Gust v. Canton Tp.

• Decision Date: 06 June 1955
• Docket Number: No. 32,32
• Citation: 342 Mich. 436,70 N.W.2d 772
• Parties: William A. GUST, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TOWNSHIP OF CANTON, a municipal corporation, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 772

70 N.W.2d 772

342 Mich. 436

William A. GUST, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. TOWNSHIP OF CANTON, a municipal corporation, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 32.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 6, 1955.

William, A. Borrusch, Detroit, George O. Hansen, Detroit, of counsel, for plaintiff and appellee.

Stanton, Sempliner, Dewey & Knight, Detroit, Earl Damel, Detroit, of counsel, for defendant and appellant.

Ross & Ross, Belleville, amicus curiae for Van Buren Tp.

Edmond F. DeVine, Pros. Atty., Washtenaw County, Mich., Ann Arbor, Eugene B. Calder, Chief Asst. Pros. Atty., Washtenaw County, Mich., Ypsilanti, for Board of Supervisors of Washtenaw County, Michigan.

Before the Entire Bench.

DETHMERS, Justice.

The factual background of this case is set forth in Gust v. Township of Canton Tp., 337 Mich. 137, 59 N.W.2d 122. After decision therein plaintiff started the operation of a trailer camp on his premises in defendant township. Defendant commenced criminal proceedings against plaintiff for violation of provisions of its zoning and building ordinances, which prohibit the establishment or operation of trailer camps anywhere in the township. Plaintiff brought this action to enjoin defendant's enforcement of those provisions against him or his premises and prosecution of the criminal case. From decree holding the ordinances 'unconstitutional and void insofar as they prohibit the establishment, maintenance and operation of a trailer coach park * * * on the premises' of plaintiff and granting him the relief prayed, defendant appeals.

Trailer camps may lawfully be operated in Michigan under C.L. 1948, and C.L.S. 1954, § 125.751 et seq., Stat.Ann.1953 Cum.Supp. § 5.278(1) et seq., which provide for the licensing and regulation thereof. Lawful uses of land may be prohibited in certain areas by zoning or building ordinances, if such exercise of police power bears a real and substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals or the general welfare. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Detroit v. Village of Orchard Lake, 333 Mich. 389, 53 N.W.2d 308, and cases therein cited. Presumption of the existence of such relationship and, hence, of the validity of the ordinance is resorted to in the absence of proof on the subject, but not when there are proofs upon which a judicial determination thereof may be made, as when the contrary is shown by competent evidence or appears on the face of the enactment. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Detroit v. Village of Orchard Lake, supra, and cases therein cited. Here the ordinances and record disclose the exclusion of trailer camps from the entire township. From the record and opinion in the former Gust case and the record here, it is evident that the present character of the township, and particularly of the area in which plaintiff's lands are situate, is largely agriculatural and open country, that plaintiff's lands are not in a residential section nor near industrial plants and that there is no industrially developed area in the entire township; that the nature and extent of the development of the township, or lack of it, are such that it cannot be said that zoning plaintiff's 33 acres of land partially into a two-family residential zone, partly into a country home classification, and partly into a general industrial zone and prohibiting trailer camps therefrom bears a real and substantial relationship to present public health, safety, morals or general welfare. It is not seriously contended that it does. To so hold would be tantamount to declaring trailer camps detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare under every condition and circumstance and on that account subject to exclusion from every area in the State by local governing bodies. That would hardly square with the legislative intent expressed in the above act authorizing their operation in Michigan.

Defendant says, and its expert planners testified, that despite its open, undeveloped and agricultural character, it is in the Detroit metropolitan area, in which there has been a tremendous industrial growth; that such development has been following industrial corridors along the railroad lines running out of Detroit; that two such lines run through defendant township and large industrial plants have been built adjoining them in other townships; that similar development along the railroad lines in defendant township can...