McClain v. City of Hazel Park, 246
| Decision Date | 13 October 1959 |
| Docket Number | No. 246,246 |
| Citation | 98 N.W.2d 560,357 Mich. 459 |
| Parties | Merl P. McCLAIN and Elsie R. McClain, his wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. CITY OF HAZEL PARK, a Municipal Corporation, and its Servants, Agents and Employees, Defendants and Appellees. Motion |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Kasoff & Young, Detroit, for plaintiffs and appellants, Gilbert M. Frimet, Detroit, of counsel.
Jack Moskowitz, Hazel Park, for defendants and appellees.
Before the Entire Bench.
This is another appeal directed to this Court on the mistaken assumption that we sit as a final zoning board.
Appellants sought a writ of mandamus against the city of Hazel Park directing it to issue a building permit for a portion of their property as to which commercial building was prohibited by the zoning ordinance. The trial judge found the ordinance as it was applied reasonable and denied the writ. This appeal followed.
Appellants, Mr. and Mrs. McClain, purchased some lots fronting on the busy thoroughfare of Eight Mile road and extending 117 feet to the rear to a residential street called Muir street. When the lots were purchased, they were zoned residential. Appellants promptly sought a change and the common council of Hazel Park granted a zoning amendment which rezoned the McClains' property to a commercial classification. The amendment reads as follows:
'That the area between John R and West End streets and between Eight Mile (Baseline) road and West Muir street, be rezoned from Residence District 'B' and 'C' to Business 'D', with the provision that 30 feet next to Muir street be reserved and required to be beautified and landscaped.'
Appellants erected a building for a plumbing supply business upon their property in accordance with this amendment.
In 1956, however, they sought a building permit to extend their building onto the 30 feet next to Muir street which was reserved by the ordinance above. On the city's refusal of the permit, this litigation followed.
At trial appellants contended that the reservation was unreasonable in a constitutional sense in that its sole purpose was aesthetic.
Testimony showed that Muir street on the opposite side of the street is entirely residential. It also showed that 10 residences exist on the same side of Muir street where appellants' lots are located.
Basing his opinion on expert testimony to the effect that the reservation was important to the residential community for light and air and traffic safety over and above aesthetic considerations, the circuit judge denied the writ.
We believe he should have.
The city council had the task of reconciling the interests of property owners on a busy business street with the interests of a residential district immediately to the rear. Their task was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Rannels v. Marx
-
Indian Village Manor Co. v. City of Detroit
...arbitrarily or abused its discretion. The courts have uniformly refused to 'sit as a final zoning board.' McClain v. City of Hazel Park (1959), 357 Mich. 459, 460, 98 N.W.2d 560, 561. Once it is established, as it is here, that the board's decision is 'supported by competent, material and s......
-
City of Bloomfield Hills v. Ziegelman
...or general welfare, found that set-back ordinances were constitutional. Set-back ordinances were upheld in Michigan in McClain v. Hazel Park, 357 Mich. 459, 98 N.W.2d 560 (1959), and Gordon v. City of Warren Planning & Urban Renewal Comm., 29 Mich.App. 309, 185 N.W.2d 61 Article XIV, sec. 1......
-
Easlick v. City of Lansing, 88-1534
...These objectives include traffic safety, light, ventilation, fire protection and aesthetic considerations. See McClain v. City of Hazel Park, 357 Mich. 459, 98 N.W.2d 560 (1959) (commenting on the governmental interests present in zoning set back Easlick also argues that the city zoning ord......