Nickola v. Grand Blanc Township
Decision Date | 19 August 1975 |
Docket Number | No. 23,23 |
Citation | 232 N.W.2d 604,394 Mich. 589 |
Parties | David NICKOLA, Jr., and Evelyn Nickola, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TOWNSHIP OF GRAND BLANC, a Municipal Corporation, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Lyndon J. Lattie, Flint, for defendants-appellants.
Richard A. Hamilton, Flint, for plaintiffs-appellees; John D. Nickola, Flint, of counsel.
Before the Entire Bench except SWAINSON and LINDEMER, JJ.
We affirm the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in our opinion in Sabo v. Monroe Twp., 394 Mich. 531, 232 N.W.2d 584 (1975).
This case involves two zoning issues. The first issue is whether single residence zoning in a particular area is valid against a property owner desiring to use his property for a mobile home park site. The second issue is whether there is an unlawful use of the zoning power where a suburban township has by zoning excluded mobile homes from all but 1/10 of 1% of the area of the township.
These two issues cause us to revisit Kropf v. Sterling Heights, 391 Mich. 139, 215 N.W.2d 179 (1974) and Brae Burn, Inc. v. Bloomfield Hills, 350 Mich. 425, 86 N.W.2d 166 (1957) on the first issue, and Gust v. Canton Twp., 342 Mich. 436, 70 N.W.2d 772 (1955) and Dequindre Development Co. v. Charter Twp. of Warren, 359 Mich. 634, 103 N.W.2d 600 (1960) on the second issue.
In 1962, plaintiffs Nickola purchased property in the northwest portion of Grand Blanc Township, expecting to use it as a mobile home park. Although the land was zoned for single residences, plaintiffs, relying on the representation of a now deceased township supervisor that there would be no objection to that use, 1 petitioned 2 for rezoning one year later. After two years, the township advised plaintiffs it was denying the petition because the premises had not yet been served by sanitary sewers and the Michigan Highway Department had still to acquire land for the I-475 expressway right-of-way.
In April, 1969, following completion of both land acquisition and sewer system, plaintiffs again petitioned for the zoning ordinance amendment and, after two public hearings, received a favorable recommendation from the Grand Blanc Zoning Board. The Co-Ordinating Zoning Committee of the Genesee County Board of Supervisors, which makes a technical review of all rezoning proposals, recommended to the township board:
The Grand Blanc Township Board, however, at a meeting attended by a vocal and hostile audience, unanimously rejected the request, giving as reasons: unsatisfactory ingress and egress; that the area was predominantly single family in character and such a zoning change would violate the township's land use plan; that the proposed mobile home park would be too close to a single family subdivision and would adversely affect it; that plaintiffs' petition was brought under the old zoning ordinance, 3 and that the amendment was not good, practical zoning.
Recall petitions alleging Board members were insensitive to citizens' desire for controlled growth were circulated prior to that meeting, and numerous phone calls and newspaper articles reporting opposition to the rezoning came to the Board members' attention. No recall petition was ever filed, and Board members testified the threats did not affect their votes.
The park site plan called for 319 lots, with retention of the wooded area to serve as a buffer between the property and the single family subdivisions to the south. The I-475 expressway abuts the property on the west, and Maple Avenue, now widened from two to four lanes, is directly north. Land to the east is presently vacant, but single family developments are planned. Although that developer testified that creation of a mobile home park on the disputed property might cause him to change his plans and build multiple dwellings or duplexes, he did not indicate that the value of his property would be reduced. Adjacent property to the northeast, in what was a different township, but now the City of Burton, is zoned multiple family.
Testimony as to the value of the property was contradictory, but apparently, plaintiffs paid approximately $350 an acre for their land, which, under present zoning, is worth about $1,500 an acre. Plaintiffs contend that the property would be worth around $2,500 per acre zoned for mobile home parks, and $35,000 per acre if $3,500 per acre were spent to develop seven mobile home sites per acre.
The Grand Blanc Township master land use plan had not been accepted as of the date of rejection of plaintiffs' petition, and the plan in fact was not published until April, 1970. The planners apparently completed the residential aspect (about 70% of the township) as of June 1969. They claimed the township had adopted the text, zoning text and zoning map, but they were uncertain about the date. The township itself apparently had not as yet accepted or adopted the residential text and map as proposed. 4
The planner claimed, however, that a large part of the plan was already implemented because much of the Township was already residential. As of the time of trial, and as far as we can determine, as of the present time, the Township had not amended its zoning ordinance, other than in response to petitions by property owners to conform with the proposed master plan.
As a result of one of these amendments, the property directly to the west of plaintiffs', but separated from it by the expressway, was rezoned multiple family from single family residence by the Township Board, without the Zoning Board's recommendation. The two properties were characterized by witnesses as almost identical as far as type of land, location and surrounding development were concerned, except for the expressway in between. Access to both properties would be by Maple Avenue. 5
Under the proposed master plan, mobile home parks would be placed in areas of transitional land use. These are largely in the southern portion of the Township in about 300 acres planned to accommodate industrial and research parks.
At the present time, only two mobile home parks are in the Township, one of which, owned by plaintiffs, is slightly east of the subject property. Both parks are relatively old, having been built between 1953 and 1956. Until the present time, no application for a new trailer park (approximately five have been requested) and enlargement of only one existing park has been approved since then.
The trial court found plaintiffs did not defeat the presumption of reasonableness of the township's ordinance.
The trial court used the test we outlined in Brae Burn, Inc. v. Bloomfield Hills, 350 Mich. 425, 86 N.W.2d 166 (1957). A zoning ordinance will be presumed valid, with the burden on the party attacking it to show it to be an arbitrary and unreasonable restriction upon the owner's use of his property.
The Court of Appeals reversed unanimously on June 25, 1973 holding that 1) the consent of the former Township supervisor and the protests of the residents have no legal significance, and 2) the ordinance has no reasonable relationship to the Township's morals, health or safety, especially in view of the health and safety requirements imposed upon mobile home parks by statute. 47 Mich.App. 684, 209 N.W.2d 803 (1973). We granted leave on November 29, 1973. 390 Mich. 806.
II. IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING OF PLAINTIFFS' PROPERTY VALID?
The principles and tests covering whether single family residence zoning of plaintiffs' property is valid is detailed in Kropf which analyzes Brae Burn, Inc.
Two important principles are set forth:
"[F]irst, that there is no reasonable governmental interest being advanced by the present zoning classification itself ... or
"[S]econdly, that an ordinance may be unreasonable because of the purely arbitrary, capricious and unfounded exclusion of other types of legitimate land use from the area in question." 391 Mich. 139, 158, 215 N.W.2d 179, 186.
These two principles are operationally tested by the following four rules. The four rules are:
1--" '... The ordinance comes to us clothed with every presumption of validity' " 391 Mich. 139, 162, 215 N.W.2d 179, 189, quoting from Brae Burn, Inc.
2--" '[I]t is the burden of the party attacking to prove affirmatively that the ordinance is an arbitrary and unreasonable restriction upon the owner's use of his property ... It 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.' " 391 Mich. 139, 162, 215 N.W.2d 179, 189, quoting Brae Burn, Inc.
3--"Michigan has adopted the view that to sustain an attack on a zoning ordinance, an aggrieved property owner must show that if the ordinance is enforced the consequent restrictions on his property preclude its use for any purposes to which it is reasonably adapted." 391 Mich. 139, 162-163, 215 N.W.2d 179, 189.
4--" 'This Court, however, is inclined to give considerable weight 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).
Plaintiffs' case that the single family residence zoning in the area is invalid as to their property rests on three points:
1--The area no longer is a single family residence area and there is no demand for single family residences.
2--Plaintiffs' property is more valuable zoned for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ed Zaagman, Inc. v. City of Kentwood
...v. Wheatfield Twp., 394 Mich. 574, 232 N.W.2d 616 (1975), Aff'g 46 Mich.App. 162, 207 N.W.2d 464 (1973).6 Nickola v. Grand Blanc Twp., 394 Mich. 589, 232 N.W.2d 604 (1975), Aff'g 47 Mich.App. 684, 209 N.W.2d 803 (1973).7 Sabo v. Monroe Twp., supra, 394 Mich. pp. 535-536, 232 N.W.2d p. 585.8......
-
Smookler v. Wheatfield Township
...Justice Levin's two opening paragraphs and with part II of his opinion as they apply to these cases and to Nickola [Nickola v. Township of Grand Blanc, Mich., 232 N.W.2d 604]. 1 Had he stopped there, he probably would have sought to reverse the Court of Appeals in each instance and I would ......
-
Kyser v. Kasson Tp.
...use of his property.'" Kirk v. Tyrone Twp., 398 Mich. 429, 440, 247 N.W.2d 848 (1976), quoting Nickola v. Grand Blanc Twp., 394 Mich. 589, 600, 232 N.W.2d 604 (1975) (WILLIAMS, J.). However, "because of the important public interest involved in extracting and using natural resources, a more......
-
Newman Equities v. CHARTER TP. OF MERIDIAN
...individual township staff or officials, such as those alleged by plaintiff, are not binding. Nickola v. Grand Blanc Twp., 394 Mich. 589, 596 n. 1, 232 N.W.2d 604 (1975) (opinion by Williams, J.). Probably in recognition of that, plaintiff does not specifically argue on appeal that the voter......