Court Opinion

ID: 9720053
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:14:28.744714+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:12.677518
License: Public Domain

Adams, J.
(dissenting). The question in this case is the extent to which a city may. fix minimum lot sizes in residential areas as a part of its overall city plan.
The city of Troy has a total area of 32-1/2 square miles of which approximately 28 square miles are residential. A young city, it was incorporated in 1955.
Pursuant to PA 1931, No 285, § 6 (CL 1948, § 125.36 [Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 5.2996]), Troy recently formulated a city master plan. The statute provides that the plan shall contain the following:
“Such plan, with the accompanying maps, plats, charts, and descriptive matter shall show the commission’s recommendations for the development of said territory, including, among other things, the general location, character, and extent of streets, *520viaducts, subways, bridges, waterways, water fronts,, boulevards, parkways, playgrounds and open spaces,, the general location of public buildings and other public property, and the general location and extent of public utilities and terminals, whether publicly or privately owned or operated, for water, light, sanitation, transportation, communication, power, and other purposes; also the removal, relocation, widening, narrowing, vacating, abandonment, change of' use or extension of any of the foregoing ways, grounds, open spaces, buildings, property, utilities or terminals; the general location, character, layout and extent of community centers and neighborhood, units; and the general character, extent and layout of' the replanning and redevelopment of blighted districts and slum areas; as well as a zoning plan for the control of the height, area, bulk, location, and use-of buildings and premises.” (Emphasis supplied.)
CL 1948, § 125.37 (Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 5.2997),. further provides:
“In the preparation of such plan the commission shall make careful and comprehensive surveys and studies of present conditions and future growth of' the municipality and with due regard to its relation to the neighboring territory. The plan shall be-made with the general purpose of guiding and accomplishing a coordinated, adjusted, and harmonious development of the municipality and its environs which will, in accordance with present and future-needs, best promote health, safety, morals, order,, convenience, prosperity, and general welfare, as well' as efficiency and economy in the process of development; including, among other things, adequate provision for traffic, the promotion of safety from fire and other dangers, adequate provision for light and air, the promotion of the healthful and convenient distribution of population, the promotion of good civic-design and arrangement, wise and efficient expenditure of public funds, and the adequate provision of *521public utilities and other public requirements.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Troy’s city plan was prepared by Vilican-Leman & Associates, Inc., a firm of city planners, that has done municipal planning for many communities including the cities of Hamtramek, Highland Park, Port Huron, Birmingham, and St. Clair Shores. George Vilican, the head of that firm, who testified for defendant city, was conceded to be eminently qualified in this field.
The master plan for the city was made up of 3 areas—the industrial, the commercial, and the residential. The plan took into account not only Troy but also the adjacent communities of Pontiac, Avon township, Shelby, Bloomfield township, Bloomfield Hills, Sterling, Southfield, Warren, Madison Heights, Royal Oak, Berkley, Huntington Woods, Oak Park, Ferndale, and Hazel Park. Every portion of the master plan was presented to the public and was adopted by the city planning commission and the city commission.
George Skrubb, who has taught planning at Harvard University, worked as a city planning engineer and who is now Oakland county planning director and a full member of the American Institute of Planners, testified for the city. He specifically approved the methods that were followed in preparing the plan by the city planners for the city of Troy.
Both the master plan and the zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to it are based upon the theory that, in addition to the major component parts of a city, planning is necessary in terms of schools, parks, sewers, roads, water supply and other facilities. The plan for the city of Troy is based upon an ultimate population of 134,000 people. The city had a population of 19,382 on May 10, 1961.*
*522Mr. Vilican testified that if there was to be a greater population density than that presently planned for, then adequate provision has not been made for various facilities that will be needed in the future such as parks and schools. He also testified that the roads as now planned would be inadequate to carry the additional burdens which would be created. By following the master plan, he testified that there would be an orderly development of the community. Waste would be avoided. Condemnation and the tearing down of buildings to create sites for public facilities that would be needed but that are not now planned for would be unnecessary.
While the basic plan for the community looks to completion between the years 1980 and 2000, the plan would be subject to review from time to time and re-planning could be done if the same seemed to be indicated. The planning period for the city which has been used is the comparatively short period of from 20 to 40 years—-less than the time allowed for the-amortization of many buildings.
The overall residential plan calls for lots ranging from 30,000 square feet down to 8,500 square feet. At the time when plaintiffs purchased their properties, they knew that the properties were zoned for residential lots of 21,780 square feet. Out of a total of 28 square miles of the city used for residential purposes, 16.2 miles are zoned for residential lots of 15,000 feet or less.
No testimony was offered in opposition to the city master plan or to the general zoning ordinance which was adopted pursuant to it. Authority for the-zoning ordinance is to be found in PA 1921, No 207,, relating to city or village districts or zones, section 1 of which, being CL 1948, § 125.581 (Stat Ann 1958-Rev § 5.2931), reads in part:
*523“Such regulations shall he made in accordance with a plan designed to lessen congestion on the public streets, to promote public health, safety and general welfare, and shall be made with reasonable consideration, among other things, to the character of the district, its peculiar suitability for particular uses, the conservation of property values and the general trend and character of building and population development.”
Plaintiffs attack the zoning of their properties to a minimum lot size of 21,780 square feet as unreasonable and ask this Court to rule that a minimum lot size of 8,500 square feet is reasonable because a dwelling can be built on such a lot without creating any health hazard as long as sewer facilities are available.
The zoning ordinance does not have the effect of confiscating the properties of the plaintiffs. Robert J. Silberstein, builder, developer, and secretary of Christine Building Co., Inc., and Campus Estates, Inc., testified that if the lot areas were reduced to 8,500 square feet, a profit of $100,000 could be realized from the land development. He envisioned the sale of at least 50 homes a year in a subdivision of 100 lots. But, when asked if it would be possible to build on the land as now zoned and recoup the investment which had been made, he stated he thought this was possible.
There is no evidence that, in setting up the zoning plan for the city of Troy, plaintiffs’ properties were dealt with unfairly or arbitrarily in terms of the overall plan for the city. Other subdivisions in the immediate area of plaintiffs’ properties are zoned for 30,000-square-foot lots. According to the testimony of developers of those subdivisions, the lots are being built upon and the properties sold, though admittedly not at the rate of 50 lots per 100-lot-subdivision per year.
*524In addition to taking into account the general character of the area, plaintiffs’ lots were also so zoned because of the limitations of the area in terms of sewer capacity. These limitations are self-imposed and might be removed, though only with great difficulty. The present sewer project for the area is the result of a county-wide planning program involving many communities. The construction of additional sewers at this time by the city of Troy alone would not be economically feasible. It required the combined efforts over a period of years of the cities of Troy, Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills, Southfield, Lathrup Village, village of Westwood, and the townships of Bloomfield and Pontiac to negotiate and accomplish the construction of the Evergreen sewer and arrange for the city of Detroit to handle the sewage from it. If plaintiffs’ properties are reduced as to minimum lot size, and as a consequence the planned sewer capacity for the area is pre-empted, then other properties in the area that are conforming to the city plan will inevitably lack sewer facilities. If the present zoning must be altered by a holding that it is unreasonable, then a point of attack upon the city has been established whereby any subdivider will be able to abrogate the city’s residential zoning program except as to an absolute minimum lot size. A cancerous situation will result which will permit almost any city plan to be destroyed piecemeal without any examination or consideration of the overall city plan, even though the reasonableness of such plan has been virtually conceded by the failure of the plaintiffs to present any testimony in opposition thereto. See Brae Burn, Inc., v. City of Bloomfield Hills, 350 Mich 425, 436.
The criteria used by the city for lot size within variops areas of the city has been the general character of the neighborhood, the facilities available, or to be made available. The criteria contended for by *525the plaintiffs is the absolute minimum in terms of sanitation, salability and profitability, regardless of whether or not there is a resulting depreciation in the neigborhood and in adjacent properties, and regardless as to whether or not there are any problems created in terms of traffic hazards, school congestion, inadequate water supply, or otherwise. If problems develop in these areas, this is no concern of plaintiffs. If more schools are needed, or more sewers, or more roads, they can be built even though as a financial matter they may be completely unfeasible. This will be a proper concern not for these plaintiffs, who will long since have “developed” the properties, but for the purchasing homeowners who have been left holding the tax bag.
Whether or not the city of Troy has developed a reasonable plan for that city, or the plan is faulty, is not the question here at issue. The undisputed facts are that the city under expert, professional engineers has planned its future as best it could, in the light of present knowledge, full well realizing that such a plan may have to be altered and that it may not succeed as now envisioned. With, a population of 19,000, Troy made plans for a city of 134,000. All economic groups are afforded an opportunity to share in the growth and the life of the city. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that the city has gone beyond the powers and authority conferred upon it by the legislature of this State under the city planning act and the city zoning act.
Support for the views herein expressed can be found in the cited statutes and in the recent cases of Northwood Properties Co. v. Royal Oak City Inspector, 325 Mich 419; Scholnick v. City of Bloomfield Hills, 350 Mich 187, and Brae Burn, Inc., v. City of Bloomfield Hills, supra. The critical question is whether or not a municipality may make plans for its future as an organic whole. Or is any such *526planning subject to destruction because a property-viewed separately, even though it is an integral part of that whole, would create no immediate hazard to health and welfare if developed with minimum lot sizes. In my opinion, the general welfare would best be served by orderly planning and zoning by the body corporate. Restrictions as to lot size are no more outside the bounds of local legislative discretion than the zoning of one area for factories to the exclusion of a residential use. Lamb v. City of Monroe, 358 Mich 136.
I would reverse the decision of the trial judge and dismiss the plaintiffs’ bill of complaint.
Kelly and Souris, JJ., concurred with Adams, J.

 Mr. Justice Kavanagh’s opinion refers to 2,000 persons in the sewer district at present and 21,300 persons by 2000 A.D.