Parkdale Homes, Inc. v. Clinton Tp.
| Decision Date | 25 May 1970 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 4698,No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 179 N.W.2d 232,23 Mich.App. 682 |
| Parties | PARKDALE HOMES, INC., a Michigan corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TOWNSHIP OF CLINTON, a Michigan municipal corporation, Defendant-Appellee |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Kenneth N. Sanborn, Sanborn & Liedel, Mt. Clemens, for appellant.
Fred A. York, Towner, Rosin & York, Mt. Clemens, for appellee.
Before McGREGOR, P.J., and DANHOF and LARNARD, JJ.
Plaintiff is the owner of approximately 69 acres of land located north of Cass Avenue and east of Romeo Plank Road in Clinton township, Macomb county. The land is presently zoned R--1--A, with a portion of the land being located in a Valley Zone (V) and another portion being subject to a Detroit Edison Tower easement.
When plaintiff purchased the property in 1956 at $730.00 per acre, it had no fixed plan for the development of the land which was zoned for single family residences. The present ordinance continuing that classification and creating the Valley Zone became effective in 1958.
On August 6, 1965 the plaintiff filed a petition with the defendant's planning commission for rezoning the property to R--3, a classification which permits the construction of multiple-family residences. The planning commission denied the rezoning petition for the following reasons:
'1) the prevailing development of the area is on large lots;
2) the land could be used for 'planned unit development';
3) spot zoning;
4) developer has owned the land for ten years with no previous attempt to develop;
5) that the developer's reasons are believed to be speculative;
6) there is no water or sewer available to the land;
7) the Township presently has many acres zoned for multiple dwelling use which are not under development and it is a matter of record that the petitioner owns such other property.'
Plaintiff's rezoning petition was also denied by the Macomb county coordinating zoning committee which concurred with the decision of the defendant's planning commission. Plaintiff brought suit asking that the ordinance as amended be held invalid and unconstitutional as applied to its land. At the conclusion of plaintiff's case, defense counsel moved for dismissal and the trial court granted the motion.
On appeal plaintiff challenges the trial court's refusal to allow redirect examination testimony of plaintiff's expert witness, John Ruggero, as to the value of plaintiff's land if zoned multiple family residential. The witness had testified on direct examination that the value of the land as currently zoned was between $1500.00 and $2000.00 an acre, but that the highest and best use would be as multiple family residential. He was not asked the value of the property if zoned for multiple family residential. When plaintiff's counsel attempted to question Mr. Ruggero on redirect examination about the value of the land if zoned for multiple family residential, defense counsel objected on the basis that the subject had not been opened up by cross-examination. The trial court sustained the objection. The extent of redirect examination is within the sound discretion of the trial court. Loud v. Solomon (1915), 188 Mich. 7, 12, 154 N.W. 73. It is within the discretion of the trial judge to limit the redirect examination of an expert witness to matters developed on direct examination. Paul v. Clements (1913), 176 Mich. 251, 142 N.W. 384. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.
Plaintiff also claims error occurred when the trial court refused to allow plaintiff's expert witness Larry Dloski to testify as to the value of the land if zoned multiple family residential and limited his testimony to corroborating that of expert witness John Ruggero. Prior to the trial defense counsel by letter requested a list of plaintiff's proposed witnesses. Plaintiff's counsel by letter complied with this request. Larry Dloski's name was not on the list. At trial, following Mr. Ruggero's testimony, plaintiff's counsel called Larry Dloski to testify as an expert witness. Defense counsel objected on the basis of surprise, lack of opportunity to take the witness's deposition, and lack of opportunity to prepare for cross-examination. The trial court did allow Mr. Dloski to corroborate Mr. Ruggero's testimony but did not allow him to testify regarding the land's value if zoned multiple family residential. This was not an abuse of discretion, but rather an exercise of discretion. But even if the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gallaway v. Chrysler Corp., Docket No. 43141
...8] benefits. The scope of redirect examination is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Parkdale Homes, Inc. v. Twp. of Clinton, 23 Mich.App. 682, 685, 179 N.W.2d 232 (1970). In general, redirect examination must focus on matters raised during cross-examination. Carreras, supra. O......
-
Bates v. Genesee County Road Com'n
...discretion of the trial court (or, in this case, hearing officer) to permit open redirect examination. Parkdale Homes, Inc. v. Clinton Twp., 23 Mich.App. 682, 179 N.W.2d 232 (1970). Respondents have not even argued that the hearing officer abused her discretion in permitting Bates to testif......
-
Van Arsdel v. Addison Tp.
...Mich.App. 271, 164 N.W.2d 409 (1968); Dusdal v. City of Warren, 23 Mich.App. 583, 179 N.W.2d 188 (1970); Parkdale Homes, Inc. v. Clinton Twp. 23 Mich.App. 682, 179 N.W.2d 232 (1970). The test is whether the zoning ordinance is unreasonable as it now stands, not whether there might be some b......
-
Johnson v. Lyon Tp.
...may also be evidence of reasonableness. Biske v. City of Troy, 381 Mich. 611, 166 N.W.2d 453 (1969); Parkdale Homes, Inc. v. Clinton Twp., 23 Mich.App. 682, 179 N.W.2d 232 (1970). However, in that regard, a word of caution is appropriate. A master plan has weight when shown to be carefully ......