Court Opinion

ID: 9672491
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:55:53.007082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:16.592292
License: Public Domain

W. A. Porter, J.
Defendants appeal as of right from an order of summary disposition in favor of plaintiff township. The order enjoined defendants from continuing to maintain a mobile home for residential purposes on property that was zoned for commercial use. We reverse.
The pertinent facts were established by the allegations of plaintiffs complaint that were admitted by defendants’ answer. Defendants owned a parcel *613of property located within the Township of Fremont. This parcel, apparently exceeding five acres, is within a commercial district, as designated by the Fremont Township Zoning Ordinance. When defendants moved a mobile home onto the property to use as a residence, plaintiff denied defendants’ request for a permit, requested removal of the mobile home, and eventually instituted this suit for injunctive relief.
Article V of the Zoning Ordinance governs the use of land in commercial districts. Section 5.01 of that article states in pertinent part:
No land shall hereafter be used and no building or structure hereafter erected, altered or moved upon any premises and used for other than one or more of the following uses, except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance:
I. Mobile Home Parks.
Since defendants’ mobile home is not part of a mobile home park, but rather is a single unit, the use permitted by § 5.01(1) is inapplicable. The other permissible uses in § 5.01 do not contemplate a mobile home, but instead permit strictly nonresidential uses, e.g., retail businesses, barber shops, motels, banks, fraternal organizations. Therefore, Article V appears to unambiguously prohibit defendants’ mobile home, unless the § 5.01 exception for uses "as otherwise provided in this Ordinance” is applicable.
Defendants rely on Article IX-General Provisions. Section 9.01 states:
Except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance, no land or existing building (subject to Section 9.02) and no new building or structure shall hereafter be located, erected, altered or moved upon *614any premises other than in conformity with the provisions of this Ordinance.
With respect to mobile homes, § 9.07 provides in pertinent part:
A. All occupied mobile homes shall be located in mobile home parks under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Health, except as hereinafter provided.
B. The owner of five (5) acres of real estate may erect or move not more than one (1) mobile home upon such premises permanently, providing they meet the minimum floor space of seven hundred twenty (720) square feet.
E. Upon removal of the wheels from a mobile home and its placement upon a permanently constructed foundation, it shall not thereafter be deemed a mobile home, but a dwelling within the meaning of this Ordinance.
Defendants argue that § 9.07(B), when satisfied, exempts the use of a mobile home from all other use restrictions in Article V of the Zoning Ordinance. We agree.
The underlying principle of the proper construction of a zoning ordinance is to discover and give effect to the intent of the lawmaker. Bangor Twp v Spresny, 143 Mich App 177, 179; 371 NW2d 517 (1985). When interpreting the language of an ordinance to determine the extent of a restriction upon the use of the property, the language must be interpreted, where doubt exists, in favor of the property owner. Talcott v Midland, 150 Mich App 143, 147; 387 NW2d 845 (1985).
The use provisions in Articles Ill-Residential Districts, IV-Agricultural and Residential Districts, and V-Commercial Districts are identical and provide:
*615No land shall hereafter be used and no building or structure hereafter erected, altered or moved upon any premises and used for other than one or more of the following uses except as otherwise provided in this Ordinance. [Emphasis added.]
In contrast, the use provisions in Articles VI-Industrial Districts I-I, VH-Industrial Districts 1-2, and VIII-Recreational Districts do not include a reference to other portions of the ordinance. We believe this is dispositive.
The use provisions pertaining to residential, agricultural and residential, and commercial districts allow sections of Article xx, including § 9.07(B), to be applied to such districts where they are not inapposite on their face. Further, since the article is entitled "General Provisions” and most of its sections, by their language, apply to several or all of the districts, it appears that § 9.07(B) was intended to apply to commercial districts as well as to residential and agricultural and residential districts.
Ambiguous statutes are interpreted as a whole and are construed so as to give effect to each provision and to produce a harmonious and consistent result. Hagen v Dep’t of Ed, 154 Mich App 662, 670; 398 NW2d 485 (1986). This rule of statutory construction applies equally to zoning ordinances. Plaintiffs interpretation of the ordinance gives no meaning to the emphasized portion of the use provision in Article v. The trial court’s order of summary disposition in favor of plaintiff, which permanently enjoined defendants from the continued residential use of their mobile home located in a commercial district, is reversed.
In light of our ruling, we will not address defendant’s additional claims.
Reversed.
*616Shepherd, J., concurred.