Court Opinion

ID: 9704111
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:22:43.512401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:56.919608
License: Public Domain

Targonski, J.
(dissenting). For purposes of disposition of this matter, we will adopt the statement of facts involved and the testimony of the various parties as set forth in the majority opinion, with the following modifications and qualifications. At the trial the planning consultant testified that the site plans as submitted were not deserving of any serious consideration. The health department sanitarian testified that there was no approval for a private sewage disposal arrangement and that he *540had informed the realtor to wait with his application for a permit until sewers that were under construction at that time were installed. It was further testified that no permits were issued between 1966 to 1969 for almost the entire city. The lack of construction was not limited to the island which was the subject of the rezoning, but was a prevailing condition generally because of lack of sewage facilities and not because of any other types of limitations.
The planning consultant upon whose opinion the municipal authorities allegedly relied testified that there should be a consideration of density of population and that his recommendation was not over ten people per acre, although the rezoning which is under contest permitted a far greater density. He further testified that his recommendation envisioned a limitation of two stories on the buildings and conceded that the rezoning did not envision any such limitation. In fact one of the intervening defendants testifying for the change in rezoning admitted that under their studies it was economically unfeasible to build four-story buildings but that their study did not lead them to such a conclusion with reference to a 10- or 20-story building or buildings. The expert planner testified that under the Master Plan, Paradise Island was zoned single family and that compatibility of the construction and type of usage would tend to stabilize values.
Testimony also developed that the zoning with reference to Paradise Island existed not only prior to 1965 but also prior to the commencement of the •term of the then mayor who served in one capacity or another since 1945. It was also brought out in testimony that all of the conditions which were cited as the reason for change in the zoning in an attempt to clear up the objectionable conduct situations were *541in existence as far back as 1965 and even back to 1945.
Under tbe defendants’ presentation of their theory of the case an expert testified as to the feasibility studies that he made for the intervening defendant as to their proposed use of Paradise Island. He conceded, however, that he did not make any studies as to the feasibility of use of Paradise Island as a single family residential operation and consequently the only testimony that was presented as to such single family usage was that of the proposed developers alone.
We are impressed with the careful reasoning set forth in the opinion of the trial court and present the following as a portion thereof which indicates the careful consideration of all of the essential elements of the case. The trial court said in part as follows:
“After careful consideration of the testimony and viewing the premises and surrounding area, it is the Court’s opinion the zoning of Ik-1 was proper five years ago and in accordance with the master plan of the then village. There has been no change in this area during the five-year period, except that sewers are now available. The use of this flat, low-lying land without sewers was very difficult. It appears from the testimony that buyers from the Detroit area purchased adjoining property to get out of high density areas and apartment areas and to enjoy single family areas during their later working years and in view of their retirement.
“These purchasers relied upon the zoning and upon the nature of the area when they purchased and built. This area is a very desirable single family residence area.
“From the testimony, the court is satisfied that now that sewers are available, this property is eco*542nomically adaptable for single family residence. In any event, the adjoining residents are entitled to rely upon the continuous [sic] of single residence zoning until there is some reason to change it or until there is a change in the area. There has been no change. If an area could be rezoned without reason, the whole purpose of zoning would be thwarted. The court can think of no area where there is less reason to change than this one.
“Very expensive single residence homes have been built on the adjoining property relying upon the zoning. These owners were entitled to so rely. # # *
“It is the Court’s opinion that the construction of an apartment building would destroy to a considerable extent the property owner’s rights and would adversely [ajffect the value of their property.”
It is my impression that the facts of this case and the applicable legal principles are identical or at lease comparable with those considered in Schilling v City of Midland, 38 Mich App 568 (1972). In that case the Court adopted findings of law by the trial court in part as follows:
“ ‘ “When an application is made for reclassification of a tract of land from one zone to another, there is a presumption that the zones established by the original zoning ordinance were well planned and arranged and were intended to be more or less permanent, subject to change only when there are genuine changes in conditions. Therefore, before a zoning board rezones a property, there should be proof either that there was some mistake in the original zoning or that the character of the neighborhood had changed to such an extent that reclassification ought properly to be made. * # * ”
In the instant case there was no showing of any change from the time of the prior zoning nor was *543there any showing of a mistake in the original zoning or any change in the character of the neighborhood of any substantial degree. Consequently we conclude that the rezoning is not a proper exercise of the police power under the facts of this case. We would affirm the judgment of the lower court especially since its findings of fact appear to be well grounded in the evidence submitted at trial.