Court Opinion

ID: 9720940
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:45:09.253241+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:22.456845
License: Public Domain

Allen, P.J.
(dissenting). While I respect, and in fact admire, the thoroughness in which the majority have reviewed this cause de novo, I am compelled to dissent. Reviewing the testimony with the same thoroughness, I cannot conclude that the A-l and/or A-2 zoning classification, when applied to plaintiffs’ 28-acre parcel, was unreasonable.
The gravamen of the majority’s conclusion that *542the zoning is unreasonable is that under such zoning the plaintiffs are unable to sell their lots at a profit. The trial court heard the testimony and did not agree. As was stated in Ed Zaagman Inc v Kentwood, 406 Mich 137, 153-154; 277 NW2d 475, 477 (1979), the ordinance comes clothed with every presumption of validity and it is up to the party contesting the ordinance to affirmatively prove its unreasonableness. Where the testimony on the question of the ordinance’s unreasonableness is contested the court "is inclined to give considerable weight to the findings of the trial judge”. The majority opinion, in effect, reverses the rule and is disinclined to give weight to the trial court’s findings.
Based on my review of the record, I cannot conclude that the trial court erred. The lengthy references to the record cited by my brethren are equally offset by contrary testimony from defendants’ witnesses. For example, Mr. Palmer, president of a building supply company, testified as follows:
"Q (By Mr. Forrest, continuing): Mr. Palmer, do you sell materials to builders?
"A Yes, Sir.
"Q What percentage of your build—of your business is directed towards selling to builders?
"A About forty percent.
"Q And how many builders do you deal with?
"A Total builders, about four hundred.
"Q Four hundred. Do you have any familiarity with the size and nature of the houses that these builders produce?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q And, are you familiar with those that build high quality homes and those that build the cheaper homes?
"A I am familiar with both.
*543"Q And, are you familiar with the extent to which both groups build?
"A Yes, sir.
"Q Are you familiar with whether or not these parties are building within the City of Flint or within the out-county area?
"A Yes, sir.”
"Q (By Mr. Forrest, continuing): Do you have any idea, based upon your dealings with these builders, as to why high quality homes are not being built at present?
"A There is practically no high quality land available within the City limits of Flint. That is for sale.
"Q Are you familiar in the course of your business with the extent to which lots for high quality homes are available?
"A I’m familiar with the, the extent of areas, neighborhoods, and in a higher range of, of building and the more costly homes, there is very little land available for sale where a more expensive house can be built today.
"Q And would you have any knowledge as to where this area—where these areas are?
"A What little there is left in Flint would be, of course, in the Miller Road area, the Country Club area that we’re now talking about, and there is some land available in the west side of Flint. But very spotty.
"Q Is there at present an area the size of the Schwartz parcel available for development in this direction?
"A Residential development, no, sir.
"Q Based upon your experience in this industry, what would be your opinion as to the salability of lots on the Schwartz parcel for these purposes if it were made available?
"A I believe they would be good.
"MR. CHILDS: I object, your Honor. He has no qualifications, background, basis as to the market value of lots in an A-l or figures to site. Nothing.
"MR. FORREST: Well let me ask—
"THE COURT: Well—
*544"MR. CHILDS: That’s beyond the canons of his experience.
"THE COURT: No, I am going to let him testify. Finally, I got somebody who knows what’s going on today.
You know, we’re talking about Mr. Schwartz, Mr. Childs. He hasn’t even built a house or been in the building business. We have another man that you put on the stand here this morning that knows about Clio. He’s been in some area. But nobody has even been on the stand yet that—until we got to Mr. Palmer—that knows what’s going on, and these are questions that this Court wants to know. I want to know what land is available.
I understand from him for the first time that—you’re telling me that this is—there’s no other land other than —of this comparable size, Mr. Palmer.
"THE WITNESS: Your Honor, this is the last parcel of this size that is fit for residential construction within the city limits of Flint that quality homes could be built on. The last one, sir.
"Q (By Mr. Forrest, continuing): Mr. Palmer, are you familiar with the lot size requirements in A-l? Generally speaking?
"A Well, there’s A, A and A-l. One is ten thousand square feet and one is five thousand square feet, but I—
"Q Okay. A-l is ten thousand, A-2 is five thousand. If this, area were to be available for ten thousand square foot lots, what would be your opinion as to the salability of these ten thousand square foot lots?
"MR. CHILDS: Continuing objection, your Honor.
"THE COURT: All right.
"A I believe that they would be good. There is a, a need for this type of property within the City. The City is requiring people to work for the City to move back into the City. There is a market for people that work for the school system, for the police department, to move back into the City. And a market for executive-type homes within the city limits of Flint. And they are fastly disappearing.”
I further disagree with the majority on grounds that insufficient weight is given to the report of *545the New York consulting firm which the city retained to study the area and advise on the proper zoning. That study recommended the zoning which the city council then adopted (A-l residential with 10,000 square foot minimum) but which plaintiffs claim is unreasonable. In other words, the record shows the council did riot act precipitously or unreasonably, but only after it had obtained expert advice.
I further disagree with the majority on grounds that de novo review discloses excellent reasons for not accepting plaintiffs’ proposed B zoning, which would permit a mixture of residential uses including garden apartments and townhouses. The increased traffic likely from plaintiffs’ proposed development would place a severe strain on the road system of the immediate area. This included the streets in defendants-intervenors’ purely residential neighborhood. This area was developed without sidewalks, and hence pédestrians including school children would be endangered by the increased traffic flow. Also, the development suggested by plaintiffs would not be in conformity with the existing, adjacent subdivision of defendants-intervenors, and consequently their property would be adversely affected.
In sum, there are good reasons for the existing A-l zoning classification, and the ordinance was certainly not arbitrary or capricious. The public is protected and the adjacent residents are protected by the zoning scheme. The independent study made by the New York firm reinforces this conclusion. Plaintiffs’ arguments about the profitability of an A-l development at best raise a close question. In light of the contrary testimony, the presumptions favoring a zoning ordinance, and the considerable weight we give to the trial court’s findings, I cannot say that the ordinance as it now stands is not valid. I would affirm.