Opinion ID: 2012216
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: is single-family residence zoning of plaintiffs' property valid?

Text: 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. These two principles are operationally tested by the following four rules. The four rules are:
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, 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 purpose to which it is reasonably adapted. 391 Mich 139, 162-163. 4. `This Court, however, is inclined to give considerable weight to the findings of the trial judge in equity cases.' 391 Mich 139, 163 quoting Christine Building Co v City of Troy, 367 Mich 508, 518; 116 NW2d 816 (1962).
Plaintiffs' case that the single-family-residence zoning in the area is invalid as to their property rests on three points: