.. 9}",

‘I‘HE EFFECT 05 SPOT ZONING ON THE MASTEN PLAN
A CASE STUQY: LAN$ING, INCHIGAN

Thesiit Io! the W aim. U. P.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
10mph Martin Prochaska

i958

 

MAR l O 2015

 

THE EFFECT OF SPOT ZONING ON THE NASTER PLAN

A CASE STUDY: LANSING, MICHIGAN

By
JOSEPH MARTIN moansxA

A THESIS
Submitted to the College of Business and Public Service
e£=uflchigan State university of Agriculture spd'
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER IN URBAN PLANNING

Department of urbsn Planning and Landscape Architecture

1958

KN

ABSTRACT

To the Planner, the Master Plan reflects one major achievement in
a continuum of analyses which are based on detailed studies designed to
examine the urban conuunity in its varied aspects. This plan is made with
the hope in mind .that it will describe a pattern of future development for
the best interests of the comunity and its residents. As such, the Master
Plan should be inviolate to the log-rolling antics of individuals with
selfish motives.

Spot zoning has been identified by the courts and authorities on
planning as a practice which violated the concepts of sound planning. The
indiscriminate re-zoning of parcels in direct contradiction to a valid
comprehensive plan has rendered many Master Plans obsolete. As a result,
those individuals who made investments in property under the assumption
the community would grow in accord with the Hester Plan suffered losses so
that a few might benefit, at least for a short time. In addition, those
governmental agencies who relied on the implementation of the official
plan in making their policy decisions encountered setbacks in terms of
money and time.

This study was designed to examine the manner in which the prac-
tice of spot zoning did affect a particular city's master plan.

In the historical course of zoning as it has related to the
planning function many adverse effects were presumed to exist when a spot
zone was introduced into an area. Included was the presumption that the
spot zone adversely affected the Master Plan. It was, therefore, deemed

ii

necessary to explore and identify the "presumed" effects of spot zoning.
This was accomplished through an examination of planning literature and
legal opinions rendered on the subject. To isolate “spot zonings" from
proper re-zonings it was necessary to develop an acceptable definition
for .the term. Legal opinions were again examined with the result that
anyuqzoning which was not in accord with the valid comprehensive plan was
considered as a "spot zoning.“

Between August 31, 1942, the date of the passage of the present
zoning ordinance of the City of Lansing, and January 29, 1957, the City
Council amended the Zoning Map 410 times. Three-hundred and fifty-one of
these amendments were found ”to be in that area covered by the Official-
City. Plan. Of this latter group, two-hundred and thirty-two were found to
have been made in contradiction to the Official City Plan."

The various characteristics of the 232 spot zonings. were examined.
Bach parcel so re-zoned was then exmnined in the light of its inediate
enviroment and the Official City Plan. An additional analysis was- made
of those areas in which an overt amount of spot zonings had; occurred dur-
ing the study period. A

In conjunction with this approach an examination was made of the
planning enviroment within which the spot zonings were made. Pour agan-fl
cies were identified as being legally related to zoning in the city.
These were:

1. The City Council.

2. The Planning Connittee of the City Council.

3. The City Planning Couission.

4. The technical staff of the City Planning Coanission.

Each of these four groups was examined to determine the. extent to which

iii.

decisions relating to spot zonings were effected by individual members.
This exploration uncovered.nore than a few instances wherein the act of
spot zoning was of direct economic benefit to members of these groups. On
six occasions, members of the City Council, acting at times in direct cp-
position to protests of the citizenry, were either owners oi lessees of
the property involved.

In an effort to determine causal relationships the distribution of
spot zones was compared with an appraisal of housing quality, the distri-
bution of non-conforming uses, the 1942 Thoroughfare Plan, the 1953 Ar-
terial Plan and the proposed 1958 Thoroughfare Plan. No correlation was
established in any of these comparisons.

Finally, the distribution of spot zones was examined to determine
those areas wherein an overt amount of spot zonings had occurred during
the study period. These areas were then viewed through a comparison of
the 19A2 Master Plan and the prOposed 1958 Master Plan. Two relationships
were found to exist. The first, and most logical, was that where the
practice of spot zoning‘within an area had so changed the character and
' quality of the area that the use originally planned for the neighborhood
was no longer desirable, the comprehensive plan was revised to accommodate
the use dictated by the spot zonings. The second relationship was that
of the creation of an undesirable heterogeneity of land uses within a
neighborhood without having given recognition to the changed character of
the area in the revision of the city plan.

Regardless of which relationship exists, the fact remains that
those areas in which spot zoning has been permitted are presently a
conglomerate of land uses which cannot harmoniously coexist side by side.
Neither neighbor will derive the maximum benefit from the use of his land.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study is based primarily on facts gathered from public records.
As such, these facts are available to anyone wishing to examine the records.
Frequently, however, the records are located only after hours and days of
time-consumfing effort and detection. With sufficient assistance from
individuals familiar with the information desired, this task can be reduced
to a minimum. Miss Millie Brown, Lansing City Clerk, and her capable aid,
Mrs. Theo Fulton performed this favor for the writer. Their patience and
understanding is hereby gratefully acknowledged. These same two virtues
in Professor Charles W. Barr as he Suided the development of this study are
also gratefully acknowledged.

The writer also acknowledges that assistance rendered by Mr.
Victor C. Leyrenw Director of the Lansing City Plan Board and his Senior
Planner, Mr. Rolf Campbell.

He also extends his deepest appreciation to those others who, in
their persefiering insistence. made completion of this study necessary.

The opinions expressed in this writing are those of the author

alone and, therefore, he accepts full responsibility for them.

vi

ABSTRACT . . . . . .
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . .
LIST OF PLATES . . .
INTRODUCTION . . . .

Chapter '
I. SPOT ZONING.

Presumed Effects

Definition

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

0 O O O O C O O O O O O O I O 0 O O 0 “‘1

II. LANSING, MICHIGAN, CASE STUDY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Planning and Zoning in Lansing

Activity

Personnel

Summary

The Nature of the Practice of Spot Zoning in Lansing
The Effects of Spot Zoning on the Master Plan

Summary

111. Coucwsrons mmmumuous- - - . - - . - . . . - . 63

BIBLImm C O O O O O

0 O O O Q 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 66

vii

PLATE

2.
3.
4.

11.
12.
13.
14.
15.

16.

LIST‘OF PLATES

1942 Master Plan . . . . . . .

1958 Master Plan . . . . . . .

Total Re-zonings, 1942-1957. .

Spot Zonings, 1942-1957. . . .

Spot Zone Characteristics by

Spot Zone Characteristics by

Re-zoning Activity by Year . . . . . . .

Spot Zoning Activity by wards and Tears.

Spot Zones and
Spot Zones and
Spot Zones and

Spot Zones and

~3pot Zones and

Spot Zones and
Spot Zones and

Detailed Study

Housing Quality, 1956 . .

Non-Conforming Uses , 1942

the 1942 Thoroughfare Plan.

the 1953 Arterial Plan. . . . . . .

the 1958 Proposed Thoroughfare Plan

th‘ 19‘2 m' tar Pl‘n. O O C O O O I

the 1958 PrOposed Master Plan , . .

Are‘a O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0

viii

District Classification

General Land Use Type .

Page
19
20

22

31
33

45
47
50
51

52

55
56

INTRODUCTION

Zoning is the chief tool to expedite the basic land use
pattern expressed in the Master Plan. Spot zoning has often been
implied as poor, undesirable city planning. However, little effort
has been made to specifically define or determine the extent or
nature of the effects of spot zoning upon city planning. It has also
been declared that spot zoning is in opposition to the princip1e~of
zoning in accordance with a fundamental pattern of land uses. If this
be true, it is therefore logical to assume that spot zoning is also in
opposition to the purposes of zoning. Bassett cites these purposes as
follows:

Such regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehen-
sive plan and designed to lessen congestion in the streets; to
secure safety from.fire, panic, and other danger; to promote
health and general welfare; to provide adequate light and air;
to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentra~
tion of papulation; to facilitate the adequate provision of .
transportatiog, water, sewerage, schools, parts and other public
requirements.

These same purposes have been embodied in the state zoning
enabling acts of most States of which the Michigan State Zoning Enabling
Act is typical. It sets forth the purposes of zoning as:

To lessen congestion on the public streets, to promote public
health, safety and general welfare, and shall be made with
reasonable consideration, among other things to the character

of the district, its peculiar suitability for particular uses,
the conservation of prOperty values and the general trend and

A

-"' 1Edward M. Bassett, Zoning, (New York; Russell Sage Founda-
tion, 1936), pp. 51-52.

2

character of building and population development.

To limit the overcrowding of land, to avoid undue congestion of
population, to facilitate adequate provision for a system of
transportation, sewage disposal, water, education, recreation
and other public requiremengs, and to promote public health,
safety and general welfare.

Affirmation of the belief of the wisdom and soundness of these
purposes has been voiced in many legal Opinions. The classic U. S.
Supreme Court Case Euclid vs. Ambler is, perhaps, the most often quoted.
Justice Sutherland, speaking for the court, expressed the purposes of
zoning by citing from City of Aurora v. Burns, 319 Ill 84, 93 the fol-
lowing:

The segregation of industries, commercial pursuits and dwellings
to particular districts in a city, when exercised reasonably,
may bear a rational relation to the health, morals, safety and
general welfare of the coalmrnity. The establishment of such
districts or zones may, secure quiet residence districts, ex-
pedite local transportation, and facilitate the suppression of
disorder, the extinguishment of fires and the enforcement of
traffic and sanitary regulations. The danger of fire and the
risk of contagion are often lessened by the exclusion of stores
and factories from areas devoted to residences, and, in conse-
quence, the safety and health of the community may be promoted.

Spot zoning is in opposition to the purposes of zoning. A study
of the effects of spot zoning, therefore, must be based on the degree of

deviation directly attributable to the illegal spot zoning from these

purposes.

 

2Michigan Act 207 ofthe Public Acts of 1921 as amended (Sections
125.582 and 125.583 of compiled laws).

3Village of Euclid et al. v. Ambler Realty Company, Vol. 272 US
365; 47 S Ct R 114; 71 L ed 303.

CHAPTER I
SPOT ZONING
Presumed Effects
The action of zoning small isolated islands within a given dis-
trict for a use not in conformity with surrounding properties has been
the subject of countless legal disputes. Rathkopf states:
Spot zoning is in direct opposition to the zoning purposes and
the spirit and intent of the enabling statutes or acts. It is
in direct conflict with a required comprehensive plan and the
intent and spirit of the statutes. An ordinance or amendment
thereof which singles out a lot or area and grants such property
privileges which are not granted or extended to other land in
-the vicinity in the same district adversely effects the proper
and orderly development of the district or vicinity where the
property is located and the community as a whole.4
Recognition of the possible adverse effects of spot zoning has
been granted by many courts in ruling against such re-zonings. In
Cassinari v. City of union City, 1 N. J. Super. 219, 63 A. 2d 891 (App.
Div. 1949), the re-zoning was invalidated on the grounds that the pro-
posed use "Was not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood."
It is significant to note that support for such a finding was cited in
the 1932 President's Conference on Home Building and lame Ownership
wherein the recommendation of the Conference SKELEEE spot zoning was

based on the contention that:

Every structure affects its neighbors. For instance, a public
filling station or garage constructed in a residential district

 

4Charles A. Rathkopf and Arden H. RathkOpf, Inn an of Planning
and Zoning (3rd ed.; New York: Clark Boardman Company Ltd., 1956) I,
369.

4
will have a tendency soon to break down the quality of that resi-
dential district, and that in turn will tend to depreciate the
quality of the life of the residents of the district. Physical
debilitation of structures inevitably produces detrimental spirit-
ual and health effects on those who live in the structures. Con-
sequently whatever would stabilize the residential neighbbrhood
for residential purposes would tend to keep up the healthfulness
and general decencies of life in that neighborhood and thereby
keep up the quality of the residential development; and whatever
would tend to stabilize a neighborhood for residential develop-
ment would attract residential uses leading to investment in
houses and other residential development.5

Stability within an area, be it a residential area a commercial
area or an industrial area owes its existence to the presence of the
proper quality quantity and distribution of economic and physical ele-
ments. In the case of the residential area a third element, the social
factor also affects stability. Each category of land use, by its
nature, possesses a separate set of requirements regarding these ele-
ments. The couercial area, in order to be successful, needs a market
from which to draw its customers and a location which makes shopping a
convenience for the customer, rather than an inconvenience or a hazard.
The residential area requires safe streets, adequate light and air,
schools, parks and playgrounds if it is to provide its occupants with
the amenities normally associated with home life.

The introduction of a land use that presmss a distinctly dif-
ferent set of requirements of these elasnts imposes upon the area sur-
rounding it a conflict in desired goals and therefore creates an ob-
stacle which Inst be surmounted if the goal of either type of land use

is to be realized. The overcoming of such an obstacle frequently

 

5 Prsi nt' Co rnc on Buildi and 1

Elming for Residnntial Dintricts, ed. John M. Cries and James Pord
(Washington, D. 0.; National Capital Press, Inc., 1932), p. 43.

S
imposes a penalty of such magnitude that its price is reflected in
the involuntary retraction of the initial goal to one less desirable
or, in some instances, the complete abandonment of the goal.

It is obvious, the presence of an industry, such as a drop
forge plant, in a residential area would impose upon that residential
area its own non-residential characteristics of heavy traffic, vibra-
tion, odor and smoke. In addition, such an industry would have vastly
different requirements for such urban services as water and waste dis-
posal. Successful operation of the industry would be hampered severCly
if these characteristics, however obnoxious and detrimental to the
residential area, were altered in any way, yet, permitting the passage
of the industry's heavy traffic through a residential area would not,
in any way accomplish the goal of the commmnity to provide maximum
safety on residential streets. The control of odor, smoke and noise
to meet the needs of the residential area would impose upon the par-
ticular factory costs which might not be necessary were their loca-
tion elsewhere. To provide urban services in the quality and quantity
necessary for the industry might necessitate the wasteful extensionsof
utility lines of a size not needed by the surrounding area. The cost
of the wasteful extension would have to be borne by either the indus-
try, the surrounding neighborhood or the community at large. In any
event, this additional cost would be attributable to the improper lo-
cation of the factory.

Such a comparison is not as obvious in the case of the land
uses with lesser contrasts in goals. The isolated grocery store or
filling station does not seem to clash with the surrounding residen-

tial area, yet, because there does exist a difference in their

6
attendant characteristics, one cannot but acknowledge that in time some
penalty would be inflicted upon the_adjacent residential area. In music,
discord, regardless of its magnitude or frequency, depreciates the qual-
ity of the passage. With repeated discordant notes an entire score can
be destroyed. Such is the case with the community. With repeated spot
zonings an entire neighborhood can be destroyed.

Recognition of this adverse influence upon a residential area was
given by the court in Linden Methodist-EpiscOpalian Church v. Linden, 113
N. J. L. 186, 173 A. 593, wherein the court opined:

An attempt to wrench a single lot from.its environment and give it
a new rating that disturbs the tenor of the neighborhood should
receive the close scrutiny of the court lest the zoning enactments,
constitutional and legislative, be diverted from their true objec-
tives.

The fact that such an action would be just generally detrimental
to the surrounding properties was sufficient evidence to warrant judicial
invalidation in many cases.6

The most significant effect of.spot zoning noted by the courts has
been that of subversion of the comprehensive plan. The courts have con-
tended that spot zoning, through the introduction of land uses not in

accord with those outlined in the comprehensive plan for the area in ques-

tion, would undermine, and eventually destroy, tNe intent of the community

 

6See: Hermann v. Incorporated Village of East Hills, 104, N. Y.
8. 2d 592.

Conlon v. Board of Public Works, Patterson, 11 N. J. 363, 94 A.
2d 660.

Leahy v. Inspector of Buildings of City of Bedfiord,308 Mass. 128,
31 N. E. 2d 436.

Jersey Triangle Corporation v. Board of Adjustment, 127 N. J. L.
194, 21 A. 2d 845.

Polk v. Axton, 306 Ky. 498, 208 S. W. 2d 280.

7

as evidenced by the comprehensive plan.7 This intention has been defined
as the guidnace and accomplisIIIent of "A. coordinated, adjusted, and bar-
monious development of the municipality which will, in accordance with
existing and future needs, best promote public health, safety morals,
order. convenience, prosperity, or the general welfare, as well as effi-
ciency and economy in the process of development."8 Preper zoning, "By
segregating residential, business, and industrial uses of property, . . .
permits economic street and utility development adapted to the prospec-
tive population and use of each particular area. In the same way it is
basic to the development of plans for locating municipal facilities -- for
example, schools and playgrounds -- and reduces the cost of police and
fire protection. It simplifies the task of the assessor in making fair
assessments, particularly on land values."9 To create "districts" of
such minute size that they are not, in reality, districts at all, would
negate these economies. In hebner v. Phila. Savings Pund Society, 127
Pa. Super. 28, 192 A. 139, the court said:

Neither that nor other zoning cases passed upon by our courts have

definitely fixed, however, the limitations that may be imposed upon

the area of land in district zoning, but there is a clear implica-

tion running through them that a single lot with a building there-

on is not a proper area to be classified as a district in itself.
Such restrictions result in discrimination in that it does not bear

 

7s“: Kuehue v. Town Council of East Hartford, 136 Conn. 452, 72
A. 2d. 474. I

Bartram et.a1. v. Zoning Omission of City of Bridgeport, 136
Conn. 89, 68 A. 2d 308.

Strain v. Mina, 123 Conn. 275, 193 A. 754.

Hardin v. Croft, 207 Ca. 115, 60 S. E. 2d 395.

Cassel v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Court of Appeals
of lbryland, May 11, 1950, 73 A. 2d 486.

32“; Planning Adminintration, International City lianagers'
Association Chicago, 1948, p. 290.

9212.. p. 221

8

alike on all persons living in the same territory and cannot be
sustained under the exercise of the police power.

If zoning is properly practiced, then those sizes of districts ordained by
the zoning ordinance are deemed as optimum.in achieving the afore-mentioned
economies.

Zoning is the most effective tool for implementing that segment of
the comprehensive plan which charts land uses and their distribution
throughout the community. In this land use plan, ”What is really being
planned is the pattern of activities of human beings who reside and work
in the city, but these human activities are influenced indirectly through
control of the structures and other physical facilities that the inhabi-
tents of the city use. The land use plan will determine within certain
limits where people will live in the city, where they will work, and where
they will shop."10

Spot zoning, because it counteracts the intent of the comunity in
deigning what the Optimum.district size should be, and because it creates
through legislative sanction an uneconomically sized unit, nullifies the
land use plan as it relates to the district in which the spot zoning
occurs. Neither the area re-zoned nor the surrounding area, therefore can
benefit from the economies inherent in a harmonious district. Obviously
the practice of spot zoning, by not implementing the comprehensive plan,
must impede and eventually subvert the comprehensive plan, and therefore,

if the plan is a.manifestation of the intention of the community, the spot

 

10Ibid., p. 9.

9
zoning also subverts the intention of the annuity.“
In Roman Catholic Archbishop, etc. of Oregon v. Baker, 140 Ore.
600, 15 P. 2d 391, the court identified still another possible effect of
spot zoning. The court stated:
If this single intrusion of business is sustained, it will be merely
the Opening wedge for other comercial interests. It will result in
a 'cousercial island' established in the center of one of the best
residential districts in the City of Portland.
Where relative stability exists within an area the appearance of a
land use which does not conform to the surrounding land uses presents a
situation wherein future intrusions of similar non-conforming land uses
are more easily accomplished. The comlete absence of non-conforming uses
within a neighborhood provides no base from which to form an appeal for
the creation of one. Once a spot zoning has been accoqlished its very
presence scales to found the arm-ant for additional non-conforming uses.
As each successive spot zone is legalized the difficulty of insuring

stability with the area becomes greater.12 The concensus of legal

 

lli’aradoxically, the issue has been coqounded by appellants in
many cases through the use of the argument that other land uses dissimilar
from the surrounding area, but similar to the proposed spot zone, present-
ly exist within the legal framework of the zoning ordinance as "Non-
conforming Uses." Scant attention has been paid by those employing this
argment, and incidentally, by many courts, to the very essence of recog-
nition of Non-conforming Uses; that the use was legally in existance at
the time of adoption of the zoning plan, but that such use was not in
conformity with the intentions of the comaunity as evidenced by the com-
prehensive plan. The community's recognition of the legal right of a Non-
conforming Use to continue does not, in any way, presume that such a use
is compatible with the caprehensive plan. Repeated re-zonings based on
this argusent tend to perpetuate the Non-conforming Use and give rise to
additional spot zonings. Practiced indiscriminately throughout a comin-
ity, spot zoning would undoubtedly subvert any comprehensive plan and,
what is more important, the proposed patterns, both public and private,
based on the assusption that the coslmanity would grow in accordance with
such a plan.

12This was substantiated in DeBlasiis v. Sartell, 143 Pa. Super.
485, 18 A. 2d 478.

 

 

 

10
thought is exemplified in the opinion handed down by the court in
Coulthard v. Board of Adjustment of City of Neligh, 130 Neb 543; 265 N. W.
530 (1936) wherein the court held that refusal to issue a permit to erect
a gas station where permission to build one on a lot across the street had
been granted was arbitrary and unreasonable.

This effect of spot zoning was specifically attacked in the clas-
sic Euclid v. Ambler, 272 US 365; 71 Law Ed 303; 47 S Ct 114 (1926). Mr.
Justice Sutherland, speaking for the court, wrote in part:

The coming of one apartment house is followed by others, inter-
fering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air
and monOpolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall
upon the smaller homes, and bringing as their necessary accompan-
iments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and
business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked auto-'
unbiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from
their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and
open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities
-- until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood
and its desirability as a place of detached residences are
utterly destroyed.

Definitions

Although the courts have consistently recognized the undesirable
effects of spot zoning, the principle of stare decisis has been based on
violations of legislative or constitutional privilege, rather than on what
spot zoning does to a community's structure. Generally speaking, this is
probably true in the early jurisprudential history of most new legisla-
tion. A proper and just verdict is more readily assured through the cita-
tion of a violation of legislative or constitutional privilege than it
would be were the case based on those fundamental effects which underlie
the reasons for the legislation. However, as cases test the legality of

the law, this reliance on privilege violation for successful prosecution

or defense of the new act gives way to reliance on the identification of

11
the presence or expected presence of those effects which caused the law
to be enacted. Such has been the case in the courts' treatment of spot
zoning.

In the early days of zoning in the united States the courts locked
to violations of legislative and constitutional privilege as evidence of
spot zoning. One of the first violations cited was that which singled
out a small parcel of land for a land use classification totally different
from.that of the surrounding prOperties where such was not pursuant to a
valid and reasonable comprehensive plan.13 The courts held that such an
act was a contradiction of the definition of zoning. Bassett states:

Zoning is the regulation by districts under the police power of the
the height, bulk, and use of buildings, the use of land, and the
density of population. Most state enabling acts for zoning

require that the regulations shall be uniform.for buildings of

the same class throughout the district.1

The Michigan State Zoning Enabling Act also provides that: "Such regula-

.15

tions shall be uniform.. . . throughout the district. Inherent in both

Bassett's definition and the provision in the Michigan State Zoning
Enabling Act is the requirement that regulations shall be uniform.through-

out each district. The courts have maintained that where an act violated

13See: Rodgers v. Village of Tarrytown, 302 N. Y. 115, 96 N. 8.
2d 731. - K

Kuehne v. Town Council of East Hartford, 136 Conn. 452, 72 A. 2d
474.

Zuckerman v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 144 Conn. 160, 129 A. 2d 473.

Cassel v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 73 A. 2d 486.

County Commissioners of Anne Arundel County v. Nerd, 186 Md. 330,
46 A. 2d 684, 146 A. L. R. 827.

Chayt v. Maryland Jockey Club, 179 Md. 390, 18 A. 2d 856.

Soule v. Town of Perinton, 152 N. Y. 8. 2d 734.

14Bassett, p. 45.

15Michigan Act 207 of the Public Acts of 1921 as amended (Section
125.582 of compiled laws.)

12

this requirement there was not a proper exercise of the police power and
therefore the zoning could not be upheld. This singling out of a small
parcel gave rise to the term "spot zoning". The courts have also generally
held that when such action was taken or contemplated, it was usually for
the benefit of the owner and/or to the detriment of the surrounding area.16
4 Such action is an arbitrary exercise of the police power and therefore
invalid." This rationale has been expanded recently to include not only
amenchents to the zoning plan, but also the zoning plan itself. The crea-
tion of a district within the zoning plan which, in fact, singles out a
small parcel for a use classification totally different from that of the
surrounding properties for the benefit of the owner and to the detriment of
the other owners, does not obviate the reasoning underlying the definition
granted to the spot zone by the courts. In Vernon Park Realty, Inc. v. 4
City of Mount Vernon, 125 N. Y. Supp. 2d 112 (App. Div., Oct. 19, 1953) the
court held that a "parking district" which permitted only this one use was
an arbitrary use of the police power and an unconstitutional deprivation
of property rights. That the cowrehensive city plan indicated these "park-
ing districts" in its land use plan did not validate the spot zone, but,
instead, served to raise a question regarding the integrity of the land use
plan. '

It'can sumaarily be stated that the courts have generally held to
the following facts before sustaining a charge of spot zoning:

l. A small parcel of land is singled out;

 

mSee: witmore v. Bldg. Inspector of Falmouth, 313 Mass. 248, 46
HMS. 2d 1016.

Leahy v. Inspector of Buildings of City of New Bedford, 308 Mass.
128, -N. B. 2d 436.

17See: City of Sherman, Texas, v. Sims, 183 S. N. 2d 415.

13

2. The proposed use classification is totally different from.that

of the surrounding area;

3. The proposed change is for the benefit of the owner of such

property;

4. The preposed change will be detrimental to the owners of sur-

rounding preperties;

5. The preposed change is not in accord with a reasonable and

valid comprehensive plan.

To appreciate the concept of spot zoning as it has been identified
by the courts, it is, perhaps, appropriate to examine the converse side.
If a change of zone is reasonable, and is in accord with the comprehensive
plan, or may be justified as contributing to the public safety, health, or

18 What

general welfare of the community, than it is not spot zoning.
seems to have been implied here is that of the five facts mentioned pre-
viously, the courts, in general, rely on just one point; the relationship
of the area in question to a valid and reasonable comprehensive plan.

That a small parcel of land has been singled out is not sufficient evi-
dence to warrant the tenm "spot zone" for the demand for some land uses
is such that a community may need but a small area devoted to that use. A
"utility district" is an example of this type of land use. The necessity

for a scattered distribution of small areas devoted to public utilities is

evident, yet, because a small parcel of land has been singled out for such

 

18Such was the opinion of the various courts in:

Hills v. Zoning Commission of Newington, 139 Conn. 603, 96 A. 2d
212.

Hedin v. Prince Georges County, 120 A. 2d 663.

Hendlin v. Fairmount Construction Co., 8 N. J. Super. 310, 72 A.
2d 541.

14
a purpose does not automatically earmark such a district as a spot zone.
By the same token, such a land use could be totally different from the sur-

rounding area and still not be classified as a "spot zone”.la

In Stiger v.
Village of Hewlett Bay Park, 283 App. Div. 827, 129 N. Y. 8. 2d 38, the
court said it was within the power of the village to specifically exempt
from the scope of the ordinance, structures essential to the performance of
mandatory duties for the safety of all its inhabitants.

The issues of benefit and detriment are relative. The perfect
ordinance which describes boundaries that grant benefits to each and every
property owner has not been created. The comprehensive plan, if valid and
reasonable, purports to give the greatest benefit. It follows that sub-
versive alteration of the plan would give something less.

It seems, therefore, that of the five facts looked for by the courts,
four are ancillary characteristics which are attributable to the fifth: the
lack of accord with a reasonable and valid comprehensive plan. If there is
agreement with the comprehensive plan, then the presence of any or all of
the other four facts does not automatically label the proposed land use as
a "spot zone".

For the purposes of this study, the terms "spot zone” and "spot

zoning" shall refer to any re-zoning which has been accomplished but is not

in accord with the legally adapted comprehensive plan.

A A A;

45‘ A w —' w wv—w vvw

l'9See: Asher v. Hutchinson Water, Light and Powar Co., 66 Ken.
496, 71 P. 813, 61 L. R. A. 52.
State ex. rel. Christopher v.'Matthews, 240 S. w. 2d 934.
Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp. v. Borough of Miltown, 93 f.
Su . 287.
pp Long Island Lighting Company v. Griffin, 272 App. Div. 551, 74 N.
Y. S. 2d 348.

CHAPTER II
LANSING, MICHIGAN, CASE STUDY

Planning and Zoning in Lansing

The purpose of this chapter is to describe the planning environment

within which amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Lansing have
been made. The determination of the degree to which the principles of

sound planning have been applied in re-zoning cases is fundamental to an

analysis of the effects of spot zoning upon the master plan for without any

plan whatsoever, no base would be available against which poor planning
practices could be measured.

The existence of a comprehensive city plan and a planning commis-
sion serves to indicate that the community has a desire to guide its
growth in an orderly fashion. The manner in which this guidance is exer-
cised is the responsibility of the individuals involved in not only the
creation of the comprehensive city plan, but also those involved in its
implementation. As the legislative body of the municipal government, the
City Council has the responsibility to legally implement the city plan.
To effectuate its considerations of matters pertaining to planning, the
City Council has created the Comittee on Planning, a standing comittee,
to appraise the considerations and recommendations of the City Plan Com-
mission.

The effectiveness of any organization can be reduced if the turn-
over of the personnel involved is high. This maxim can also be applied to
planning. An overt turnover of personnel can seriously hamper the

15

l6

continuity of planning thought and action. If a city plan is subjected to
the interpretations of individuals with diverse motivations, the continuity
of planning thought and action is destroyed. This continuity is the factor
which transforms the plan into reality. A rapid and radical yearly turn-
over in personnel would prevent this continuity. If there were any carry-
over, it would undoubtedly be minimal, and then only coincidental.

The converse side of the issue would be represented by the con~
certed efforts of policy making individuals and technicians over a long
period of time. Carry-over of planning thought and action, in this case,

would not be accidental and minimal, but deliberate and maximal.

Activity

The first evidence of the assumptioniof planning as a function of
city government in Lansing was on June 14, 1920, when the City Council con-
tracted with a private planning consultant for the preparation of a “com-
prehensive city plan.“ In September of that fear the council authorized
the Mayor to appoint a temporary City Plan Commission to work with the con-
sultant in preparing the master plan.20

This plan, including a major street plan, recreation plan, transit
plan, transportation plan, a section on "Lansing's Appearance," and a
zoning proposal, was adopted by the Plan Commission in October, 1921. The
zoning proposal formed the base for the first zoning ordinance which was

21

adopted in 1927. The Plan Commission, however, was permitted to expire,

20Harland Bartholomew, city Planning Engineer, The Lansing Plan, A
Report to the City Plan Commission (Lansing: City Plan Commission, 1921).

“any of Lansing,. Zenigg Orgimce '(1927).

17
and consequently, planning was not given permanent, continuing status by
the council.

Without a Plan Commission to act in behalf of the plan, the city
grew in a manner seldom in accord with the plan. Few city departments em-
ployed the plan as a guide in their activities. The notable exception, the
Parks and Cemeteries Board, did more to promote the plan than did all other
departments combined. The land acquisition policy of this Board served to
guide the city's growth more than did any other policy adopted by any other
department.

In 1935, the City Council recognized the necessity for a revision
of the original city plan and on June 3rd of that year authorized the Mayor
to appoint a City Plan Commission for that purpose. This commission again
obtained the services of the same.consultant who prepared the 1921 plan.
The revised plan was presented to the City Plan Commission in Nevember,
1937. Each broader in scope than the 1921 plan, this plan included a popu-
lation study, land use plan and zoning proposal, and plans for major streets,
transportation, transit, recreation, civic center development, and state
capitol development.

Since the City Plan Commission had not been created under the pro-
‘visions of Michigan planning enabling legislation, it could not officially
«adopt the plan, however, the commission did publish the plan in 1938 with
‘the recommendation that it be adhered to as closely as possible. Both the
commission and the consultant strongly urged formation of a city plan com-

mission under the Municipal Planning Comission Act.22

22Michigan, Eggpiled Laws (1948), secs. 125.31-125.45.

18

On November 12, 1940, the City Council created a City Plan Commis-
sion pursuant to state enabling legislation. This commission adopted an
"Official City Plan“ on December 29, 1942. The plan as adopted consisted
of the material previously prepared by the consultant, with amendments to
the major street plan and the recreation, parks, and school plan.

Plate 1 is a graphic reconstruction of the major elements of this
plan, which has been in effect from 1942 to the present and which has
served as a guide to the Plan Commission in making recommendations to the
City Council and other public agencies concerning prOperty acquisition,
major streets, river front development, fire protection, off street parking,
public buildings, alleys, and amendments to the zoning ordinance and map.23
This master plan forms the framework within which the city has developed
since 1942 and presumably all elements of the community have been affected
in some way by this plan.

At this writing the City Plan Comission is in the final stages of
a complete revision of the 1942 plan. Its boundaries have been extended to
include all of the urbanized area surrounding the City of Lansing. Plate 2‘
is a graphic portrayal of the major elements of this revision pertaining to
the area under study. Public hearings relative to the adoption of this
plan are tentatively scheduled for the latter part of 1958. A zoning pro-
‘posal will be set forth during the following year.

Uhtil the passage of a new zoning ordinance, the ordinance passed
on August 31, 1942 will undoubtedly remain in effect. During the period

with which this writing is concerned, August 31, 1942 to January 28, 1957,

23Lansing City Plan Commission, Plannigg Lansing -- PastI PresentI
iFuture (Lansing: City Plan Commission, 1951).

 

19

1942 RIAS'I‘ER PLAN

   
 
  
   
    
     
     
     
 
  

CITY OF LANSING . IICHICAI
C171 '1... COIIIIIIOI
"' H H .-
.’\~,f.

Jesus a vsocuuu '9”

-u—a-as 1‘.

r
l

    

LAND USES:
— MAJOR status
.,... RAILsoaas
IULHPLE ovatfiuos
countacut
INDUSTRIAL I
RECREATION v

 

sonoo
STATE oAPITo‘

souace: unsmo ITY PLAN
\\f— commISSI tr “THE
OFFICIAL ITY PLAN'
(\ women EC 29, I942

 

 

- ;\sA__,i_..,___

PLATE "UNDER 1

20

1958 RIAS'I‘ER PLAN

CIYY OP LANSING . MICHIGAN

 
  
  
   
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  

(IVY OLA. (OI- SIIDI
W

LAND U SE S?
_ NAJOR STREETS

. - RAILROADS
RESIDENTIAL
- COMMERCIAL

I INDUSTRIAL

..- RECREATION

E3] SCHOOLS
STATE CAPITOL

SOURCE

LANSING CITY PLAN
BOARD PROPOSED
COMPREHEN$VE PLAN
AUGUST LI958

D‘A't NvMBf“ 2

21
fifty-four amendments to the ordinance text and 410 mmp amendments were
made by the City Council. Plate 3 shows the location of the 410 map amend-

ments.

Personnel

Since the adaption of the "Official City Plan” in 1942 the City
Plan Commission has been composed of the following:

1. The Mayor

2. A Councilman

3. A City Official

4. A real estate broker

5. A representative of organized labor

6. A.woman

7. A representative Of downtown business

8. A representative of the Junior Chamber of Commerce

9. A representative from small business
This composition, although not legally founded, has been steadily maintained
in the appoinuments to the commission with only two exceptions. Between
1942 and 1957 two individuals were appointed to the commission from areas
not listed above. Aside from these two exceptions, all other appointees
have been from the areas listed.

In the sixteen years covered by this study, twenty-three people have
served on the City Plan Commission. The nineteen who served their entire
terms during this period had an average tenure of 7.3 years. Two members,
the representative of labor and the women's representative served on the
commission during the entire period. Eight members served more than seven

‘Years. The first chairman of the commission, a former insurance agent and

22

BEZONINGS= 1942-1957

  

'_‘"—' CITY or LANSIIIC . IICNIOAN
CIT' PLAI COIIIIIIOI

m

®

 

- LOITTION' OI A

.—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O

= LANSING CLERK

 

ma- mas soul-ell assess- one

PLAT! NUNIIN 3

23
the commission's representative fromlthe Junior Chamber of Commerce, served
as chairman from 1941 to 1948, at which time he was appointed full time
director of the technical staff, a position he still holds. The first full
time director of the staff served as a member of the commission for four
years prior to his appointment as director. Previously, he had been a civil
engineer with a local automotive finm.

Turnover in the composition of the City Plan Commission has been
slight. Aside from the representatives from the City Council, the average
length of service for a commission member has been slightly under eight
years.

The Committee on Planning is a standing committee of the City
Council and is appointed by the Mayor. Its major function is to study the
recommendations of the City Plan Commission and render Opinions to the City
Council on those recommendations. One member of this committee serves on '
the City Plan Commission as an ex officio member. Since its creation in
1943 seventeen different councilmen have served on the Committee on Plan-
ning. The average tenure for these seventeen councilmen has been four and
one-half years. Two councilmen served in excess of six years in this
capacity.

The City Council, as the legislative body of the city, is the only
agency of the municipal government authorized to change or amend the zoning
ordinance. The council, by its own motion or by petition, after a public
hearing of which at least fifteen days notice has been given in an Official
newspaper, may amend, supplement or change, modify or repeal the boundaries
or regulations of the zoning ordinance after summitting such a proposed
action to the City Plan Commission for its recommendations and report. "In

addition to the newspaper notice, the Building Inspector, upon notification

24
by the City Clerk, shall place upon the involved properties in a prominent
position a printed sign bearing the words 're-zoning pending' from.. . . . .
classification to . . . . . classification and the date of hearing in large
letters which sign shall be posted fifteen days before the date of the hear-
ing. The sign is to be at least 18" x 24" in size. In case, however, that
the City Plan Commission disapproves the change, or a protest against such '
changes duly signed and acknowledged by the owners of twenty per cent or
more of the frontage proposed to be altered, or by the owners of twenty per
cent or more of the frontage immediately in the rear thereof, or by the
owners of twenty per cent of the frontage within three hundred feet and on
the same side Of the street as the frontage proposed to be altered, such
amendment shall not be passed except by the three-fourths vote of all member
of the City Council."24

Between 1942 and 1957 fifty-seven people served on the City Council.
The average tenure of those who were elected after 1942 is over seven years.
One councihman served for fifteen years during the period prior to this
1942 to 1957 era. His total length of service is twenty-six years. Five
councihmen served eleven years or more during this sixteen year period. Of
the agencies involved in planning and zoning in Lansing the City Council
possesses the longest average tenure, the highest median of tenure, and has
present members with the longest records of service.

The technical staff of the City Plan Commission is employed "to
gather and analyze all necessary information of all the elements, such as
Land Uses, Streets, Schools, Recreation Areas, Public buildings, Public
utilities, etc., which.make up a City desirable to live, work and play in

A A

24City of Lansing, Zoning Ordinangg (1942), pp. 38-39.

25

at the present time and in the future.
The analysis of such information provides the basis for the Commission's
recommendations for the development of the area including, among other " ~
things, the general location and character Of streets, bridges, parkways and
Open spaces, public buildings and other :public properties, as well as a
zoning plan for the control of the height, area, bulk, location and use of
buildings on premises. Their recomendations must include adequate pro-
vision for traffic, the promotion of safety from fire and other dangers,
adequate provision for light and air, promotion of the healthful and con-
venient distribution of population, wise and efficient expenditure of public
funds, and the adequate provision of public utilities and other public
requirements."25 A

Lansing has had a technical planning staff since 1945. The staff
has ranged in size from the initial one man to a staff of seven, including
the Director, three technical assistants, one draftsman and two clerical
employees. The first director, formerly a civil engineer and member of the
City Plan Commission, was appointed in 1945. Four years later he was re-
placed by the man who presently holds the position. The present director
was formerly in the insurance business and also served as Chairman of the
City Plan Commission for eight years. In 1948 a landscape architect was
added to the staff. The first employee with formal training in planning
was hired in 1953. This man presently holds the position Of Senior Planner.
His service on the staff was interrupted in 1954 for two years while he

served in the United States Army.

 

25City of Lansing, Annual Repgrg (1955), p. 17.

26
In the twelve years the staff has been in Operation turnover in
the upper echelon positions has been minor. Only three individuals have
been employed in supervisory capacities since the staff was started. Of
these three, two are still in the employ of the City Plan Comission. One,
the present Director, has been intimately involved with planning in Lansing
since before the adoption of the Official City Plan, either as Chairman of

the City Plan Comission or Director of the technical staff.

Summary

Four inter-related groups are closely involved in planning and
zoning in the City of Lansing. The technical staff of the City Plan Com-
mission collects data for analysis on all matters relating to planning.
The Director of the staff serves as secretary to the City Plan Conmission
and presents agenda items to that body. The City Plan Comission makes
recounendations to the City Council based on the information gathered and
analyzed by the technical staff. These recomndations are studied by the
Comittee on Planning, a standing comittee of the City Council. One mem-
ber of the standing conmittee serves on the City Plan Comission as an ex
officio master. The Opinions of this standing cosmittee on the recomen-
dations of the City Plan Connission are employed by the City Council in
acting upon the issues involved.

Most of the individuals in these four groups have served many years
in positions directly related to the implementation of the officially
adopted master plan. A few key persons have occupied policy making posi-
tions since before the adoption of the plan. Many were instrumental in I
the creation of the plan itself. Personnel turnover in each of the four
agencies has been so minor that the excuse that personnel changeover has

reduced the effectiveness .of planning in Lansing is not available. In

27

brief, every possible chance related to personnel for carrying Out the

Official City Plan has been present.

The Nature of the Practice of Spot Zoning in Lansing

Between August 31, 1942, the date of the passage of the present

zoning ordinance of the City of Lansing, and January 29, 1957, the City

Council amended the zoning map 410 times. The records pertaining to each

of these 410 amendments were examined for the following information:

1.
2.
3.

4.

S.

11.

12.

Legal description of the properties involved.

The zone classification of the property prior to its re-zoning.
The zone classification of the property after its re-zoning.
The planned use of the property involved as indicated by the
Official City Plan.

The land use surrounding the property re-zoned.

The qualifications attached to the re-zoning by the City
Council.

The initiator of the petition or recommendation for the re-
zoning.

The date of the petition or recommendation.

The date of the public hearing.

Protests registered at the public hearing.

The voting record of the City Council on the re-zoning.

The date of the re-zoning.

Of the 410 amendments, 351 were found to be in that area covered

by the Official City Plan. Fifty-nine amendments were made in that por-

tion of the Everett School District area not covered by the plan. The

Everett School District was annexed to the city in 1951 and by ordinance

28
was automatically classified as ”A" Che-family Residential.26 Two-hundred
and thirty-two of the 410 amendments for areas included in the Official
City Plan were found to be not in accord with the Plan and as such were
labeled as "spot zones." Plate 4 indicates the location of these 232
zones.

Further analysis of the re-zonings showed that of the 232 spot
zones, 168 parcels classified as residential in the Official City Plan
were re-zoned to a commercial classification. An additional 26 parcels
lying within residential districts in the Official City Plan were re-zoned
to an industrial classification. Plate 5 shows the prior zoning district
classification of all spot zonings. The prevalence of commercial spot
zoning is illustrated in Plate 6, "Spot Zone Characteristics by General
Land use Type." Implicit in this analysis is the conclusion that on 194
occasions the City Council Of the City of Lansing has legally sanctioned
the use of a parcel of property which, in a residential district, would
"have a tendency soon to break down the quality of that district . . . and
depreciate the quality of the life of the residents of the district."27

This conclusion could be countered with the argument that as the
Official City Plan ages, the evidence and conditions which prompted the
considerations leading to its design become less significant. The passage
of tflme, understandably, could bring about unforeseen conditions which
would alter the master plan. The unforeseen condition could produce a

situation wherein a re-zoning, although not in accord with the Official

 

26City of Lansing, Zoning Ordinance, (1942).

27SuCh.must be the conclusion if the findings of the 1932 Presi-
dent's Conference on Home Building and Home Ownership are accepted.
Supra, Chapter 1, p. 4.

29

SPOT ZONINGS= 1942-1957

    
    
    
  
 

._ _.._ _m“;

,... L
\\

E ‘\_
I “1“” ‘

CITY 0' LANCINC . IICNICAN

 

\

CI'V 'LAI COIIICIION

  

\‘

‘e m

®

 

aaaaaaa

 

 

    
    
 

A
TExT
A 'sPOT zOIIt'

0

= LANSINC

  

CLERK

'LATI III-III: 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we

, 3O
DISTRICT CLAssmCATION AFTER REIONIIIe

 

CLASSIFICATIN PRIOR TO REZONINC

DISTRICT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R r SIDsNTIAL coaerCIAL INDUSTRIAL
A-A A s c D-N D D-I r r J a s-z N I
A-A
A a 4 s a ID ID I I 4 s
s It s 4 s as :7 s I I0
J
‘
; C I: T 2 II Is I: s T
U
2
.I
H
e D—N I z z I
D I s s 1 z s
D-I
E I
r s s I I a
J
(
3 J z s
U
I
a
0
° e
0-:
J
‘
a N
.-
C
a
O
I
- I

 

SPOT ZONE CHARACTERISTICS BY DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION

SOURCE I

LANSING CITY CLERK

PLATE NUNsER:5

 

 

USE CLASSIFICATION PRIOR TO REZONING

 

USE CLASSIFICATION AFTER REZONING

SPOT ZONE CHARACTERISTICS BY GENERAL LAND USE

SOURCE LANSING CITY CLERK

PLATE NUNSERI 6

32
City Plan, would be in accord with sound planning principles. As each
successive year passed beyond the adoption of the city plan, these
instances would increase proportionately. This, however, has not been
the case in Lansing. More spot zonings occurred during the first half
of the study period, a period which.immediately followed the adoption of
the city plan, than in the last half of the study period, eight or more
years nfnnn,the adoption of the city plan. Plate 7 illustrates the com-
plete lack of correlation between the time of adoption of the plan and
spot zoning activity.

Plate 8, "Spot Zoning Activity by wards and Years," did not in-
dicate any relationship between the incidence of spot zoning activity and
the age of the Official City Plan. If any conclusion was to be drawn, it
was that in some wards there existed a high correlation between spot zon-
ing activity and the duly elected renresentative of that ward on the City
Council. In one instance the degree of spot zoning activity in the ward
could be directly related to the presence of one councilman on the coun-
cil. During his first six years in office the councilman also served on
the Committee on Planning and for five of those six years on the City Plan
Commission. In this period spot zoning activity in his ward was abnor-
mally high. His absence from.the council for two years showed up in a
decline in spot zoning activity in his ward. With his re-election, spot
zoning activity again rose to an abnormal high.

Analysis showed this as not an uncommon correlation. Other wards
presented the same relationship to a slightly lesser degree. The relation-
ship was more in evidence when the Ward was represented by a councilman
who, during his term in office, also served on both the City Plan Comp

mission and the Comittee on Planning concurrently.

OE REZONINSS

NUNSER

SO

33

 

SO

40

30

N
O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I943 I944 IS4S IS4S

REZONING

 

IS47
Y

OTAI. RizOIIINss

 

 

 

 

TOTAIL flPOT ZOJINCS

 

 

I04. IS4S
E A R

ACTIVITY

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BY YEAR

 

 

ISSC ISO?

SOURCE: LANSING CITY CLERK

Plate Number :

7

 

 

 

SPOT ZONINSS IY

OF

NUNOER

34

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is4s Is44 Is4s I04: I04: I04: Inns Isso IssI Ian was Is“ Isss Inc Is"
I z s 4 5 I4 5 I I o s 7 z s o
o O I z o O I I I I o O z 4 o
a O s I O s s z z z D 4 4 7 z
I o o I D ID a s s o O s I s o
o o I o I I s I I O I o I I o
o I s T 4 T a s T I I s 2 IO O
I o o I O I I o I z I I r I O
O I I O I O o O a O O I o o 0
SPOT ZONING ACTIVITY BY WARD AND YEAR

SOURCE'. LANSING CITY CLERK

PLATE NUIADER: 8

 

35

No correlation could be established to support the assumption that
the longer a councilman holds office the more familiar he becomes with
planning and the closer he adheres to the Official City Plan. Those
Wards represented by relatively few councilmen during the study period
showed approximately the suns pattern of spot zoning activity as those
wards with a high turnover of councilmen.

The only conclusion available is that responsibility for spot
zoning activity in the City Council is not one that can be attributed to
the City Council as a body, but rather attributable to the recognition
given to desires of individual council members. In other words the in-
dividual councilman spoke for his Ward, and other concurred.

On six occasions, council action in spot zoning has resulted in
an economic gain to individual members of the council. On four of these
occasions, the council re-soned property in the face of great protests
from adjoining property mere. The City Plan Cosmission race-sanded in
favor of re-zoning in four of the six cases. The facts of each of the

six cases are as follows:

nt r l 8 an 11 l A n

On November 6, 1944, newly elected MW
petitioned the City Council for a change in zoning classification for
property owned by him at the above addresses from "A" One-family Resi-
dential to "D" Apartment. The Official City Plan classified the area in
which these parcels were located as "Residential" which did not include
multiple dwellings. Only one non-conforming use existed in the block
within which the two addresses were located. All other land uses con-
formed to the Official City Plan. The City Plan Cousission reconnended

the change be granted. NO protests were registered either in writing

36
or at the February 26, 1945, public hearing. On the same date, the City

Council unanimously passed the amendment.

Nan Amendment NUmber 114 {312-316 Shennrd and 317 Allen)
On March 15, 1948, recently re-elected Councilman Fred L. Kirchnr

petitioned the City Council for a change in zoning classification for
property owned by him.at the above addresses from "C" Two-family Residen-
tial to ”J" Parking. The Official City Plan classified the parcels in
question as "Residential." NO non-conforming uses existed in the block
within which were located the parcels re-zoned, and only two non-confonming
uses existed within a three block radius surrounding the property. All
other land uses conformed to the Official City Plan. Mr. Kircher stated
as the reason for the appeal that his commercial property, which this
property adjoined, needed additional parking space. Directly across the
street from Mr, Kircher's property was an elementary school which was con-
structed many years prior to the construction of stores on Mr. Kircher's
property. The City Plan Commission recommended the change be granted. No
protests, either in writing or at the public hearing on June 1, 1948, were
registered, and on the same date, the City Council unanimously passed the

amendment.

Iflan Amendment Number 137 {Lots 34, 35 and 36 Elite Subdivision -- N, W,

nnnnnr of Nest and Main).

On June 26, 1948, W. W. Natson, owner of the above prOperty, peti-
tioned the City Council for a change in zoning classification from "B"
Residential to “F" Commercial. The reason given by Mr. Wetson for the
change was: "Because it is now in non-conforming zoning, so it can be

zoned correctly for future building." The non-conforming use involved was

37
a drug store leased to Councihman Gaylord W'ortz= No other non-conforming
use existed in the block and only one other noneconforming use existed
within a two block radius of the prOperty. The Official City Plan classi-
fied the neighborhood within which the property was located as "Residen-
tial". The City Plan Comission reconnended the change be granted. On
July 26, 1948, at the public hearing, forty-two residents of the neigh-
borhood involved protested the re-zoning. A letter signed by them.set
forth the reasons for their protest against the proposed re-zoning. In
summary, their protest was based on the belief that the extension of a
commercial land use into a residential district represented an encroach-
‘ment injurious to both the character of the neighborhood and the value of
residential property. No action was taken on the proposed change on this
date. By council vote, the question was tabled for future discussion.
The residents who protested the change were assured by their other Ward
representative, Qnuncilman J. K. Reed, that should the council at some
date in the future reconsider the matter, the persons who had an interest
in the re-zoning, especially those who had protested, would be notified
in writing. On NOvember 1, 1948, without notice, the City Council voted
unanimously to re-zone the property. A letter from twenty-five of the
residents of the adjoining area, submitted to the City Council on Novem-
ber 15, 1948, informed the council of the promise of Councilman Reed and
reiterated the feelings of the neighborhood in regard to the re-zoning.
Emphasis was again placed on the loss in property values resulting from
the encroachment of a commercial land use in a residential district. The
letter was referred to the Committee on Planning which further referred
it to the City Attorney, Mr. Van Note. On NOvember 29, 1948, the Commit-

tee on Planning reported: Qflr. Van Note, City Attorney, reports this

38
re-zoning has been completed according to law and no further changes can
be made." By stating that "no further changes can.be made" Mr. Van NOte
acted contrary to the Michigan State Zoning Enabling Act which says:
Any party aggrieved by an order, determination or decision of any
officer, agency, board, commission, board of appeals, or the legis-
lative body of any city or village, made pursuant to the provisions
of Section 3a of this act may obtain a review thereof both on the

facts and the law, in the circuit court for the count wherein the
property involved or some part thereof, is situated.

Man Amenhent Number 188 £316 Shenard and 317 Allen)

On February 27, 1950, Councilman Fred L, Kircher petitioned the
City Council to re-zone the above mentioned property from.its "J" Parking

classification to "F“ Commercial. Hr. Kircher's petition cited as reason

 

for the appeal: "For extension of commercial building.“ On March 15,
1948, Mr. Kircher's appeal for a change in zoning from ”C" Residential

to "J" Parking for the same property was based on a need for additional
parking space for his existing commercial building. The Official City
Plan still classified the area as "Residential" and no non-conforming
uses had appeared to change the tenor of the neighborhood. The City Plan
Commission again recommended the re-zoning be granted. In the March 27,
1950, public hearing protests from the property owners surrounding Mr.
Kircher's property on three sides voiced strong objection to the proposed
change. Having listened to the protests, the City Council voted unani-
mously to re-zone the area from "J" Parking to "F" Coamercial. A written
protest by residents of the neighborhood dated April 3, 1950, stated the
following:

Request the reconsideration at this time because of a misunderstand-
ing which arose last week at the council meeting whereby a large

 

”Michigan Act 207 of the Public Acts of 1921 as amended (Section
125. 590 of the Compiled Laws).

39
delegation of Fifth Ward property owners were told that this re-
zoning would not be voted on that same evening, but would be con-
sidered further due to the petition and numerous protests.
At the close of the hearing, the delegation being so informed, left
the council meeting believing thpt they had more time and would be
given another opportunity to present their case. They possessed
additional evidence at that time, but felt that the council members
had heard enough for one evening regarding the matter and would
want to investigate further. It came as a distinct shock to all
of the property owners when they heard that the re-soning was
voted on and passed that same evening.
0n the basis of this letter Councilman John H, Russell moved to rescind
the action of the council regarding the re-zoning of Councilman Kircher's
property. This resolution was tabled on a.motion by Councilman.Fred L.

Kircher. No further action.was ever taken in the matter.

Ma n nt number 312 S. W Corner of Ni and Main)

On January 17, 1955, Councilman Stanley G, Peck, Sr. peti- '
tioned the City Council for a change in the zoning classification of the
above property from."B" Residential to "Bel" Commercial Drive-in. No
reason for the change was stated on the petition. The only non-residen-
tial land use within a two block radius existed in the block north of
JMr, Peck's vacant parcel; a drug store which had previously been classi-
fied as non-conforming, but which had been re-zoned to "F" Commercial on
November 1, 1948. This drug store was leased.by Mr. Gaylord Wbrtz, a
former councilman. The Official City Plan classified the entire neigh-
borhood as "Residential." Directly across the street to the east was an
elementary school of recent construction. The City Plan Commission voted
to recommend against the re-soning. Protests frmm residents of the neigh-
borhood involved were voiced at the February 28, 1955, public hearing.

As a result of the commission's recommendations and the protests the

City Council voted to table the matter for future consideration. On

40
March 7, 1955, the parcel was re-soned to "E-l" Commercial. Two members
of the council voted against the re-zoning. The property remained vacant
until August 2, 1956, at which time Mr. Peck sold the two lots involved
to the Pure Oil Company which shortly afterward constructed a gasoline

service station on them.

Hap Amendment Number 31§,§N..W. Corner of west Main and Everett Drive)
On January 24; 1955,.éx-councilman Gaylord Wbrtz petitioned

 

 

the City Council for a change in the zoning classification for the above
property from "Ernesidential to-"E-l" Commercial Drive-In. The reason
stated on the petition was: "To build a drive-in drug store with owner's
apartment above." Mr. Wbrtz was not the owner, the property being listed
in the name of Alex Alexander. The three lots involved were located one
block west of the drug store formerly re-zoned to ”F" Commercial and
leased by Mr. Wortz from.Mr. W. W, Watson. No other non-conforming uses
beside the one mentioned in the discussion of Map Amendment Number 137
existed within a two block radius of the property. The Official City
Plan classified the area as "Residential”. The City Plan Commission
voted to recommend against the re-soning. At the public hearing on
February 28, 1955, those some residents who had protested against the
re-aoning of Mr= Peck's, property, discussed above as Hap Amendment Number
312, also protested against the re-zoning requested in Mr. Wbrtz's peti-
tion. Again, as in Amendment 312, the City Council, as a result of the
commission's recomendations and the protests of the residents of the
neighborhood, moved to table the matter for future discussion, however,

as in the disposition of Amendment 312, on March 7, 1955, the parcel was

re-zoned to "B-l" Commercial Drive-In.‘

41.

In an examination of the procedures involved in the above six

amendments, several factors stand out:

1. All of the amendments were definitely not in accord with the
Official City Plan.

2. Five of the amendments were concerned with commercial re-
zonings in districts which were decidedly residential. The
remaining re-soning was to an apartment classification.

3. Few non-residential land uses existed in the neighborhoods
involved besides the properties re-zoned.

4. In five of the six cases, those individuals which stood to
gain the most from the re-zonings were also those who decided
whether or not the re-zoning was to be granted. In the sixth
case, a former councilman was involved.

5. In four of the cases re-zoning was decided in the face of
opposition from.the City Plan Commission, great protest from
the residents of the neighborhoods involved, or both.29

What is of even more significance in this subversive alteration

 

29On July 29, 1958 the Lansing State Journal quoted Councihman
Fred L. Kircher as saying, "It has always been the policy of the council
to adhere to the wishes of the majority of the people involved in zoning
'matters, and that will continue to be our policy." Implied in this state-
ment is the suggestion that the City Council has some formula wherein
they determine the following:

(1) What constitutes involvement in zoning matters.

(2) What constitutes a‘majority of people involved.
An examination of records pertaining to the actions of the City.Council
and Mr. Kircher in zoning.matters has not revealed such a formula. It is
also interesting to note that the policy Councilman Kirchgr says the City
Council adheres to is contradictory to a basic tenet of sound planning;
that the prime consideration in the determination of a zoning question is
not one of special interests, but of the best interests of the community
at large. For a more complete examination of this point see: James Het-
zenbaum, Th; Law of Zoning, (2nd Ed.; New York, Baker, Voohis 6- Company,
Inc., 1955) 11, Chapter x-1-(3).

42
of the Official City Plan through spot zoning than the City Council's
sanctions of the practice is the stand consistently taken by the City Plan
Commission on spot zoning. One of the most valid arguments for a commis-
sion which serves without pay is that such a commission will not be
hindered in its work by the threat of the loss of a job. This freedom of
action has not been exercised, apparently, in the Lansing City Plan Commis-
sion, since between 1942 and 1957 the commission recommended that the spot
zonings be permitted in 93.61 of the appeals granted by the City Council.
In only fifteen of the re-zonings did the City Plan Commission specifically
recommend denial of the appeal. Twelve of these latter recommendations
occurred after 1953, a fact difficult to reconcile with the previously
'mentioned logic regarding the age of the master plan and the incidence of
re-zonings not in accord with the plan. In this almost unanimous approval
of spot zoning by the commission lies another significant fact; that on
sixteen occasions the City Plan Commission was the initiator of the request
for the re-zoning. That eleven of these requests were made in the first
six years following the adoption of the master plan is again difficult to
reconcile with logic.

Few records are available for relating the recommendations of the
planning staff to the City Plan Commission, but the strong inter-relation-
ship of the personnel involved in the two groups indicates a strong con-
currance in the recommendations of the two bodies relating to individual
re-zonings. It seems that had the position of the technical staff con-
sistently been one of opposition to the recorded position of the City Plan
Commission, turnover of the technical staff would have been far greater

than it has been.

43
The Effects of Spot toning on the Master Plan

One of the most important goals of city planning is the guidance
of a community's growth in an orderly fashion. Any factor which advances
a coummity toward this goal is an asset to planning and any factor which
deters the comnity in this direction works in opposition to proper
planning. Orderliness within a comunity implies, among other things, a
homogenous grouping of land uses in a manner which will promote the best
interests of the citizens of the comnity. Furthermore, it is also
desirable that within this homogeneity there be present a certain degree of
stability. The indiscriminate mixing of land uses in a neighborhood
changes that neighborhood's character and quality and does little to in-
sure the residents of the area of a pleasant and safe enviromaent. For
this reason, much activity in planning is directly concerned with the pres-
ervation of neighborhood quality and the elimination of those land uses
which disrupt stability and adversely affect the character of the area,
be it residential, col-aercial or industrial.

Spot zoning works in direct apposition to sound planning. The
relationship of a spot zone to its neighbors has been clearly established.
That the introduction of a non-residential land use into a residential
area m produce adverse effects upon the neighborhood is a basic tenet
of planning. To show the gross effect upon city planning, however, it was
not enough to prove that m non-residential land use in m neighborhood
produced an adverse effect. It was deemed necessary in this study to con-
sider the correlation between the overall practice of spot zoning and the
general classifications of housing quality. Varin categoriud the resi-
dential areas of Lansing into three classifications:

1. Stable: An area characterized predominantly by dwellings
distributed at a reasonable density, in no need of major

44
repair, with no deteriorating intrusion of non-residential
uses or heavy traffic on residential streets; but having ade-
quate open areas, recreation space, and utility systems.

2. Conservation: An area characterized by the beginnings of
blight, resulting from the lack of some essential community
service in adequate quantity or quality, high or increasing
residential density, gradual intrusion of non-residential
uses, or a combination of these and other factors reflecting
poor co-msnity planning. Such areas require imediate meas-
ures to consswetha best aspects of the neighborhood and to
eliminate the undesirable elements that will otherwise con-
tinue to exert a blighting inf luence.

3. Blighted: A blighted area is one which, because of obsoles-
canoe or dterioration of structures, existence of non-
conforming uses or nuisances, overcrowding on the land or of
mph in dwellings, lack of Open space, congestion, lack of
essential calmnunity facilities and services, or other factors,
has become an economic and social liability to the commanity.
These areas may require major repair and rehabilitation, or
may have deteriorated to the point where clearance and re-
development is necessary.

Plate 9 illustrates the relationship between the incidence of spot zoning
and Varin's classification of housing quality. Of the 194 residential
parcels re-soned to either comercial or industrial classifications, 115
occurred in the conservation areas, while 23 occurred in the blighted

areas and 16 occurred in the areas designated as stable. There does not
exist a similar analysis of housing quality for the time prior to the re-
zonings, therefore, no statement can be made as to the causal relation-
ship of spot zonings to housing quality on this basis, however, applica-
tion of the courts' opinions regarding this issue lead to the obvious con- ,
clusion that the introduction of 115 non-residential land uses into a

conservation district where blight was minimal could only serve to accel-

erate the spread of the blight already present. By Varin's definition of

30Daniel Winn Varin, "The Gasoline Service Station and Con-unity
Developent" (unpublished Master's Thesis, Department of Urban Planning
and Landscape Architecture, College of Business and Public Service, Mich-
igan State University, 1958), pp. 67-68.

\

. \

Inu‘\|\c‘\ (\
, s|\\e\l

. \\ I),

 

TO‘IZ

ZBKIKON

1601-8bel

 

 

7'1)

‘0

in Pas,

"ulu‘ U

 

J

smaona a so aonaaoa .

l

tut vs osngsauo
toss' a as. aomwnao

'ilol

 

 

Ill I
_I. c. a
_
. . _—
v. v
1., “-
— ‘.. _.._
a H
o _
[N

m .
w. . Zn .. .
3 _. _,
, » ’m-m mm“

_ a or...
J ,. dc...
I u .
I \ fl“,
. .
m s f
s I .;.

i ‘
b -
Y w
v on _ . .
Q.“ h - a a - ‘I ‘ ‘ s.‘ j
u a.‘ . .«i1 1.. V dirt, ..
, .- II' \x — ’- A
I... IW : J ’ NJ!» al.3;Ws L.
h 0 I I, . u . k I .
mania ‘ j .r.
mini-thee . v , few.
_.I . .n. . , s x. A! .. f.
.. 1.1 tial. e .7...
r n , . w it ...
.. I. .3:
. ; a
j‘YI\ ”a. It

45

HOUSING: QUALITY: 1956

-_-.—.-—--—’f_. cnv or Lawsms . INCH."

         

.._.__ __ ._ Le~r _.._—

.\‘

    
     
  
 
  

o
I

— I
.1

In en" su- consume-
a.‘ I,
‘ .' m
'0’
43>
40".” I ’IOCNA‘SA '.,.

 

*

Pl
IT
1

  
    
     
   
 

 

l

GUILTY BY
BL K AV RAGE:

STAIL£¢ 4‘

  
     

OLIOHT

' n
“—4.: i, '
' tLU f
x .I - a"
JL__.J\_ l r 91' .k. ____L ‘J

 

O

 

VEYS

use -- uam- .u as sees an

nu! aussta 9

46
conservation the intrusion of these uses was not only conducive to
blight, but also represented poor community planning. The remaining spot
zonings which were neither comercial or industrial, but were of a multi-
ple residential nature, served to introduce a higher density of popula-
tion into the neighborhoods, a factor noted by Varin and others as con-
tributing to blight.

A similar corollary was deveIOped in an analysis of the coweri-
son betwaen the location of spot zones and non-conforsmng uses as shown
in Plate 10. The classification of certain land uses by the City of
Lansing as "non-conforming" represented evidence of the comnity‘s rec-
ognition of their probable adverse influence on desirable coumnnity
growth. By providing for an accelerated obsolescence of these non-
conforming uses through regulations which discouraged improvements , the
City of Lansing iqlied that these non-conforming uses were not to be
encouraged to remain in their existing locations. 31 The evidence of
record, however, shoved that what was spelled out in the law of the City
of Lansing with regard to the gradual elimination of non-conforming uses
was not what was practiced. Analysis of the location of non-conforming
uses and the location of spot zones showed the following facts to be true:

1. Some non-conforming uses were given relaively permanent

status through the spot zoning of the parcel. As non-

conforming uses these properties were subject to regulations
which limited their life span, and consequently, the extent
of their adverse effects upon surrounding properties and the

commxnity's growth. Spot zoning of the parcels permitted an

”any of Lansing, w, (1942).

 

060'. ”I."

 

1001—810] =39KIKOK 101a

IAOINDII . .IIQIIJ ‘0 V1!)

IO'CI'IIOE OAJQ V“)

 

 

a w‘hotnoos -
"st v1 canteens
'3!” e se somstmo

T__,_.____
}

 

 

0

an» V ImJ

 

I:

“ID-'OOIWOQ-

III... I'd].

.
. L 1' _-
s" " a ‘
I —’ s 51
‘-
1’ .19
n ‘4.
fl ‘ '4 Z
I ’ —-" r q -:-,‘: 0-6 .
g - " “4' -- .—-——;',“ .——
(I. I i#{" r. x‘ t ‘0’ W_ . .1
s r ‘ :1." ' ‘._. ;-1?—=I ”I b: _ M "fin" :fi _
F‘ \ “ ”5.3-: _ _ W. h "a as,» . ig‘ A“! <4:
i r V '1 , "-“~ ’. I. w 5:, E
‘—f ’“Mgt Plum! M- E.” _JL «’1.
"' Md m- .m— ;.._ hr ._

 

47

NONCONFORRIING USES! 1942

”__‘“_‘ ' ' CITY 0' LAIOII. . IICMIOII

 

CIVV 'LII COIIIIUIOI

 

° months or a;
I a
l __J

PLAN
IO“!

see- 0-0 sees us ~O~Il .0

PLAT! IUIIII' 10

 

 

48

expanded use of the property within the limits set forth for
the zone classification which, in most cases, differed con-
siderably from the limits set forth for other properties in
the neighborhood. Instead of removing a probable source of
blight from the neighborhood, the City Council sanctioned its
existence and its adverse affects upon the surrounding prop-
erties.

2. Some areas of the city with relatively few non-conforming
uses had spot zones introduced compounding the blighting in-
fluence attributable to non-residential land uses. The ad-
verse effects of this practice were cited by Justice Suther-
land in the U. 8. Supreme Court case of Euclid v. Inbler.32

3. Several residential districts within the city were exclusively
residential. The introduction of non-residential land uses
through the practice of spot zoning served to create an en-
viromaent wherein those effects attributable to the mixture
of land uses will probably become evident. Couplete homo-
geneity of land uses within a district is a state seldo-
achieved in a calamity. Where it was achieved, be it by
accident or design, every effort should have been made to
retain it. However insignificant, the intrusion of one non-
residential land use into a residential area will have but
one result; the debilitation of the character and quality of
the area in which it was introduced.

Th not evident indication of a comnity's desire to guide its

 

32Supra, (Chapter I, p. 10).

49
growth in an orderly fashion is its creation, adoption and proamlgation
of a valid comprehensive plan. During this sequence of activities there
often occurs events which necessitate the revision of the comprehensive
plan. Such occurrences as the creation of a Federal Defense Higlnvay Sys-
tem, heretofore not envisioned, would produce situations which would make
alteration of the plan desirable. Federally subsidized urban renewal, to
cite another example, has rapidly accelerated the progress of individual
plans within calamities. Because of these unforeseen events, it was
necessary, in the evaluation of the effect of spot zoning upon city plan-
ning in Lansing, to recognize those changes which were produced by factors
other than spot zoning. Those sections of the city where changes occurred
which were not in accord with the Official City Plan were discounted as
possible sources of error and were not employed in analysis. Only those
areas of the city wherein changes occurred in conformance with the Offi-
cial City Plan were considered in the evaluation.

A comparison of the Thoroughfare Plan of 1942, Plate 11, The
Arterial Plan of 1953, Plate 12, and the Proposed Thoroughfare Plan of
1958, Plate 13, indicated that no radical change occurred in the basic
design of the circulation system of. the City of Lansing during the study
period. Even the minor changes were of such insignificance that they
were found to bear little relationship, if any, to the incidence and
location of spot zones. In fact, examination showed that most of the
thoroughfare changes which did occur during the study period, especially
in areas of concentrations of spot zonings, were made in accord with the
Official City Plan. In these areas the land uses indicated in the Offi-
cial City Plan were situated with full cognizance of the proposed thor-

oughfares and their effect upon the adjacent lands. The reasoning which

 

 

W

W
\\
\

sro'r zoxlflflk 193433-195:-

 

tnv or Lawsuit zucsneu
a" sun «em-m-

 

 

”MWWO‘I.

Oh." eeesss

- ‘x‘

 

 

 

 

50

TH" ll 0 U (1‘: 1! FA ll 1'] PL AN: 1942

CITY OF LANSING . IICHICAI

    
  
  
 
 
  
  

CIYV PLAI COIIII’HII

W.
«9r
JOIK'H a nocuassa .u.
_- ‘1‘7—.?--—-

 

THOROUGHFARE S=

     
   
 

-RADIAL O BYPASS R UTES

O

Lansms ctv PLAN
cowmssm I 'THE
OFFlCIAL G TY PLAN'
ADOPTED l2/29/l902

 

w ween u.

PLAY! IUIIII : 11

snow 2 oxtflii 1MP."- -fl.9_ 5".-

~.

_..A-_._. .. ‘ an s a . sues-gas
- .-

 

-- 9th;

-s
-..
a
Y.
(a

OOOOOO

 

m0

 

‘11“‘Il‘nl I I

 

 

51

A I! '1‘ E ll I A L .‘ '1‘ ll 13 E 'l‘ S l’ L A N! 1 9 5 3

IL J

05.," 1,1 —- "-..——- r- " *t —"'—"— —:- cnv or Lsusms . wucmeas
f \ N. ‘ a”! i L

4

     
   

  

 

 

 

  
  

 

 

\‘ :‘e‘ \‘ 0Y3 ' T V s ,- can sue COIIIIIIOI

~ Hm _ T 3;! ~ m- . m.
in ‘§~ 5] ask-:- ‘ a" ,.
I .11 A}! ,7- ' 41»
-.1WV L Josrsn a ssocusssa less
1 _- *— f
I

| 1.

i ‘ ""' ' “’7‘
a II
I:

  
    
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
  
 

 

ARTE‘PIAL STREETS

A
g—- EX‘STIM

  

O

LANMNG
COIN
ADOPTED-

    

 

    

E .

 
  

TY PLAN
SION
l|953

     
   
 

PLAY! Ill-DIN? 12

sro'r zoxnraw: X9312 4195'.-

 

CI'Y OF LANIIII . I‘CIICI.

CD?! '3‘. SWIM.

 

 

 

 

 

 

52

'I‘HOROUGIIF'ARE PLAN: 1958

CITY OF LANSING . IICNIOAN

   
  
 
 
 
 

CITY PLAN COIIISSIOI

m

{I}

OUGHFARES=

  
 
 
 
  

TH

ACCESS

SECONDARY

   

  
  
 
  
 

SOURCE:

LANSING CITY PLAN
BOAR!)r PROPOSED
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AUOUST I. ISSS

Ines see new." ee-eese as

PLAT! NUNIIRZ 1'3

53
prompted the original land use-thoroughfare relationships in the Official
City Plan had not been altered. It was reasonable, therefore, to assume
that the construction or relocation of thoroughfares in accord with the
Official City Plan should not have given rise to re-zonings not in accord
with the plan.

The relationship of the two city plans to the practice of spot
zoning could not similarly be defined. Comparison of the incidence of spot
zones to each of the two plans presented two unrelated situations. 0n the
one hand, the creation of many spot;zones in an area resulted in a change
in the comprehensive plan to encompass those districts whose characters
had been changed by the illegal re-zonings. On the other hand, the pro-
posed comprehensive plan gave no recognition to several areas pock-marked
by spot zones by leaving the areas in the same land use classification as
in the 1942 plan. The irony of this paradoxical inconsistency was com-
pounded by the fact that in most of the areas, in this latter classifica-
tion, the City Plan Commission had sanctioned the re-zonings which had
changed the character of the neighborhoods. No explanations were uncov-
ered to justify the logic employed by the comnflssion in consistently
recommending the re-zoning of parcels in an area, which by the 1942 plan
was classified as residential and by the proposed 1958 plan was to remain
residential. A comparison of the incidence of spot zones and the 1942
plan, Plate 14, and the 1958 plan, Plate 15, clearly‘indicates those
areas wherein this situation has occurred.

Detailed examination of specific areas of the city was employed
to ascertain the degree to which spot zoning affected city planning.

Plate 16 indicates those areas selected.

sror mourns: ms 4.9.3?

        
   

_’“""/ cnv or LAIIIDS . memes.
A-~.
/' I cm use seen-sates
0-“ e
x..
.43- .1!
e ' “a

 

“DC-O.-P*-

nus We

I“;

 

 

a

 

54

1942 D! AS'l‘ Ell PLAN

CITY OF LANSING . NICNIOAN

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
  

CIVV OLAI town-snow
m.

(LuJ‘

JOSEPN I PIOCNASIA IDS.

...-¢— 1|

     
  
 

    
  

LAND USES:
-- wAJos sTsscTs

...- RAILROAOS

 
   
     

IULTWLE owatwuos
cowwesmAL
INDUSTRIAL I
RECREATION W
scuooK§ I
‘STATE CAPITou

\

   

I
.sounce: LANSING chv PLAN
\v’ coumss: N "THE
OFFICIAL ITY PLAN'
ADOPTED to 29, 1942

 

PLATE NUIOER 14

 

 

sro'r zoxtwflh= ‘19‘4‘2 +195:

 

\l
\I

... .— .— —— ' ‘ ‘ / can or LAISINI . mean“

to! v use “mime
m

. 4e»

 

 

 

u A” “O

 

 

7‘..-

SS

1958 DIAS'I‘ER PLAN

CITY OF LANSING . MICHIGAN

 
  
   
   
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  

E‘TV ’L“ CCUUISS'OI
HH—
N .

I95.

LAND USESf
_ MAJOR STREETS

. -1 RAILROADs

RESIDENTIAL

- COMMERCIAL

_- INDUSTRIAL
..- REcREATION

E2] SCHOOLS
sTATE CAPITOL
u

SOURCE

LANSING CITY PLAN
BOARD PROPOSED
COMPREHENNVE PLAN
AUGUST Ll958

PLATE Ni‘NOER 15

I\.‘\,\\ ‘4!

 

 

 

 

 

 

56

    

SPOT 'IJIININII‘IS: 1942-195’s"

CITY 0' LANSING . NICNIIAN
can use COIIISSIOI

m

®

sssssss

‘0
‘5
l

A
Tth
A 'SPC'I’ rowE'

O

1 LANSINO CLERK

“Carma-seamen.

PLATE III-III: 16

57
52.41.}.

The Official City Plan adopted in 1942 classified this area as
residential. The neighborhood was almost exclusively residential. One
non-conforming use, a drug store was the sole non-residential structure
‘within the area. The single change in the vehicular circulation system
was the changeover of East St. Joseph Street and was: Main Street from two-
way movement to one-way movement. Housing quality was adjudged to be of a
conservation nature in 1956 and a field check indicated the age of housing
to be such that in 1942 the area could have been classified as stable.
During the study period, four separate spot zonings occurred in the area.
In three of the four spot zonings the residents of the neighborhood regis-
tered protests against the re-zonings. On two occasions the City Plan
Commission recommended against the re-zonings. As a result of the spot
zonings the neighborhood now has four commercial establishments scattered
within a three block area. Although the character of the neighborhood has
been altered by these commercial land uses, the 1958 plan still classifies
the area as residential. Should the 1958 plan be adopted as it is, and
should a zoning ordinance be designed to implement this plan, these four

commercial establishments will become non-confonming uses.

Area 2

 

The Official City Plan classified this area as residential. With
the exception of two minor non-conforming uses, the neighborhood was
totally residential and was classified in 1956 as being of a stable nature.
During the study period ten amendments to the zoning map were passed by
the City Council changing all the property fronting on West Saginaw Street

from residential to some form of comercial use. Although the character

58
of a segment of this neighborhood has been changed drastically, the pro-
posed 1958 comprehensive plan still classifies the area as totally resi-
dential. In this area, as in Area I, non-confonming uses will be created

with the adoption of a zoning ordinance based on the comprehensive plan.

Area 3

The Official City Plan classified this area as residential, school
property, and commercial. Of the three categories, residential represented
the bulk of the area. The commercial area consisted of the end lots of
one block fronting on North East Street. The plan also included a pro-
posal for the relocation of U. S. 27, North Larch Street. This relocation
was accomplished according to plan during the study period. Between 1942
and 1957 thirty-six spot zonings occurred along North East North Larch
Streets. TWenty-seven of these re-zonings were to some form of commercial
classification, five to an industrial classification and four to a multiple
residential classification. In 1956 the housing quality of the neighbor-
hood was adjudged to be in the conservation category. The 1958 proposed
plan has multiplied the commercial area of this neighborhood five-fold,
however, the area in which the bulk of the re-zonings took place is still
classified as residential. A total of twenty-eight spot zonings occurred
in that segment of this neighborhood prOposed for a residential classifi-
cation. In addition, the one area classified as commercial in the 1942

plan has been reclassified as residential in the proposed plan.

Area 4
The Official City Plan classified this area as almost totally
residential. Two small lots were designated as commercial. One non-

conforming use was in existence in 1942. In 1956 the housing quality of

59

the neighborhood was noted to be of a conservation nature. No changes
occurred in the circulation ‘system and none were contemplated. During
the study period five parcels were spot zoned to either a commercial or
an industrial classification. Three of these changes occurred between
1942 and 1945, less than three years after the adoption of the plan. The
1958 plan has tentatively classified the entire area as residential. No
recognition was given in the proposed plan to those land uses which were

sanctioned by the re-zonings and are not residential.

Area 5

 

The Official City Plan classified the entire area as residential
with the exception of five parcels at the intersection of Shepard and
East Kalamazoo Streets. These five parcels, occupying three corners of
the intersection, were designated as a "neighborhood type" of shopping
center. All land uses in the area were in accord with the 1942 plan and
conformed to the zoning ordinance. During the study period four re-zon-
ings occurred in the area. Three of these served to expand one segment
of the "neighborhood type" of shapping center northward into the residen-
tial zone. A total of four residential lots were spot zoned to provide
parking for the shopping center and later spot zoned again to provide for
an expansion of the structures on the property. At present, this center
includes a drug store, a drive-in dairy bar, a drive-in dry cleaning
pick-up station, a hardware store, a plumbing shop, a glass distributing
firm, second floor offices, and a machine shop operated by the owner of
the hardware store. The machine shop is immediately adjacent to homes
on the north side of the property. The prOposed 1958 plan tentatively
includes those areas which were added to the original shopping center by

the three spot zonings.

60

In 1942 most of this 23 block long strip along South Cedar Street
was vacant. The Official City Plan classified the area as principally
residential'with but one intersection planned for a commercial district.
Seven non-conforming uses were scattered along the length of the strip.
Most of the housing on either side of South Cedar was constructed after
1942. During the study period changes in the circulation system.involving
South Cedar Street were made according to the Official City Plan. In
that time, however, sixteen parcels were spot zoned to some type of com-
‘mercial classification. The proposed 1958 plan has encompassed most of

the spot zonings in a twenty-one block long commercial district.

£911.

The land within this area was completely vacant in 1942. The
Official City Plan classified the district as residential. No non-con-
forming uses were in existence at the time of adoption of the plan.
During the study period six spot zonings were passed by the City Council.
One such change aroused the protests of 28 residents of the adjacent
neighborhood. The 1958 proposed plan has classified the bulk of this

Aproperty as residential.

93.2.9.

Two intersections of this strip were classified as commercial
districts in the 1942 plan. The balance of the area was planned for
residential use. Only one non-conforming use was present at the time of
adaption of the city plan. During the study period, no major changes
occurred in the circulation system.within the area, however, the City

Council passed a total of fourteen spot zonings along South Logan Street.

61
Thirteen of these were former residential properties re-zoned 'to cousercial
In 1956 the housing quality within the area was adjudged to range between
stable and conservation. The 1958 plan has encoqassed the bulk of these
spot zonings into a nine block long strip coslaercial district.
Sis-nary

Spot zoning in Lansing has produced two effects on the Master Plan.
The first, and most logical, was that where the practice of spot zoning
within an area had so changed the character and quality of the area that
the use originally planned for the neighborhood was no longer desirable
the comprehensive plan was revised to acco-sodste the use dictated by the
spot zonings. In this instance, zoning had preceded planning. The second
effect was that of the creation of an undesirable heterogeneity of land
uses within a neighborhood 21533.15. having given recognition to the changed
character of the area in the revision of the city plan.

In Areas 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8 zoning preceded planning. Since plan-L.
ning is properly a continuum, it would be more accurate to say that in
these five areas zoning W planning. The use of land was dictated
by the day to day decisions of a few individuals, often selfishly motivatv
ed, who considered the issued of the moment and only the specific propertic
involved. Reasoning based on sound planning principles with consideration
for the interests of the entire annuity was not used. The planned rela-
tionship of these areas to the city was altered and in this respect, the
entire plan was altered. Any plans, either private or public, which were
based on the fulfillment of the Official City Plan faced reappraisal.

The individual and calamity investments in property made on the strength

of this belief were weakened.

62
In Areas 1, 2 and 6 monopolistic islands of non-conforming uses
were created. The advantages of a homogenous grouping of land uses were
‘discarded in favor of immediate benefits to the select few whose properties
had been spot zoned. Again, the interests of the entire community were
by-passed. The burden of future blight arising as a direct consequence
of the legally sanctioned mixture of incompatible land uses was brushed

aside in favor of selfish expediency.

CHAPTER III
COWLUSIONS AND WTIONS

The effects of spot zoning on the luster Plan in Lansing are
already in evidence. Plans for a significant portion of the city have
been revised to accounodate the change in neighborhood character brought
about by large numbers of spot zonings. Out of 232 spot zonings during
the study period, 194 involved the rezoning of a residential use to a
comercial use. The balance of the spot zonings involved rezoning to
either a higher density residential or an industrial classification.
In each residential area where spot zonings have prompted a revision
in the city plan, property owners will find it increasingly difficult
to justify the maintenance of homes in the face of a mounting mixture
of blight-inducing land uses. It matters not that these homes were
built in accord with a comprehensive plan. The incentive to retain a
residential character in a neighbor hood through the conservation of
structures and properties will be reduced with the inevitable introduction
of each new non-residential land use. It is reasonable to assume that
public improvements made in these areas during the life of the original
plan were based on the plan rather than on the indeterminate actions of
the City Council in their amendnents to the zoning ordinance. These
improvements would, therefore, have to be adjusted to suit the different
land uses introduced through the acts of spot zoning. Utility services
would be altered. Schools, without a reasonable service area, will
either close, operate in an inefficient manner, or be converted to

63

51.

another use. Samples of this latter point have already occurred with
the Lincoln and Christiancy Elementary Schools. With traffic patterns
readjusted by the new location of conercial, industrial and office-
type land uses, streets, obviously will have to be widened. What
formerly was adequate for the traffic of a residential area will become
inadequate for the new coanercial area. Parking facilities for the new
land uses will have to be provided since the parking requirements of the
various land uses differ. In those instances wherein the rights-ef-way
were specifically established for a residential development, the change-
over to another land use with greater traffic potential will require
street widenings which could conceivably push curbs against sidewalks
with the resultant decrease in safety, appearance and utility. Con-
versions of residential structures to non-residential uses will result
in a higher cost of business operation through the inefficient use of
space. Eventually, as residential values slide downward as a result of
an increasing infiltration of blight-inducing land uses, cowlete renewal
will provide the only answer toward the achievement of a sound cosmunity.

In those segsents of the city where spot zonings have not been
recognized in the revised cosmrehensive plan the problem will be much
the same. Bach spot lone will create an obstacle in the path of the
neighborhood struggling to retain its residential character. In areas
where spot zoning has been frequently used, these obstacles will, in all
probability, be insurmountable. The greater the obstacle, the less will
be the interest of the individual property owner in maintaining his home,
and rightly so. As an area is transformed from residential to conercial
or industrial, little justification can be found to atteqt to preserve

the character of the former. In time, all that was residential in

65
character and quality will either be non-residential or residential in
name only.

Zoning, one of the planner's chief tools for implementing the
master plan, has not performed its function in the City of Lansing. The
authority vested in the City of Lansing by the State of Michigan through
the Zoning Enabling Act was of sufficient active to permit implementation
of the comprehensive plan. The 38-11: was not in the construction of the
law, but in its administration. The-City Council did not properly
exercise the power of the zoning Ordinance as a means to forward the
Master Plan. Instead, it disregarded the plan in 232 cases in favor of
an issue of the moment. The City Plan Co-aission in its advisory capacity
failed to meet its obligation in the same fashion for the same reason.
The apathy and ignorance of the public fostered the illegal practice of
spot zoning by not exercising the legal rights and remedies provided in
law.

It would seem then, that the lack of a knowledge of the proper
function of planning and zoning*within a community on the part of the
City Council, the City Plan Commission and the public in general has
created this enviroment wherein spot zoning can exist as a matter
of course. If this be the case, and all evidence indicates it is, then
the solution would, obviously, be in the education of those concerned
on the matters of planning, zoning, and whatever constitutes a "sound
coasmanity envirotmlent". The apparent possessor of the necessary know-
ledge is the technical staff of the City Plan Commission. By virtue of
training and experience the technical staff is presumed to have such
knowledge which when properly disseminated would enable the City Council,

the City Plan Cosmission and the public to recognize the evils inherent

66
in the practice of spot zoning. Such an educational program, if the
proper dissuaination of knowledge could be termed a "program", would
provide the proper set of checks and balances to counter hasty legis-
lative acts which were in opposition to the comprehensive plan. Sven
of greater significance than the creation of a repugnance to anti-
planning actions would be the creation of a pro-planning thought in
the collective mind of the cossmmity which would make the task of
planning a.much simpler one.

Generally, such an educational program could have its start in
the advertisement of the function of planning in Lansing through both
the local newspaper and publications of the City Plan Cos-ission.
Observation indicates the local newspaper has been active in this'
respect; however, the City Plan Commission's publications have been
lhaited in numbers and distribution. Such publications could be
distributed in the various schools, thereby initiating a long range
program education. Other literature could be offered at public meet-
ing and hearings.

Specifically, a planning educational program.could be established
and conducted by the technical staff and its Director in the various
official meetings attended or called by the Director. In this respect,
each meeting of the City Plan Omission would be, in part, a class in
city planning. Since these are public meetings, such an educational
attempt would be aimed toward not only the city Plan Co-ission members,
but also the public. A concerted effort could also be made to increase
public attendance at these meetings. Other public hearing on matters
pertaining to any aspect of planning or zoning could also provide a

vehicle for such an effort.

67

To further enable the City Plan Comision to carry planning
education to the public, it would be advisable to revise the present
zoning ordinance. Under this ordinance the City Plan Co-ission is
required to submit to the City Council its recommendations relative to
petitions for re-zonings. Although each meeting of the City Plan
Co-aission is open to public, it would be advisable to consider those
sessions involved with the discussion of a proposed amendsent as a
public hearing with the concomitant public notice and notification,
thereby granting those individuals with an interest in the matter an
opportunity to express their opinions. In addition, it would seem
that in those cases wherein the City Council chose to over-ride the
recomendations of the City Plan Comission, the ordinance could be
revised to require that the proposal be returned to the City Plan
Comission for reconsideration and an additional public hearing. Such
a procedure, although obviously more costly than the present one, would
delay, and possibly rule out, hasty actions by the City Council and the
City Plan Co-Aission which have resulted in spot zonings in the past.
Such an action would serve to re-test public opinion and would also
permit the Omission and Director to again conduct a class in city
planning.

With such an educational program it is likely the competent
technical planning staff could develop within the public and its
elected and appointed officials a knowledge and a conscience which
would permit planning to create a desirable comnity with less effort

than it now must exercise.

313le

222'».
Bassett, Edward II. gm. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1936.

Cries, John H. and Jmaes Ford. Planning for kgidgngigl Digtrigtg.
Washington, D. C.: National Capital Press, Inc., 1932.

t n. Chicago: International City
Managers' Association, 1948.

His-him. W: 1948-

Rathhopf, Charles A., and Arden H. Rathkopf. Law f Plannin
£221.53. 3rd ed. New York: Clark Boardsan Coqany, Ltd.,
1956.
mm

Bartholomew, Harland, City Planning Engineer. W:
W. Lansing: City Plan Co-zission, 1921.

ban-ins City Plan Gout-010m W.
m. Lansing: City Plan Cosmission, 1951.

t is
Varin, Daniel Win. "The Gasoline Service Station and Community
Development." Unpublished Ibster's Thesis, Department of

Urban Planning and Landscape Architecture, College of Busi-
ness and Public Service, Michigan State University, 1958.

67

a 1
C:
_fl I
LA
C37
f’fi

v.33.
fiat: ?

 

MR 12 7962 e!

'i ' 34.1
Cu ‘|_) .J .' ”I;

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

 

|||| llll WIN WIN II I! IIHI
9

312 3103530097