Case Name: LAKEWOOD ESTATES, INC., v. DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1971-11-24
Citations: 37 Mich. App. 184
Docket Number: Docket No. 5709
Parties: LAKEWOOD ESTATES, INC., v. DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Judges: Before: Danhof, P. J., and Bronson and TarGONSKI, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 37
Pages: 184–186

Head Matter:
LAKEWOOD ESTATES, INC., v. DEERFIELD TOWNSHIP ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
1. Zoning — Trailer Parks — Residential Use.
Trailer parks are residential uses and not commercial uses for purposes of zoning regulation.
2. Zoning — Guidelines—Delegation.
A zoning ordinance that allows a use only with a special permit issued by a board of zoning appeals, but sets no guidelines for grant or denial of a permit, is an impermissible grant of power to the board.
References for Points in Headnotes
58 Am Jur, Zoning § 63.
Maintenance or regulation by public authorities of tourist or trailer camps, motor courts, or motels. 22 ALR2d 774.
58 Am Jur, Zoning § 216 et seq.
Appeal from Lapeer, James P. Churchill, J.
Submitted Division 2 November 4, 1971, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 5709.)
Decided November 24, 1971.
Complaint by Lakewood Estates, Inc., against the Deerfield Township Zoning Board of Appeals and the Deerfield Township Zoning Administrator to compel issuance of a building permit. Judgment for plaintiff. Defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Bahls <& Preisel, for plaintiff.
Taylor, Carter & Butterfield, P. C., for defendants.
Before: Danhof, P. J., and Bronson and TarGONSKI, JJ.
Former circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This is an appeal from a Lapeer County Circuit Court order and judgment holding the Deerfield Township zoning ordinance invalid insofar as it excludes the location or operation of licensed trailer-coach parks in Deerfield Township. Plaintiff desired to build such a park in the township. This application for a building permit was denied by the zoning administrator on the ground that trailer-coach parks were not permitted in the agricultural-residential zone in which the proposed park was located. The Zoning Board of Appeals for Deerfield Township affirmed this decision. The circuit court reversed. The township appeals.
The original draft of the Deerfield Township zoning ordinance made trailer-coach parks a conditional use and required the Zoning Board of Appeals to issue a special permit at its discretion. The adopted ordinance deleted the reference to trailer parks as conditional uses. The zoning board chairman testified that the deletion was a copying error.
Despite this, the defendant contends that trailer parks are commercial uses and plaintiff should have requested a rezoning of his parcel to commercial This argument must fail. First, if trailer parks are commercial uses, requiring plaintiff to petition for rezoning of his property governed by the whim of the Zoning Board of Appeals is spot zoning. Spot zoning is impermissible in Michigan. Trenton Development Company v. Village of Trenton (1956), 345 Mich 353. Second, we do not believe trailer parks are commercial uses. While owning and operating a trailer park may be a business, living in one is not. We can perceive no difference between living in a trailer park and living in an apartment building. Merely because someone will profit by a certain use of an area does not make that use commercial. See Barthe, Mobile Homes: Zoning and Taxation, 55 Cornell L Rev 491, 498, 499. The statement of the board chairman and the fact that the adopted ordinance makes no provision for trailer parks support plaintiff's contention that trailer parks are considered conditional uses. No guidelines are provided for the grant or denial of such uses by the ordinance. Such grants of power to zoning boards are impermissible. Lyon Sand & Gravel Company v. Township of Oakland (1971), 33 Mich App 614.
In either event the ordinance must fail as it attempts to preclude trailer court development save for special permission to be granted by the mere whim of the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Affirmed.