Court Opinion

ID: 9692223
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:47:52.788345+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:33.340316
License: Public Domain

Souris, J.
(dissenting). Plaintiffs purchased the land involved in this litigation knowing it was zoned for single family residence use and that lots were required to have a minimum area of 30,000 square feet. Prior to their purchase of the land, plaintiffs submitted to defendant city for its approval a proposed subdivision plan, which plan divided the land into residential lots containing a minimum of 15,000 square feet. Notwithstanding the city’s refusal to approve their plan, plaintiffs nonetheless purchased the land hoping, indeed speculating, that the property would be rezoned.
Defendant’s comprehensive zoning ordinance which is involved in this case was before the Court last September in Christine Building Company v. City of Troy, 367 Mich 508. In that ease Mr. Justice Kelly and I joined former Justice Adams in protesting this Court’s refusal to acknowledge the right of a city to make long-term comprehensive plans for its present and future development, as seems clearly authorized by sections 6 and 7 of PA 1931, No 285, as amended-(CL 1948, §§ 125.36, 125.37 [Stat Ann 1958 Rev §§ 5.2996, 5.2997]). We said, in dissent, in Christine, at pp 524-526:
“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 over-all city plan, even though the reasonableness of such plan, has been virtually conceded by the failure of the plaintiffs to present .any *101testimony 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 various 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 the plaintiffs is the absolute minimum in terms of sanitation, salability and profitability, regardless of whether or not there is a resulting depreciation in the neighborhood 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. *102City 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 planning 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 he 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.”
The Christine Building Company, on majority vote of this Court, succeeded in establishing a “point of attack” upon the city’s comprehensive zoning ordinance. The Rolls today seek to extend the attack on proofs demonstrating only that they paid more for their property than they should have, present zoning limitations considered.
I would reverse this decree and call a halt to invocation of this Court’s power to “sit as a super-zoning commission.” Brae Burn, Inc., v. City of Bloomfield Hills, 350 Mich 425, 430, 431.