Padover v. Farmington Tp., 5

• Decision Date: 02 February 1965
• Docket Number: No. 5,5
• Citation: 374 Mich. 622,132 N.W.2d 687
• Parties: Albert A. PADOVER, John E. Lurie and Edith Lurie, his wife, Joseph B. Colten, Edward Robinson, Benjamin D. La Bret, Adolph A. Schmier and Abe A. Schmier, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TOWNSHIP OF FARMINGTON, a Michigan municipal corporation, Defendant and Appellee.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 687

132 N.W.2d 687

374 Mich. 622

Albert A. PADOVER, John E. Lurie and Edith Lurie, his wife Joseph B. Colten, Edward Robinson, Benjamin D. La Bret, Adolph A. Schmier and Abe A Schmier, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. TOWNSHIP OF FARMINGTON, a Michigan municipal corporation Defendant and Appellee.

No. 5.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Feb. 2, 1965.

Malcolm M. Heber, Royal Oak, Schmier & Schmier, Detroit, of counsel, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Joseph T. Brennan, Farmington, for defendant and appellee.

Before the Entire Bench.

KELLY, Justice.

Plaintiffs filed their bill of complaint alleging that defendant township's zoning ordinance classified plaintiffs' property as RA-1, thus requiring minimum lot sizes of a width of at least 100 feet and an area averaging 20,000 square feet; that plaintiff's land is economically suited for development only if divided into building sites of not more than 12,500 square feet; that the application of the zoning ordinance to plaintiffs' property unlawfully deprives plaintiffs of the use of the property without due process of law. Plaintiffs concluded their bill of complaint by requesting the ordinance to be declared void as it applies to their property.

The trial court held that plaintiffs had not met the burden of proving affirmatively that the ordinance was an arbitrary and unreasonable restriction upon plaintiffs' use of their property and denied plaintiffs' prayer for relief.

The township of Farmington is located in Oakland county, northwest of the city of Detroit, and immediately north of the city of Livonia, in Wayne county. The city of Farmington, a home rule city, takes out approximately 2 square miles, and the village of Wood Creek Farms and Quakertown together take approximately 2 1/2 square miles, leaving an area of approximately 31.5 square miles in the township.

Plaintiffs purchased their property (approximately 92 1/2 acres) in 1953 when the zoning ordinance provided for minimum lots of 15,000 square feet. Their property is located in the northeast corner of the township and is bounded on the north by 14-Mile road, the main artery to the east is Inkster road, and to the west Middlebelt road. To the southwest is Northwestern highway. The northern boundary of the property is 534 feet wider than its southern boundary, and lies entirely in section 1.

In 1957 the township amended its zoning ordinance and subsequently incorporated its provisions in its zoning ordinance of 1960, which is now being contested by plaintiffs. This zoning ordinance established 4 main classifications, namely RA-1, RA-2, RA-3 and RA-4. RA-1 establishes the minimum average per subdivision of 20,000 square feet and approximately 52 1/2% of the township is so classified; RA-2 establishes the minimum average of 16,500 square feet and approximately 21 1/2% of the township is so classified and zoned; RA-3 establishes a minimum of 12,500 square feet, with about 13 1/2% of the township so zoned; and RA-4 requires a minimum of 7,200 square feet and approximately 12 1/2% of the township is zoned RA-4.

In 1960 a public sanitary sewer was constructed to serve the area, including plaintiffs' land, and there is no dispute as to the requirement that any further future development in the area, including plaintiffs' property, must utilize that sewer.

The ordinance established population control for township units. This was accomplished by dividing the township into 34 divisions, known as 'neighborhood units,' each unit to have a population of 3,500 to 4,000. Appellee refers to the plan as follows: 'The plan prescribes the acceptable range of population within a neighborhood unit. The zoning ordinance, by prescribing minimum lot sizes, controls the number of homesites and thus the population densities.'

Mr. Leman, a member of a firm of planing consultants who are retained as such by more than 40 Michigan communities, testified at length as to the extensive time expended in study of the plan for Farmington township which preceded the adoption of the ordinance.

He testified as to the rapid growth of Farmington township, how it had doubled its population between 1940 and 1950, and again doubled the population between 1950 and 1960; that the population at the 1960 census was 25,600, and that the plan decided upon and adopted as the ordinance was arrived at in contemplation of a population of 128,000 in the year 2,000 A.D.

When asked how it was decided the neighborhood units should have a population of 3,500 to 4,000, Mr. Leman answered that while consideration was given to the units' internal street and traffic problems and recreation facilities, yet the prime and controlling reason was the planning for elementary schools. He testified:

'Q. Do you have any guide as to what the maximum population should be in any particular neighborhood?

'A. Yes, there is a guide which is used, the elementary school size. And this, I think, is the most critical guide that we can work with in residential development. And this we determine through meeting with the school people, through our experience, in many, many areas, also with the state education people on what should be the best and maximum size for a school in any given area. And the consensus of opinion is that an elementary school should have somewhere in the vicinity of 600 to perhaps 650 or slightly higher elementary school age children to provide proper facilities and not become so large as to be unwieldly or so small as to be uneconomical to operate. So this has been pretty much of a guide to us in establishing our densities of population.

'Q. And based on a 600 to 700 student population, do you have an estimate of what the ideal population in a neighborhood unit should be?

'A. Yes, somewhere around 3,500 to upward to perhaps 4,500, in that vicinity, would be a very desirable size.

'Q. That population then would support an elementary school?

'A. Yes, it would.'

Mr. Mueller, principal planner for the Detroit City Planning Commission, endorsed the Farmington township ordinance providing for population control, and, also, approved the neighborhood unit of 3,500 to 4,000 people, stating : 'That's about the maximum you can go to without providing additional municipal facilities in the form of schools and recreation areas; if it goes beyond that, it means you must have 2 schools in a square mile neighborhood unit and that creates a lot of problems.' He testified that in his opinion the ordinance was proper and consistent with the general development of Farmington township and beneficial to its public health, safety and general welfare.

Defendant contends that it is as much a protection of the general welfare to provide proper educational facilities to develop the minds of our children as it is to provide safeguards to protect them from disease. Defendant further states it is 'on notice by the decisions in Hitchman, Christine and Roll ¹ that it apparently must bear the burden of proof in lot size cases as to the validity ot its zoning plan and the reasonable relationship of that plan and the zoning regulations to the public welfare.'

The township further states that 'there is no question that zoning regulations cannot be speculative and without relationship to existing conditions. Gust v. Canton Township, 342 Mich. 436 . This is hardly the situation that prevails in Farmington township, one of the fastest growing suburbs in the Detroit metropolitan area. * * * It is true that ultimate population estimates are based upon the year 2,000, but less than 40 years is a relatively short time in the growth of a municipality.'

Mr. Albe Munson, a planning consultant called as a witness for plaintiffs, stated taht he liked the present lot size requirements but he didn't think it to be legal, and that 'the zoning, as it appears, might be a real nice ideal thing to have, but as far as I'm concerned, the requirements of the enabling act simply state safety, health, and welfare, and on this basis, we have in other communities, restricted our larger size lots to approximately 10,000 square feet, and I would say that in this case, with sewer and water, this might be a reasonable size for this development'; that 'I think that the lot sizes are too large for an area with full utilities'; that from the standpoint of protection, public health, public safety, morals and welfare, it is not necessary to have lots of more than 10,000 square feet.

To show that the zoning of plaintiffs' property as RA-1 bears no substantial relation to the preservation of public health, safety, morals or general welfare, plaintiffs introduced the testimony of 4 builders and developers. The gist of their testimony was that plaintiffs' property is best suited for residential development and that the topography is such that an average minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet is unreasonable, requiring houses costing in the upper bracket for which there is little market; that the installation of the sewer interceptor system in 1960 has alleviated any possible health problem associated with a less restrictive zoning than the present RA-1 classification; that similar land in section 2 to the west of plaintiffs' property (on the southwest corner of Middlebelt and 14-Mile road) is zoned RA-2 and there is no discernible difference between this land and plaintiffs'; that there is a shopping center and church adjacent to plaintiffs' land on the west which detract from the desirability of plaindtiffs' property as residential sites, particularly when it is zoned as RA-1.

Plaintiff Abe A. Schmier testified that the highest offer he has received under the present zoning was $2,500 per acre but he has had offers of $3,500 per acre if the zoning would be changed to 12,500 square feet. The developers and builders called by plaintiffs gave estimates of the value of tha land with present zoning, ranging from unsalable to $2,200 per acre, as contrasted with a valuation of $2,500 to $3,500 per acre...