Case Name: KRAUSE v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1968-04-25
Citations: 11 Mich. App. 183
Docket Number: Docket No. 1,399
Parties: KRAUSE v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK.
Judges: McGregor, J., concurred with Burns, J.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 11
Pages: 183–201

Head Matter:
KRAUSE v. CITY OF ROYAL OAK.
Opinion op the Court.
1. Zoning — Ordinance—Validity—Police Power.
A zoning ordinance, to be valid, must bear a direct and substantial relation to the objectives of poliee power, the preservation of the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community as a whole.
2. Same — Ordinance—Burden op Proving Invalidity.
The party attacking a zoning ordinance has the burden of establishing affirmatively that the ordinance has no real or substantial relation to public health, morals, safety, or general welfare.
3. Same — Ordinance—Validity—Presumptions.
A zoning ordinance is presumed valid and the burden is on the party attacking the ordinance to overcome the presumption by clear and satisfactory proof.
4. Same — Ordinance—Validity—Value por Dipperent Use.
The fact that land may have a greater selling value for a possible use of a different character than that for which it is zoned is not a sufficient basis for holding the ordinance invalid as applied to such property, although it is a matter to be considered with other elements affeeting the situation.
5. Same — Ordinance—Disparity op Valuations.
Disparity of valuations of property due to zoning are accompanied by the other factors which clearly affect the public health, safety, or general welfare of the people in eases where the zoning ordinances are held to be invalid.
References por Points in Headnotes
[1, 5] 58 Am Jur, Zoning § 18.
[2, 3, 8] 58 Am Jur, Zoning § 16.
[4] 58 Am Jur, Zoning § 146.
[6, 7, 10-13] 58 Am Jur, Zoning §§ 21, 22.
[9] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 1009.
[14-16] 5 Am Jur 2d, Appeal and Error § 841.
[17] 58 Am Jur, Zoning § § 231, 232.
6. Same — Unreasonable and Arbitrary Exercise of Police Power.
Conclusion by trial court that 1-family zoning classification, as it applied to property bordering railroad tracks, was void because it constituted an unreasonable and arbitrary exercise of the police power of the city and was confiscatory in that it deprived the plaintiffs of their property without due process of law, where testimony indicated that the marketability of property for 1-family residences-was impaired by the presence of the railroad held, improper, where there is no evidence that the difference iii value has any bearing on the improper use of the police -.power, and the ordinance was enacted to avoid a situation where, the building of apartment house • results in • destroying an' entire section for single-family housing purposes.
7. Same — Similar Property.
City’s zoning practice in rezoning a triangular-shaped parcel of property, similar to property in action to declare zoning ordinance invalid, situated next to a railroad and directly northwest of the subject property was not arbitrary and capricious when there were no existing 1-family houses on the rezoned land as there were on the subject property.
8. ' Same — Ordinance—Application to Particular Tract.
Evidence presenting no more than a debatable question does not rebut the presumption of validity of a zoning ordinance.
9. Costs — Public Question — Zoning Ordinance.
No costs are allowed on appeal from trial court judgment in which 1-family zoning was declared invalid as to property bordering on railroad tracks, a public question being involved.
...Dissenting Opinion.
Levin, P. J.
10: Zoning — Ordinance—Unreasonable Application.
A Boning ordinance may be reasonable m the sense that it bears a substantial relationship to public health, morals, safety, or general welfare, but may still be unreasonable in its application to particular property if that property cannot reasonably be used as zoned.
11. Same — Reasonable Use — Validity.
Zoning which pf.esients any reasonable use of property is confiscatory and, for that reason, invalid.
12. Same — Ordinance—Debatable Question Rule — Application.
Zoning is not irrational and therefore invalid if, on the evidence presented, its rationality remains debatable.
13. Same — Debatable Question.
The debatable question rule is not applicable where the question presented is whether the zoning is unreasonable because it is confiscatory, which is more a question of fact than of judgment.
14. Appeal and Error — Findings op Fact — Clearly Erroneous Rule.
Findings of fact shall not be set aside by an appellate court, in equity as well as in nonjury law cases, unless clearly erroneous and regard shall be given to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it (GCR 1963, 517.1).
15. Same — Finding op Fact — Clearly Erroneous.
A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistaTce has been committed.
16. Zoning — Validity—Evidence.
Adoption by trial judge of testimony offered in behalf of plaintiff landowners in preference to testimony offered in behalf of the defendant city presents no reason to reject his evaluation of the conflicting testimony where he concluded it would be so difficult to find a land developer or housebuilder willing to speculate in the improvement of land bordering railroad trades and multiple housing development, in preference to land which does not have the location disadvantages of this land, that the land was not suitable for development with single family residences, and that the zoning in controversy was confiscatory.
17. Same — Speculative Possibilities — Present Use.
A judicial inquiry into the validity of a zoning ordinance is not concerned with speculative possibilities of the property but rather seelcs to determine whether it can now be reasonably used as now zoned.
Appeal from Oakland; Adams (Clark J.), J.
Submitted Division 2 February 10, 1967, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 1,399.)
Decided April 25, 1968.
Complaint by Harold C. Krause, Ethel E. Krause, Lilian Cloutier, Richard Cloutier, E. L. Parding-ton, Mary Roberts, Ethel M. Bogart, and Mildred Varga against the City of Royal Oak, a municipal corporation, to have the zoning ordinances of defendant, as they apply to plaintiffs’ property, declared void. Judgment restraining defendant from enforcing the zoning ordinance. Defendant appeals.
Judgment vacated.
Hudson & Hudson, for plaintiffs.
Allan G. Hertler, for defendant.

Opinion:
Burns, J.
The city of Royal Oak appeals from a judgment restraining it from enforcing a zoning ordinance which places plaintiffs' property in a one-family residential use classification. The judgment permits, plaintiffs to use their land for multiple-family residential purposes.
Plaintiffs' property is located in the city of Royal Oak and consists of approximately 3.5 acres of land, which, for purposes of this opinion, can he described in terms of a geometrically imperfect right triangle. The Grand Trunk Western railroad, which is elevated and runs in a northwesterly and southeasterly direction, forms the hypotenuse of this triangle. Starr road, which runs roughly east and west, provides a southern base for the triangle. The remaining part of the triangle, the western border of plaintiffs' property, is composed of one lot which fronts on the north side of Starr road and other lots which front on the east side of Benjamin avenue, a north-south thoroughfare. Within this area are 14 subdivided lots surrounding a 350-foot, undeveloped cul-de-sac.
The territory hounded by the railroad, Starr road and Benjamin avenue has been zoned for one-family residential use since 1957. Other than one nonconforming 3-family multiple dwelling, which was erected prior to 1957 when multiple dwellings were permissible, the east side of Benjamin avenue and the first 2 lots on the north side of Starr avenue, east of Benjamin, are developed with single-family residences. Located upon the subject property itself are 2 comparatively old one-family homes which, all parties agree, will be removed for purposes of re-platting, regardless of the course of future development.
The neighborhood surrounding the area bounded by Starr road, Benjamin avenue and the railroad is of a mixed character. The Royal Oak municipal golf course is on the west side of Benjamin (across the street from the lots which back up to the subject property). The area north and east of the railroad is zoned for one-family residences, and improvements exist on a number of those lots. The property south of Starr road is zoned for and has been developed with multiple-family dwelling's. This property also fronts upon heavily travelled 13 Mile road which is exclusively bounded by multiple-family complexes from the Grand Trunk Western railroad tracks west to one of the main arteries of the Detroit metropolitan area, Woodward avenue (US-10), where nonresidential uses are permitted.
Since 1961 owners of part of the subject property have made unsuccessful applications for a zoning change, but it was not until 1966 that plaintiffs commenced this action to enjoin the defendant from enforcing the zoning ordinance as it affects their land. The trial judge listened to the proofs, viewed the premises, and held that the one-family zoning classification was void because it constituted an unreason able and arbitrary exercise of the police power of the city of Royal Oak and was confiscatory in that it deprived plaintiffs of their property without due process of law.
Our review of this judgment is guided by certain elementary principles which have been concisely set forth in Alderton v. City of Saginaw (1962), 367 Mich 28, 33:
"We have held that a zoning ordinance to be valid must bear a direct and substantial relation to the objectives of police power, the preservation of the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare, of the community as a whole (Long v. City of Highland Park [1950], 329 Mich 146); that the attacking party has the burden of establishing affirmatively that the ordinance has no real or substantial relation to public health, morals, safety, or general welfare and that the ordinance is presumed valid (Austin v. Older [1938], 283 Mich 667); that each case must be determined on its own facts and circumstances (Moreland v. Armstrong [1941], 297 Mich 32), and that in order for the courts to find action of the legislative body invalid, more than a debatable question is required (Brae Burn, Inc., v. Bloomfield Hills [1957], 350 Mich 425)."
The propositions that an "ordinance is presumed valid" and that it is plaintiff's burden to overcome that presumption "by clear and satisfactory proof" are of critical importance in this case. The public purposes which plaintiffs are required by the presumption to confute in this case are best enumerated in CL 1948, § 125.583 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 5.2933) where the legislature said :
"The legislative body of cities and villages may limit and restrict the maximum number of families which, may he housed in dwellings hereafter erected or altered, and for such purposes divide any city or village into districts of such number, shape and area as may be deemed best suited to carry out the purposes of this section. Such regulations shall be uniform throughout any specified district, but may differ from the regulations adopted for other districts. Such regulations shall be designed to limit the overcrowding of land, to avoid undue congestion of population, to facilitate adequate provision for a system of transportation, sewage disposal, water, education, recreation and other public requirements, and to promote public health, safety and general welfare (Emphasis supplied.)
To place this case in its proper perspective, we should note that plaintiff did not claim that any depreciation in property value resulted from the adoption of the zoning ordinance imposing the restriction to which the property was not previously subject. Rather, it appears that the essence of plaintiffs' objection is that their land should be freed of the restriction imposed by the ordinance of 1957 to the end that they might have the benefit of appreciated value. Although one witness, a home builder testifying on behalf of plaintiffs, stated the land was unsuited for single-residential use, another one of the plaintiffs' witnesses, an appraiser who was more familiar with property values, testified that the land was not without value as zoned but that it would be more valuable for multiple-family use. Defendant conceded that such was the case but disputed the ratio of difference in valuations as computed by plaintiffs' witnesses.
According to the plaintiffs' witnesses, the marketability of the property for one-family residences was impaired by the presence of the railroad. The proximity of the tracks to the lots made it impossible to obtain Federal Housing Administration financ ing, thereby eliminating a good percentage of prospective buyers who could not secure Veterans Administration or conventional loans. In addition, plaintiffs' witnesses pointed out the undesirability of constructing one-family residences next to a railroad because of the vibration, noise, possible danger to children, and the smell. Yet, by plaintiffs' proposal to build multiple dwellings (40 one-bed units and 40 two-bed units) they would invite many more persons (than the 14 one-family houses would accommodate) to share in this feigned misery. The alleged adverse effect the railroad may have on marketability of single-family homes is at best dubious because of plaintiffs' own appraiser's acknowledgment upon cross-examination that a number of single-family homes in Royal Oak lie adjacent to the railroad although these areas located next to the tracks have been the last to develop for residential purposes. The proximity of a railroad does not render zoning for one-family residential purposes arbitrary and unreasonable. See City of Hillsdale v. Hillsdale Iron & Metal Company, Inc. (1960), 358 Mich 377.
This is not to say, however, that the value of the property and the effect, if any, a railroad has on that value, plays no role in our deliberations. The Supreme Court of Michigan has repeatedly recognized that "the mere fact that land may have a greater selling value for a possible use of different character than that for which it is zoned is not a sufficient basis for holding the ordinance invalid, as applied to such property, although, of course, it is a matter to be considered with other elements affecting the situation." Paka Corporation v. City of Jackson (1961), 364 Mich 122, 127; Smith v. Village of Wood Creek Farms (1963), 371 Mich 127.
The disparity of valuations in the cases cited by the plaintiffs wherein zoning ordinances have been held for naught are invariably accompanied by other factors which clearly affect the public health, safety or general welfare of the people. For instance, in Smith v. Village of Wood Creek Farms, supra, the disparity of value of 3 lots and the presence of 2 busy highways and nearby commercial locations were sufficient to invalidate an ordinance restricting those lots to residential purposes, whereas the disparity of value of a fourth lot, which was bordered on but one side by a highway, was insufficient to negate the zoning ordinance.
In the present case the difference in value is accompanied by no convincing evidence bearing on the improper use of the police power. The most positive evidence tendered by plaintiffs was the testimony of the city's planning director who said that no question of public health is involved. Other than this, plaintiffs' proofs fail to adequately cope with most of the public interest considerations which we must assume prompted the adoption of the zoning ordinance.
In this respect, however, there was some testimony introduced regarding the impact that a multiple dwelling development would have upon the people whose backyards abut the subject property. During plaintiffs' case in chief, plaintiffs' appraiser testified that the presence of multiple dwellings would have no adverse effect on the immediate neighborhood, but the adverse effect to which he referred was in terms of price not people. Plaintiffs' home building-witness also testified as to this problem, but his concept of adverse effect was his personal opinion of whether or not he would purchase a house completely surrounded with multiple dwellings. Both of plaintiffs' witnesses who spoke on this issue ap- proaehed the problem as one of basic economics. Contrary to this dollars and cents approach, we have the defendant's planning director's testimony which probably explains a portion of the rationale for having the subject property zoned as it is:
"Q. [Counsel for defendant] In your professional opinion, as a person who works in the field of zoning and community planning, does the existing one-family zoning of the subject property tend to promote the public peace, safety and general welfare ?
"A. [City planning director] In my opinion it does, yes.
"Q. Will you tell us why?
"A. Well, I might preface my comments to the fact that in this specific area the public involved would be the public that would be in the triangle for the immediate vicinity of the lots in question. This would be from 13 Mile road on the south, Benjamin on the west, and essentially the Grand Trunk on the easterly boundary. They would be the immediate public involved. The area is predominantly single-family north of Starr road and these people would be forced to experience the increased confusion and congestion, noise, et cetera that would accompany a development other than single-family, a development that would allow a drastic increase in the total number of people that would live in the three acres more or less in question. The single-family zoning in the area would promote a 13-family development, at least 13 families, would generate at best 26 cars so there would not be a traffic problem coming into or off of Benjamin from Starr road. Also the nature of the residential amenities that accrue to other residential properties from single-family developments would tend to go along with the type of development that is already north of Starr road. Also, we feel that this type of zoning does allow for the natural growth of single-family development with the schools and the other residential amenities [which] are in the area,
"Q. Mr. Bowman, as a professional in the field of planning and zoning, what is your opinion as to the comparative desirability of having multiple-family residences back up to single-family residences, compared to facing multiple-family to single-family with a street in between, sir ?
"A. Well, it's my opinion, based upon the experiences we have had in the recent past, over the past 2 or 3 years, with the rapid development of apartments in Royal Oak and in our surrounding communities, that due to the general demand of the occupants of apartments for parking, for the use of a swimming pool, other recreational facilities, the high density of people living in these developments, that it is far better to face the apartment development across a street which is 50 or 60 feet in width to the single-family development rather than having it abut to the rear yards where all of the service parking and all of the congestion takes place; that we have found that we have more and more of our abutting property owners object where it is a rear yard situation rather than a face to face situation."
We think it is fair to conclude, therefore, that the municipal authority enacting this ordinance was trying to avoid the situation described in Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company (1926), 272 US 365, 394, 395 (47 S Ct 114, 120, 121, 71 L Ed 303, 313, 314, 54 ALR 1016) where Justice Sutherland said:
"With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities, — until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances."
Not to be overlooked is plaintiffs' evidence which, we surmise, was directed to the claim that the city's zoning practice in this instance was arbitrary and capricious. In 1964 a triangular-shaped parcel of property, which is also situated next to the Q-rand Trunk Western railroad and directly northwest of the subject property, was rezoned from one-family to multiple-family residential. We gather from the city planning director's testimony, however, that there were no existing one-family houses on the rezoned land and there are on the subject property. Furthermore, it is important to note that the area catercorner from this parcel is zoned for heavy industry purposes and that it is bordered predominantly with multiple-family or nonresidential zoning classifications. The 1964 rezoning was completely reasonable in our opinion and bears no relation to the alleged unreasonable characterization of plaintiffs' property.
Plaintiffs' case, amounting to substantially nothing more than a partial deprivation of the best economic use of their property, does not persuade us to subvert the interests of the public as expressed by tbe legislative body which enacted the zoning ordinance in question. The evidence introduced by plaintiffs is alarmingly insufficient to rebut the ordinance's presumption of validity. At best, plaintiffs' evidence presents nothing more than a debatable question.
Judgment vacated. No costs, a public question being involved.
McGregor, J., concurred with Burns, J.
See Paka Corporation v. City of Jackson (1961), 364 Mich 122, 128; and Township of Farmington v. Scott (1965), 374 Mich 536, 541, 542.