Davis v. Township Bd. of Imlay Tp., Docket No. 1778
| Decision Date | 27 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 1778,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 7 Mich.App. 231,151 N.W.2d 370 |
| Parties | Wanettia DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP BOARD OF the TOWNSHIP OF IMLAY, and Imlay Township Zoning Board, Lapeer County, Michigan, Defendants-Appellees |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Jack F. Smith, Lapeer, for appellant. Richard J. Bahls, Bahls & Mohl, Lapeer, for Zoning Board.
James D. Morrice, Imlay City, for Township Board.
Before T. G. KAVANAGH, P.J., and McGREGOR and QUINN, JJ.
By this action, plaintiff sought to have declared invalid the Imlay township zoning ordinance for noncompliance with statutory requirements in its adoption and to restrain defendants from enforcing or attempting to enforce the provisions of such ordinance. Defendants answered denying invalidity; the essential facts were stipulated, and on the basis of such facts, the briefs and oral arguments of counsel, the trial judge ruled in favor of defendants.
Plaintiff's appeal raises the following question:
'Is a township zoning ordinance enacted by a township board, pursuant to the enabling statute, invalid by reason of the failure of the township zoning board to submit the proposed ordinance to the county coordinating committee for approval prior to its adoption by the township board?'
Defendant zoning board raises an additional question as follows:
'Are the provisions of section 10 of the enabling statute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to an administrative agency in violation of article 4 of the Michigan Constitution of 1908 and of article 3, § 2, of the Michigan Constitution of 1963 in that these statutory provisions do not provide standards or guide lines for the decisions of the coordinating zoning committee?'
Following adoption of the ordinance in question, plaintiff erected on her property within the zoning district a dwelling which did not comply with the zoning ordinance requirements in respect to floor area and set back provisions. Prior to filing suit, plaintiff was advised of the nonconformance, that she would not be permitted to occupy the structure as a dwelling and that further improvement work thereon would result in prosecution for ordinance violation.
The ordinance was enacted under the township rural zoning act, P.A.1943, No. 184, as amended, being C.L.1948, § 125.271 et seq. (Stat.Ann.1958 Rev. § 5.2963(1) et seq.). Pertinent to decision is section 10 of Act No. 184, P.A.1961, No. 225, being C.L.S.1961, § 125.280 (Stat.Ann.1965 Cum.Supp. § 5.2963(10)) which provides as follows:
Sec. 10. Following such hearing, the township zoning board shall submit the proposed zoning ordinance including any zoning maps to the county zoning commission of the county in which such township is situated for approval in the event such commission shall have been appointed, as provided by Act No. 183 of the Public Acts of 1943 as amended, being sections 125.201 to 125.232 of the Compiled Laws of 1948, and is functioning in the county, and in the event thre is no such commission, then to the coordinating zoning committee of the county. The coordinating zoning committee shall be composed of 3 members and shall be appointed by the county board of supervisors for the purpose of coordinating the zoning ordinances proposed for adoption under the provisions of this act with the zoning ordinances of any township, city or incorporated village having a common boundary with the township. The approval of such zoning commission or coordinating zoning committee shall be conclusively presumed unless such commission or committee shall, within 30 days of its receipt, have notified the township clerk of its disapproval.'
Almont township joins Imlay township on the south and the former had a township zoning ordinance in effect before the ordinance before us was adopted. Although Lapeer county had no county zoning commission, it had a coordinating zoning committee; the defendant zoning board did not submit to it the proposed ordinance and zoning maps as required by section 108 supra. However, the defendant zoning board did advise the county coordinating zoning committee of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Little Mack Entertainment v. Township of Marengo
...Although Little Mack argues that the March submission cannot cure the fatal defect in procedure, pursuant to Davis v. Imlay Twp. Bd., 7 Mich.App. 231, 151 N.W.2d 370 (1967), Little Mack's arguments are unavailing. Little Mack is correct that in Davis, the court concluded that the township c......
-
Rinaldi v. Civil Service Commission, City of Livonia
...this instance is advisory only and involves no impermissible delegation of the commission's authority. Cf., Davis v. Imlay Township Board, 7 Mich.App. 231, 236, 151 N.W.2d 370 (1967). Consequently, we need not decide if the city charter would ever allow the commission to delegate rule-makin......
-
Richmond Tp. v. Erbes
...N.W.2d 465 (1987); Krajenke Buick Sales v. Hamtramck City Engineer, 322 Mich. 250, 255, 33 N.W.2d 781 (1948); Davis v. Imlay Twp. Bd., 7 Mich.App. 231, 236, 151 N.W.2d 370 (1967). However, failure to strictly comply with the mandatory procedures of the act does not necessarily invalidate an......
-
Anderson v. Brown Bros., Inc.
...intended to do a useless act. Klopfenstein v. Rohlfing, 356 Mich. 197, 202, 96 N.W.2d 782 (1959), Davis v. Imlay Township Board, 7 Mich.App. 231, 236, 151 N.W.2d 370 (1967). The recreational property owners immunity statute grants an exception for gross negligence or wilful and wanton misco......