the same basic issues.
Plaintiffs Christine Building Company, Inc., and Mae Klipfel each own contiguous 40-acre parcels of land. Another parcel of land is involved containing 120 acres owned by the third plaintiff, Campus Estates, Inc. This latter parcel is not adjacent to the 2 parcels owned by the other plaintiffs but is located about a mile away. All plaintiffs are desirous of developing their property for residential purposes.
The 3 suits involved are an attack on the constitutionality, the legality and the reasonableness of defendant city's ordinance No. 23 because of the lot size restrictions imposed on plaintiffs' property by article XIV* of the ordinance.
The parcels of land involved are zoned under the ordinance as R-1B. This zoning regulation requires that each lot have a half acre or 21,780 square feet with a width of 110 feet. Plaintiffs, who have sought to have their property rezoned, contend they should be permitted to use their property as R-1D, which permits lots to contain only 8,500 square feet with a width of 75 feet.
The plaintiffs in essence say:
1) There is no public necessity for their property being platted in lots the size required in the R-1B classification.
2) That the present zoning restrictions on their property result economically in the ordinance being confiscatory and unreasonable.
3) That the ordinance is unconstitutional because the lot size requirements are not related to health, safety or general welfare and exceeds a proper exercise of the police power.
4) That the city has no right under the laws of this State to arbitrarily use zoning to control the population and maintain or improve property values or aesthetics, except as an incidental result of protecting directly the health, safety and welfare of the community.
Defendant city of Troy contends that ordinance No. 23 is a valid exercise of its police powers.
The real crux of defendant's position is that ordinance No. 23 tends to limit the density of the population in proportion to the sewer capacity of the Evergreen interceptor system, which serves the area. Defendant contends this relationship between ultimate population and the sewer facilities directly involves the matter of health. Defendant urges that its right to have its inhabitants use the Evergreen interceptor sewer system is limited by contract and cannot be altered.
Defendant further maintains that the zoning plan of the city of Troy is a comprehensive one based upon a master plan and that any comprehensive plan must have a graduated lot size to accommodate people with different tastes and different pocket-books. Defendant says the character of the neighborhood adjacent to and surrounding the 3 subject parcels is of such a nature that lots having a size of only 8,500 square feet would not be harmonious with the area to the east and south of the 2 40-acre parcels or with the area to the west of the 120-acre parcel.
In substance, the city says it adopted a sewer plan for the general area to serve an estimated population of 21,300 people in the year 2000 A.D. The city then zoned so as to limit the area to that figure.
Testimony disclosed there were presently only about 2,000 persons in the sewer district.
Defendant city contends its testimony and exhibits support the following:
1) The present zoning of the subject parcels would create the maximum density of population that could be serviced by available sanitary sewers, and, therefore, bears a direct relation to the public health, safety and general welfare.
2) The comprehensive zoning plan of the city of Troy, as evidenced by ordinance No. 23 and as applied to the parcels in question, constitutes a valid exercise of the police power and bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety and general welfare.
3) The present zoning, as applied to the subject parcels, tends to preserve the established character of the neighborhood, stabilizes the value of property therein and promotes the general welfare.
4) Operation of the zoning ordinance as applied to plaintiffs' property does not render it worthless or almost worthless.
5) Where the court has decided that a provision of a municipal zoning ordinance governing the minimum lot size is unreasonable and, therefore, void, it does not then have the right to impose upon the subject parcel a smaller minimum lot size.
Defendant's exhibit A is a contract between the city of Detroit and the county of Oakland. The total amount of sewage (or volume per cubic foot per second) to be received by the city of Detroit from the Evergreen interceptor was regulated by the contract between Oakland county and the city of Detroit. The designed capacity of the interceptor was fixed by the terms of the Evergreen sewage disposal system agreement (exhibit B) between the county of Oakland, the city of Troy, and other participating municipalities.
The Evergreen contract established Troy's maximum population to be served at 21,300 people. According to the terms of the contract and because of the designed capacity of the sewer, a population of 21,300 people is the maximum population that could be served by the interceptor within the city of Troy.
The trial court found from the testimony and from the exhibits:
It would not be economical, from the standpoint of the developer, to build on building sites on these 3 properties on lots 1/2 acre in size, if the homes are to be sold at popular prices, meaning from $17,000 to $20,000.
Homes in the 3 parcels built on lots having a minimum size of 21,780 square feet and costing $25,000 and upwards would be in an extremely poor competitive position with houses selling at the same figure in nearby areas or developments, and would not meet with ready sales.
It is obviously desirable on the part of the plaintiffs to realize as much profit out of their land as possible and, subject to this desire, they would like to build on lots having not more than 8,500 square feet. It was agreed where septic tanks were necessary, the building sites needed to be larger than if serviced by a sewer system.
The trial court found as a fact that within the city of Troy other areas using septic tanks adjacent to plaintiffs' property had much smaller lot sizes that those permitted under ordinance No. 23.
The trial court further found the reduction from 21,780 square feet to 8,500 square feet would not only result in a great economic and financial gain to the land developers, but in a greatly increased burden upon the land because of population and services that would be required. The trial court found although plaintiffs' profits from the land would be greatly curtailed, it could not be said the imposition of the minimum lot size of 21,780 square feet would amount to outright confiscation of the land.
The trial court failed to find a relationship between the lot size restriction and any present consequential effect on the public health, safety and general welfare, and concluded the 21,780-sequare-foot lot size was a void provision as to the plaintiffs.
The trial court stated the city had no right to arbitrarily use zoning to control population and to maintain and improve property values or aesthetics, except as an incidental result of directly protecting public health, safety and general welfare.
The court concluded, under the facts in this case and the law applicable thereto, the zoning restriction of a minimum lot size of 21,780 square feet was unreasonable, discriminatory, and not related to the protection of health, safety and general welfare, and thus not within the power of defendant city to enforce as relates to the subject property.
The trial court went on to say it was of the opinion there devolved upon it no legal duty, right to obligation to switch from the role of chancellor to that of municipal legislator for the purpose of rezoning the subject property, and refused to pass on the question of whether a minimum lot size of 8,500 square feet was reasonable.
Our courts have consistently held that the reasonableness of a zoning restriction must be tested according to existing facts and conditions and not some condition which might exist in the future....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schwartz v. City of Flint
...a legislative function [and] we affirm[ed] the principle that courts cannot write zoning laws." Likewise, in Christine Building Co. v. City of Troy, 367 Mich. 508, 515-516, 116 N.W.2d 816 (1962), we approved of the trial court's opinion that "there devolved upon it no legal duty, right, or ......
-
Ed Zaagman, Inc. v. City of Kentwood
...to the findings of the trial judge in equity cases." ' 391 Mich. 139, 163, 215 N.W.2d 179, 189, quoting Christine Building Co. v. City of Troy, 367 Mich. 508, 518, 116 N.W.2d 816 (1962)." 398 Mich. 429, 439-440, 247 N.W.2d 848, 852-853. See Sabo v. Monroe Twp., 394 Mich. 531, 542, 232 N.W.2......
-
Sabo v. Township of Monroe
......City of Troy, 2 and find the zoning ordinance invalid per se. However, as ...139, 163, 215 N.W.2d 179, 189, quoting Christine Building Co. v. City of Troy, 367 Mich. 508, 518, 116 N.W.2d 816 (1962). ......
-
Sparks v. Sparks
...conclusion we would have arrived at a different result had we been in the position of the trial judge." Christine Bldg. Co. v. City of Troy, 367 Mich. 508, 517-518, 116 N.W.2d 816 (1962). This same standard was said to apply both to findings of fact and dispositional rulings. But, as recogn......