Nickola v. Grand Blanc Township

232 N.W.2d 604, 394 Mich. 589, 1975 Mich. LEXIS 261
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
DecidedAugust 19, 1975
Docket55088, (Calendar No. 23)
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 232 N.W.2d 604 (Nickola v. Grand Blanc Township) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Nickola v. Grand Blanc Township, 232 N.W.2d 604, 394 Mich. 589, 1975 Mich. LEXIS 261 (Mich. 1975).

Opinions

Levin, J.

We affirm the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in our opinion in Sabo v Monroe Twp, ante, 394 Mich 531; 232 NW2d 584 (1975).

T. G. Kavanagh, C. J., and J. W. Fitzgerald, J., concurred with Levin, J.

Williams, J.

This case involves two zoning issues. The first issue is whether single-residence zoning in a particular area is valid against a property owner desiring to use his property for a mobile-home-park site. The second issue is whether there is an unlawful use of the zoning power where a suburban township has by zoning excluded mobile homes from all but 1/10 of 1% of the area of the township.

These two issues cause us to revisit Kropf v Sterling Heights, 391 Mich 139; 215 NW2d 179 (1974), and Brae Burn, Inc v Bloomfield Hills, 350 Mich 425; 86 NW2d 166 (1957), on the first issue; [596]*596and Gust v Canton Twp, 342 Mich 436; 70 NW2d 772 (1955), and Dequindre Development Co v Charter Twp of Warren, 359 Mich 634; 103 NW2d 600 (1960) on the second issue.

I. Facts

In 1962, plaintiffs Nickola purchased property in the northwest portion of Grand Blanc Township, expecting to use it as a mobile-home park. Although the land was zoned for single residences, plaintiffs, relying on the representation of a now deceased township supervisor that there would be no objection to that use,1 petitioned2 for rezoning one year later. After two years, the township advised plaintiffs it was denying the petition because the premises had not yet been served by sanitary sewers and the Michigan Highway Department had still to acquire land for the 1-475 expressway right-of-way.

In April, 1969, following completion of both land acquisition and sewer system, plaintiffs again petitioned for the zoning ordinance amendment and, after two public hearings, received a favorable recommendation from the Grand Blanc Zoning Board. The Co-Ordinating Zoning Committee of the Genesee County Board of Supervisors, which makes a technical review of all rezoning proposals, recommended to the township board:

[597]*597"Although this particular rezoning request would allow a higher density use than would the present zoning, the general character of the land would not be changed. (That is, the use would still be residential.)
"In a time when the price of land keeps rising, it becomes necessary to seek ways to bring the cost of housing within the range of a great many people who could not otherwise afford a house on even a 9,600 square foot lot.”

The Grand Blanc Township Board, however, at a meeting attended by a vocal and hostile audience, unanimously rejected the request, giving as reasons: unsatisfactory ingress and egress; that the area was predominantly single family in character and such a zoning change would violate the township’s land-use plan; that the proposed mobile-home park would be too close to a single-family subdivision and would adversely affect it; that plaintiffs’ petition was brought under the old zoning ordinance,3 and that the amendment was not good, practical zoning.

Recall petitions alleging hoard members were insensitive to citizens’ desire for controlled growth were circulated prior to that meeting, and numerous phone calls and newspaper articles reporting opposition to the rezoning came to the board members’ attention. No recall petition was ever filed, and board members testified the threats did not affect their votes.

The park-site plan called for 319 lots, with retention of the wooded area to serve as a buffer between the property and the single-family subdi[598]*598visions to the south. The 1-475 expressway abuts the property on the west, and Maple Avenue, now widened from two to four lanes, is directly north. Land to the east is presently vacant, but single-family developments are planned. Although that developer testified that creation of a mobile-home park on the disputed property might cause him to change his plans and build multiple dwellings or duplexes, he did not indicate that the value of his property would be reduced. Adjacent property to the northeast, in what was a different township, but now the City of Burton, is zoned multiple family.

Testimony as to the value of the property was contradictory, but apparently, plaintiffs paid approximately $350 an acre for their land, which, under present zoning, is worth about $1,500 an acre. Plaintiffs contend that the property would be worth around $2,500 per acre zoned for mobile-home parks, and $35,000 per acre if $3,500 per acre were spent to develop seven mobile-home sites per acre.

The Grand Blanc Township master land-use plan had not been accepted as of the date of rejection of plaintiffs’ petition, and the plan in fact was not published until April, 1970. The planners apparently completed the residential aspect (about 70% of the township) as of June 1969. They claimed the township had adopted the text, zoning text and zoning map, but they were uncertain about the date. The township itself apparently had not as yet accepted or adopted the residential text and map as proposed.4

[599]*599The planner claimed, however, that a large part of the plan was already implemented because much of the township was already residential. As of the time of trial, and as far as we can determine, as of the present time, the township had not amended its zoning ordinance, other than in response to petitions by property owners to conform with the proposed master plan.

As a result of one of these amendments, the property directly to the west of plaintiffs’, but separated from it by the expressway, was rezoned multiple-family from single-family residence by the township board, without the zoning board’s recommendation. The two properties were characterized by witnesses as almost identical as far as type of land, location and surrounding development were concerned, except for the expressway in between. Access to both properties would be by Maple Avenue.5

Under the proposed master plan, mobile-home parks would be placed in areas of transitional land use. These are largely in the southern portion of the township in about 300 acres planned to accommodate industrial and research parks.

At the present time, only two mobile-home parks are in the township, one of which, owned by plaintiffs, is slightly east of the subject property. Both parks are relatively old, having been built between 1953 and 1956. Until the present time, no [600]*600application for a new trailer park (approximately five have been requested) and enlargement of only one existing park has been approved since then.

The trial court found plaintiffs did not defeat the presumption of reasonableness of the township’s ordinance.

The trial court used the test we outlined in Brae Burn, Inc v Bloomfield Hills, 350 Mich 425; 86 NW2d 166 (1957). A zoning ordinance will be presumed valid, with the burden on the party attacking it to show it to be an arbitrary and unreasonable restriction upon the owner’s use of his property.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kyser v. Kasson Township
755 N.W.2d 190 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2008)
Newman Equities v. Meridian Charter Township
690 N.W.2d 466 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2004)
Landon Holdings, Inc v. Grattan Township
667 N.W.2d 93 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 2003)
Hecht v. Niles Township
434 N.W.2d 156 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1988)
Beaussaert v. Shelby Township
333 N.W.2d 22 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1982)
Ed Zaagman, Inc. v. City of Kentwood
277 N.W.2d 475 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1979)
Kirk v. Tyrone Township
247 N.W.2d 848 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1976)
Jamens v. Avon Township
246 N.W.2d 410 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1976)
Negri v. Slotkin
244 N.W.2d 98 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1976)
Werkhoven v. City of Grandville
238 N.W.2d 392 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1975)
Deltowne Housing Corp. v. City of Escanaba
237 N.W.2d 587 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1975)
Ettinger v. Avon Township
236 N.W.2d 129 (Michigan Court of Appeals, 1975)
Sabo v. Monroe Township
232 N.W.2d 584 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1975)
Nickola v. Grand Blanc Township
232 N.W.2d 604 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
232 N.W.2d 604, 394 Mich. 589, 1975 Mich. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nickola-v-grand-blanc-township-mich-1975.