. ~. .1! M. «6+- M» —. . _u\ \'I.‘. .— .~,.\,,.--_..~._,.... ..~~.‘.A;-: _ L-ghg‘y-qqa . - m . " vv as. . , . ‘ ._ . r. , .. - V' :v', . ... ' ‘ , ..,‘ . A .4 "l‘ I: ~ . , ' '. , ' ‘ " . V ' v . . . .C.‘. ' I | ' ‘ ~ '- ‘ ' ‘ A ' ‘ ‘ - 7~ "'4“ ‘ ' ‘ " .. . . . ' , . .‘ ‘ j’ Everette L. Duh; f . 7- I 1955 -"‘::9‘§5¥fl£5_‘ ' '3a13& This is to certify that the thesis entitled Land Utilization as Influenced by Rural Zoning Ordinances in Relation to Land Character 153 Selected Rural-Urban Fringe Areas in Southern Michigan presented by Everette L. Duke has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ML—degree in $011 Sgience 1‘ospect of tax saving, the advantage, slight and illusory as it is, 14 may be only temporary and shortlived. As pepulation in the fringe thickens and the community assumes the aspect of a town, citizens will not be content with the sacrifice of essential services which an organized municipality can afford. One of two methods of escape will be the result. The suburban area will seek annexation to the adjacent city and the differential of tax rates will disappear, or a separate municipality will be organized with the prospect of an even higher rate of taxation than that which prevails in the city proper. Comparable services, for a time at least, will cost more than they do in the more compact residential areas within the city limits. Premgture Subdivisions. The development of speculative and premature sub- divisions in fringe areas has created many serious problems. Not only has land been unnecessarily withdrawn from agricultural production, but commun- ities have experienced considerable financial loss. The Pennsylvania Department of Commerce State Planning Board (1940) explains what can happen. If such subdivision is allowed to occur without a real need, or a likelihood of settlement in the locality subdivided, the results are frequently very serious for the community involved. The area so sub- divided is withdrawn from agricultural use and becomes unproductive. The laying out of streets and the provision for future public services may add greatly to a community's expenses. Such land frequently becomes tax delinquent, and in many cases, because of accumulated charges on the subdivider or the holders of lots, becomes the subject of expensive legal action, and a source of loss to the community. Difficultyq 2 Planning. A problem of primary hmportance in the rural-urban fringe is the fact that planning is made extremely difficult by the complex- ity of factors which influence land use in such areas. Salter (gp.‘gig.) ‘has written on the importance of this situation. In the rural-urban fringe areas, the factors affecting land use are particularly complex, shifting, and powerful. A serious attempt to . plan recommended uses of the land necessarily involves the analysis of competing and conflicting influences arising from very diverse sources. The most significant motivations that may alter the land pattern.may arise, not from within the locality affected, but from without it. . Such forces are usually extremely powerful as compared with the normal influences operating on land uses in purely agricultural communities. High and concentrated investments, large—scale enterprises, and very large groups of people may be associated with a relatively small land area. 15 Effect Upon Core Citigg. The rapid growth of rural-urban fringes can have important effects upon core cities. Reed (22, gig.) remarks that due to the population dispersion “nucleus cities have lost many of their best citizens and have been obliged to meet ever-increasing governmental costs with withering revenues. Likewise, Ehrlichman (gp. git.) in speaking of suburban development, states, ”This inexorable trend . . . has rolled up such huge force as to endanger real estate values in the heart of our great cities and is causing a revolutionary shifting of tax sources to a danger- ous degree.“ Roterus and Hughes (pp, 33;.) have listed some general effects which settlement of pepulation in fringe areas may have on central cities, as follows: 1. Of prime importance today is the fact that so many people work inside and live outside the city. Furthermore, the city's amuse- ments attract nonresidents along with residents. Traffic control, police protection, streets, sanitary inspection, and other'munici- pal services to persons (rather than property) go free of charge. to these nondtaxpayers. 2. Lots within the city which have been improved with utilities at general expense to the city remain vacant. 5. The normal difficulty of judging future capital improvement needs is greatly aggravated when fairly reliable pepulation predictions for the urban area as a whole are complicated by completely unpredictable population changes within.and without the legally established corporate limits. 4. Authorities cannot exercise preper control over fringe health and crime conditions which tend to permeate the entire urban area. 5. The city may make comprehensive master plans for its metropolitan district but little can.be accomplished without the tools of plan- ning-—zoning, subdivision control, and mapped street laws. 6. City taxpayers often carry the load of financing county government, which serves chiefly the area outside the corporate limits of the city. Zoning Definition Zoning ig General. Zoning has been defined in several ways but the basic meaning remains the same. The definition most often quoted is that of l6 Bassett (1956) which states: “Zoning is the regulation by districts under the police power of the height, bulk, and use of buildings, the use of land, and the density of population.“ This police power has been defined .by Johnson and Walker (1941) as “the great general power of government through which a state may, without compensation or inducement, regulate individual conduct and the use of private preperty in the interest of a paramount public welfare.“ In the case of zoning, this power is usually delegated to local political subdivisions through enabling acts passed by the state legislature. Hurlburt (1940) says, ”Zoning attempts to establish a pattern of land utilization in conformity to the adaptability of resources to particular uses. Zoning is a tool for implementing balance between population and resources, it is a method of guiding population distribution and redistri- bution, as well as a method of extending public control over the use of land.“ Rural Zonigg. Rural zoning is merely the application of basic zoning princi- ples to unincorporated areas. Penn, 2;. El: (1940) define rural zoning as “a legal mechanism by which local units of government can create districts and regulate the broad use of land and property for various purposes, including agriculture, forestry, recreation, and residence, in order to promote the general welfare of the communityc“ Mason (1945), in speaking, of rural zoning as one of the many programs to be considered in the develops ment of a master plan for a county, remarks that “zoning can do more than prevent obvious abuses in land use; it can be used to preserve lands for future urban expansion, and as a broad instrument for guiding the overall development of the unincorporated areas of the county.“ 17 History §_e_ggs_1 EGemggy. According to Green (1952), "zoning had first appeared on the continent of Europe late in the nineteenth century.“ He states, “When the walls about old German and Austrian fortress cities were removed, they were frequently replaced by parks and boulevards encircling the city. Beyond these parks, rings of apartment houses were built, and still farther out from.the center of the city were rings (or 'zones’) of single-family residences.“ The Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control (1952) also gives Germany credit for being the first to employ the zoning principle: “Zoning or 'districting' as it was known in 1884 in Germany at the time of its conception, sought only to remedy the human congestion of severely crowded centers of population. Varying degrees of population concentration were obtained by dictating the size of buildings in proportion to the lot area they occupied.“ Regglations Preceding Zoning.;§ Egg Eggtgg‘gtgggg. Although actual city zoning ordinances were not enacted until at least 1885 in the United States, there were regulatory measures in the interest of public safety banning gunpowder mills and storehouses to the outskirts of settlements along the Atlantic Coast during early colonial days because explosions and fires were frequent at such establishments (Solberg 1952). Hondrickson (1955) states, “Instances of the regulation of the use of land or the restriction of certain uses to specified districts date back to the time of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1692 the legislature provided that the selectmen should 'assign some certain places in-each of said towns (Boston, Salem, and Charlestown) for the erecting and setting-up of slaughteréhouses 18 for the killing of all meat, still—houses, and houses for trying tallow and currying leather.'“ First grdinances in the Uniteg,Statea Cutgrowth‘ggrRacial Prejudice-£3 California. Modesto, California enacted the first city zoning ordinance in the United States in 1885 (Rowlands and Trenk 1956 and Hhitnall 1951). This first ordinance and others which followed rapidly in California cities seem to have been the outgrowth of racial prejudice against the Chinese, a feeling which was running very high during this period in California. Pollard (1951) in speaking of the situation says, Principles of different natures often materially aid a new move- ment. It may sound foreign to our general ideas of the background of zoning, yet racial hatred played no small part in bringing to the front some of the early districting ordinances which were sustained by the United States Supreme Court, thus giving us our first impor- tant zoning decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Basing their objection on the fire hazard, the lack of drainage, the nuisance resulting from water turned into the streets, and the moral hazard presented by the congregation of persons at such places, the city authorities enacted ordinances prohibiting laundries fnmn being maintained or operated in certain sections of the city, except after certain permits had been received. While the ordinances did not specifically mention Chinese laun— dries, they were so drafted that in effect they were directly aimed at the existence and the Operation of such establishments conducted by the Chinese. Whitnall (_23‘22£.) also emphasizes the part racial prejudice played in the establishment of these first ordinances. In speaking of the early Chinese laundry cases, he says, “It is questionable if the strictly legal phases of those cases would have been similarly received by the courts under any other circumstances than those under which such high feeling of racial prejudice prevailed generally in California during that period.“ “Encouraged by the support of the laundry cases found in the appel- late courts,“ other California cities, particularly San Francisco, 19 Sacramento, and Los Angeles, soon enacted ordinances restricting other types of occupations such as dance halls, livery stables, slaughter houses, saloons, pool halls, and any occupations which might become nui- sances in the line of city development (Pollard __p'. £_i_t'.). Pollard goes on to state that “this line of California cases definitely established the right of municipal authorities to restrict practically any kind of business, the operation of which might be a menace, harming public safety, sanitation, or morals, or the public generally, within the city boundaries.“ Other Developmen_tgg£ L133 My Period. In 1892, the Massachusetts Legislature enacted the first set of height regulations to be upheld by the United States Supreme Court (Green 93. 933.). These regulations pro- vided that buildings fronting on certain streets inaBoston should not be over 125 feet high. Later, in 1905, a building height district ordinance was instituted in Boston (The Eno Foundation for Traffic Control 93. git.) . A Federal statute was enacted in 1899 limiting the heights of build- ings by zones in Washington, District of Colunbia, and in 1904 incomplete zoning ordinances were passed in Baltimore limiting the heights of build- ings, although not upheld by the courts until 1908 (Pollard _o_p. gig.) Pollard states, however, that Los Angeles was the most fully zoned city of the early period, the first ordinance of importance being passed in 1909. The Eno Foundation for Traffic Control (93. _c_i_t_.) also states that Los Angeles was the first to enact zoning regulations applying to the whole city but remarks that “the legislation was incomplete and discretionary in that its principal purpose was to exclude certain undesirable industrial developments from residential areas.“ First Comprehensive ZonLng Ordinance. New York City is invariably cited as setting the precedent in modern comprehensive ordinances of American cities. The New England Regional Planning Commission (1957) says, "In 1916, New York became the first city in America to promulgate a compre- hensive urban zoning plan in a single ordinance. ihitnall (99. £13.), in speaking of the development of zoning, states, From a historical standpoint, the most real advance in the sub- ject was consummated in 1916 in.New York. Prior to 1916,,the subject of “use control“ was the sole consideration. New York introduced the element of height and area,,or bulk, regulations. The important point is that out of the New York situation there came the compre- hensive zoning ordinance from which all subsequent laws were largely patterned. Two thousand, or more, city zoning ordinances are now in effect throughout the United States (Hear and Rodwin 1955). Development g§_Rurgl Zoning. Prior to 1925 all zoning ordinances were adopted for incorporated urban areas. However, in this year Los Angeles County, California, adapted a zoning ordinance for the unincorporated town of Altedena and in 1927 adOpted a new ordinance for the entire county (Hendrickson‘gp. 223.). The Hisconsin Legislature passed a state enabling act in 1925, but it was not until 1927 that Milwaukee County enacted a ' zoning ordinance and became the first county to enact an ordinance under a county—zoning enabling act (Hendrickson.gp. £33. and Rowlands and Trenk ‘22. 223.). The Wisconsin county zoning enabling act was the first comprehensive statute under which all counties could zone and was designed to permit the county to regulate suburban territory outside the jurisdiction of city ordinances (Albers 19#0). In 1929 this act was amended to permit any county board to determine the areas within which agriculture, forestry, and recreation might be conducted in order to meet the land-use sitUation which had arisen in the sparsely settled cut-over region of northern Uinconsin (Albers Ibid). Under this amended statute Oneida County, 21 Wisconsin, became the first county in the United States to enact an ordinance dealing with essentially rural and undeveloped land (Hendrickson 22. 29$. and Rowlands and Trenk 93. 5559.). Henderson and Upchurch (1945) state that this was “an attempt to prevent excessive school, road and other public costs which result from isolated settlement and to direct agricultural settlement away from poor land.“ Rural zoning is possible in.most states today. Solberg (g2. gig.) says 58 states have passed a total of 175 enabling laws empowering any or designated classes of counties, towns or townships, or other local units of government to zone unincorporated areas. By 1949, however, only a total of 175 counties in 25 of the 58 states had adopted rural zoning ordinances (Solberg gggg). In Michigan 6 counties and at least 200 townships have zoned to date, with several other townships working on, or showing interest in, zoning ordinances. County and township zoning in Michigan is authorized by Acts 185 and 184, respectively, of the Public Acts of the 1945 State Legislature as amended (Michigan Department of Economic Development 1949). Need For Rural Zoning in the Rural-Urban Fringe Supports A Planning Program. Zoning can have an important function in the planning program of a rural-urban community because it gives authority to any plans which may be develcped. Black (1958) recognizes the importance of “informed judgment and public opinion“ as “a planning commissionis chief tools for realizing its plan,“ but insists that “practical public planning cannot lean too heavily upon enlightened public opinion; the vicious and selfish minorities need to be brought into line by sharper tools than public disapproval.“ Thus, he says, “For such recalcitrants the legal compulsions of zoning alone can serve.“ 22 Fringe Growth ig_nghazard Without Zoning. Salter (1945) eXpreases the need for zoning in the rural-urban fringe in this manner: Uithout county zoning around a city's edge, the nuisance uses which may be restricted by the city's ordinances are dumped into the periphery area; residential, commercial, and industrial uses are established in such fashion as to hinder the wholesome expansion of the urban.residential area; street and transportation patterns are laid out which may make impossible an efficient system to serve the metropolitan area as a whole; and agricultural and other land uses may be knocked out of existence long before there is any real need for the land for other purposes. The need for zoning, or some fonm of public control, in the orderly development of the rural-urban fringe is expressed precisely by Hurlburt (22. 213.) when he says that, “ultimately, rural sub-developments without some form of public control become homogeneous only in their heterogeneity.“ Reduces Traffic Hazards. Zoning can play an important part in increasing the safety and efficiency of today's overworked highways. The Eno Founda— tion for'Highway Traffic Control (22. cit.) remarks, “Congestion and hazard on rural roadways is now known to be dependent to a large degree upon the uncontrolled use of adjoining land areas. “The multiplicity of individual driveways and increased traffic interchange that is fostered by such undirected expansion impairs the ability of the roadway as a traffic mover.“ However, it points out that “those areas wherein commercializa— tion along the highway right-ofaway is directed and contained through invocation of the zoning concept are invariably more safe and efficient traffic movers than those roadways along which commercial population is allowed to take place without regulation.“ Zoning Most Effective As Part of An Over-All Planning Program Zoning in itself is not a cure-all for the many ills of the rural- urban fringe; it is most effective only when used in conjunction with 23 other supplementary and complementary measures in an over—all planning program. As the Pennsylvania Department of Commerce State Planning Board (1949) puts it: “Zoning . . . is only one of the several devices by which a community may direct its develOpment along desired lines. The enforce- ment of sanitary and building codes, the control of subdivision, the pro- vision of proper facilities for residence, business, or industry, are all fully as important as any restrictive measures aimed to prevent a single land—owner or group of owners from destroying the character of a neighbor— hood for immediate profit.“ Procedure Employed 3g Sgggy The zoning ordinances used in the study were obtained from the various township offices by post. Each township in Southern Michigan, about which there was information indicating that it had adOpted a zoning ordinance, was requested to supply a copy of its zoning ordinance. Of the ordinances received, the number that could be used in the study was narrowed down to thirty-four by two factors: first, it was necessary that a map showing the location of the boundaries of the various use-districts stipulated in the ordinance accompany the text, and, second, only those townships could be studied which were located within areas for which Soil Survey reports were available. In order to correlate the land character with the uses authorized by the zoning ordinances, the boundaries of the use-districts as indicated on the zoning map of each township were either drawn directly on the soil type map of the Soil Survey report for the area or were drawn on a transparent vellum overlay which could be used with the soil type map. Then the acreages of the various soil types in each use—district were estimated, 24 section by section, using a transparent grid which had 64 squares per square inch (the soil type maps used are one inch to the mile). There was a total of 125 soil types and miscellaneous land classifi- cations encountered in the townships studied. To facilitate the presenta- tion and discussion of results and to emphasize the main point of interest-- the disposition of land suitable for agriculture-the various soil types and land classifications were grouped into classes according to their natural suitability for general agricultural purposes. This was done with the help of Mr. Ivan F. Schneider, Associate Professor of Research in Soil Science of Michigan State University, who has many years' experience work- ing with Michigan soils. Six classes were set up: Class I being the best suited for agricul— ture, Class V the least suited, and Class 11, Class III, and Class IV gradations in between. Class VI was set up as a special category to include those lands (all of which happen to be organic soils) that could not be placed in a particular class on the basis of soil type alone. In other words, the soils in Class VI are of such a nature that one would have to examine them in the field in order to classify them because characteristics such as drainage, depth, underlying materials, etc., are deciding factors. (See Appendix for complete list of soil types encoun- tered and the classes into which they were placed.) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION "Agricultural“ Districts The townships studied total more than a thousand square miles. Although the Township Rural Zoning Act empowers townships to ”provide by ordinance for the establishment of zoning districts . . . within which . . . the use ofland for agriculture . . . may be encouraged, regulated or prohibited,“ and further asserts that “the provisions of the zoning ordinance shall be based upon a plan designed . . . to. encourage the use of lands in accordance with their character and adapta- bility and to limit the improper use of land,“ not a single acre in the 54 townships, all of which have zoning ordinances, has been zoned exclusively for agriculture. Yet the study revealed that 51.6 per cent of the total area of the townships comprises Class I agricultural land, and 16.0 per cent is made up of Class II agricultural land. Agriculture is, of course, being carried on in every one of the town- ships, and usually on all the land classes, but always under the shadow of some degree of suburbanization. Every ordinance tolerates at least some degree of segmentation of its first and second class lands in permitting residential use along with agricultural use of these land classes, not directly as such, but by placing no limits upon the use of these land classes for either agricultural or residential uses. In other words, por- ‘tions of the townshipsare designated as “agricultural“ zoning districts in the zoning ordinance, but the uses of land permitted in them specify resi- dential as well as agricultural uses, and this regardless of land quality or character. 26 Some districts, nevertheless, must be considered as offering some protection to agriculture. In these districts the competition to agri- culture is somewhat reduced since only certain other stipulated uses are permitted. The extent to which competition is reduced, however, is often very slight since the uses which are permitted in addition to agriculture and related practices are generally quite numerous. For example, several of the following uses may be permitted in the so-called “agricultural“ district of any one township: Multiple dwellings, boarding houses, rooming houses, hotels,tourist courts and motels, and trailer parks Hospitals, clinics, and sanitoriums Private clubs, fraternities, and lodges Public parks, playgrounds, country clubs, golf courses,and recrea- tion areas Public garages Public utility buildings, transformer stations, telephone exchanges, and broadcasting stations Airports and landing fields Mining of peat, marl, stones, gravel, or any mineral EXploration for or production of natural gas or petroleum Categorical Organization of Zoning Ordinances f The general pattern followed by the townships in setting up the zon- ing ordinances investigated has usually been as follows- The districts were arranged in a series of descending categories. One residential dis- trict is selected as the highest category in which the uses permitted are generally quite limited. In the “lower“ categories which follow, the uses permitted are those allowed in each preceding district plus a variety of 27 new uses. By the time the “agricultural" district is set up the uses have often become so numerous that the name of the district loses its true significance. Rather than being a true agricultural zone, it merely designates the use for most of the land area, and is a “catch-all“ for many uses. Current planners, however, feel that this early pattern of formulating use-districts is a poor method of influencing proper land use and generally agree that each use-district should have its own specific 1136!. Factors Limiting the Creation of Agricultural Zoning Districts However, these “agricultural" districts are being used primarily for agricultural purposes and will be for some time in the future. Thus, it is significant that the zoning ordinances have often failed to include much of the better agricultural land in such districts while at the same time including large acreages of the poorer class land. Why has this happened? Although the scope of this study did not include determining the causes of what seem to be instances of improper zoning, there is little question but that at least four situations have influenced the zoning pro- cess in many cases. First, zoning ordinances probably often have been drawn up without the benefit of an adequate land inventory. Without a thorough understand— ing of the nature of the land resources within a township it is impossible for a zoning board to satisfactorily delineate districts and describe the uses to be permitted in them. Even without considering the necessity for conserving agricultural land for the future, good planning for present land use would demand that the best agricultural land, where possible, be 28 devoted to agricultural purposes if there is to be an agricultural dis- trict in the township. Second, in some cases zoning boards have not realized or understood the importance of zoning land according to its natural adaptability for certain uses. No doubt, some use-districts have been formed simply on the basis of what “seems“ best or have been the result of requests or pressures from various individuals or groups without consideration of the suitability of the land for the uses stipulated. Third, even when zoning boards have been aware of the character of the land and the uses for which it is best suited, pressures from groups which are affected have likely often influenced the location of district boundaries and the uses which are permitted within these boundaries. Feeling that any zoning ordinance is better than none, zoning board mem- bers have probably at one time or another granted concessions against their better judgment. For instance, farm land owners realizing their land, even though it is top grads agricultural land, is located in an area which will presently be in demand for residential development, will naturally be against anything which will tend to minimize their chances of taking advantage of speculative land prices. Fourth, zoning boards, feeling that they were inadequately equipped to deal with the legal aspects of zoning, have often turned the prepara- tion of their ordinances over to attorneys. Of course, the resulting zoning ordinances can usually meet all legal tests, but factors such as land character and its suitability for certain uses have generally not been considered. 29 Broad Land Divisions Represented in the Townships Studied In order that the reader might obtain a clearer picture of the general land character of the various townships, the broad land division (or divisions) into which each township falls has been indicated in the presentation of resudts for individual townships. Following is a brief description of all the land divisions involved as outlined by Schneider (1954)~ \/level 22 Rolling Clgy Loam £g_Silty,01gy Loam Soils These soils are mainly formed from clay loam to silty clay loam glacial tills. The drainage varies from well to imperfect depending upon the topography which is level to rolling. Locally, slopes are steep enough to make water erosion a problem. “The soils are deep, relatively high in fertility, and durable under cultivation except on the steeper slopes.“ 1.319;, 29.0.1211 Drained Loams, Silt Loams, 293 Clay Looms The soils of this division were developed from loam, clay loam, or silty clay loam parent material under poor natural drainage conditions. 'The topography is nearly level except for some low depressions and narrow sandy ridges. The contents of organic matter, nitrogen, and lime are relatively high and the soils have good natural fertility, are moisture .retentive, and are durable under cultivation, Naturally poor drainage and the maintenance of good soil structure are indicated as the principal hazards to excellent crop production. Rolling _t_c_l ExtremeLy Hilly Hell Drainstigdl 3 Sandy Looms The land in this division occupies moranic areas and is rolling to extremely rough. Consequently, water erosion is a serious problem on these light soils. “The value of the land for farming is greatly reduced by the sandy soils and unfavorable slopes.“ However, some smaller areas of loam and clay loam soils are scattered throughout the prevailing lighter textured soils. V/Level _t_g Hilly D_11 Sands These soils are mainly deep sands which are well to excessively drained. They have a low organic matter content and are strongly acid in reaction. Organic soils and lakes are dispersed throughout the division. “The topography ranges from level plains to extremely hilly uplands. The limiting factors for agricultural use are low natural fertility, low moisture-holding capacity and wind erosion.“ Mixed Wet and Dry Sands with Organic Soils The soils of this division are mixed wet and dry sands with closely associated posts. “The combination of wetness and sandy textures results in a very low value for general farm crops. The soils are used for truck crops and small fruits where the climate is favorable. In the vicinity of the larger cities, the land is used for rural residences and for small part-time farms.“ Level _t_q_ Rolling Clgy L_o_ams, Silty Clay Loams and Clays These soils have been mainly formed from clay loam, silty clay loam, silty clay, or clay parent materials. They'are moderately well to :hnperfectly drained depending upon the topography which is level to roll- ing. “The soils are deep, high in fertility, and durable under cultiva- tion except on the steeper s10pes. The tightness of the clay which reduces the rate of water movement through soil and the maintenance of good soil structure on the surface are problems in the use of this land for cropping Pufposea.“ 51 Level Poorly Drained Loams, Silt Loams, Clay Loams and Clgys The soils of this division were developed under very poor drainage conditions from loamy parent materials. The topography is predominantly nearly level, but low swells and sandy ridges are fairly common. The soils are durable under cultivation and have good natural fertility, be- ing high in organic matter, nitrogen, and lime. “The principal hazards for crop production are the poor drainage and maintenance of good soil structure.“ ‘/Level tg Rolling Loams These soils are derived from loam glacial till and are well to imperfectly drained depending upon the topography. The soils are gener- ally favorable for tillage operations being predominantly level to roll— ing in topography, although slopes may be excessively steep locally. “The soils are deep, relatively high in fertility, and durable under cultiva— ‘tion except on the steeper slopes. Under a good system of management, the soils can be maintained in a good state of productivity.“ 1311]; _t_9_ Rolling Heljl_ Drained Sandy w Light colored sandy loams, light loans and loamy sands are the main soils in this division. The topography is generally level to rolling, lint many of the level outwash areas may be strongly pitted. These soils are usually acid and low in organic matter content. “The soils are easily ‘tilled, moderately productive and are responsive to manure and commercial fertilizers. _They are adaptable to a wide variety of crops. They are not excessively droughty, but the lack of moisture-holding capacity, combined vvith.the natural low fertility, is probably the greatest limiting factor it: crop yields.“ 52 Rolling E2 Steeply Sloping Hell Drained Loamy Sands and.§EEQX.E22E§ “This land division is characterized by rolling to rough terrain with lakes, swamps and marshes in the basin-like associated areas. The topography is not well adapted to large fields and tractor tillage, and much of the land has depreciated in value on the steeper cultivated slopes because of soil erosion.“ L_e_v_e; Poorly Drained _S_§_n_d_s_ and Sangy Loama Over M _t_g 9% The main soils of this division have 18 to 42 inches of mixed wet and dry sand and sandy loam material overlying materials which range in texture from loams to clays. However, there are fairly large areas with— out the sandy overlying material and areas with deeper drier sands. On the same farm, or even in the same field, a complex pattern of these con- ditions may exist. Drainage is the principal practice necessary for the profitable use of this land for agriculture, and the variable thickness of the sand overburden presents a problem in the establishment of tile drainage systems. .Qgggnic Soils (Muckg and Posts) “This organic soil division includes areas which are largely occupied by muck or peat in sufficiently large bodies to be delineated on the soil association.map. Smaller areas of organic soils are found, however, in most of the other broad land divisions.“ Relation of Zoning Districts to Agricultural Land Classes in the Townships Studied The results for individual townships are given in detail below. The presentation is organized on a county basis. (See Appendix for pepulation 55 figures by decades from 1900 to 1950 for the counties, townships, and related urban centers involved in the study as reported by the Federal Census Bureau.) Bgy County - Hampton.Township This township falls within the “Level, Poorly Drained Loams, Silt Loams, and Clay Loams“ land division. The division and the major soil association of the division which occur in the township are represented by the symbol 1-21 on the map of “Major Michigan Soil Associations“ by Schneider and Vhiteside (See Appendix). Hampton Township adjoins Bay City to the east of the city and has several miles of frontage on Saginaw Bay. In spite of this seemingly conducive situation for residential develOpment the township has had sur- prisingly little increase in population since 1900, and actually had fewer inhabitants in 1950 than in 1950. It appears that a rapid increase Inay be just beginning since the population increased 26.6 per cent during the decade 1940 to 1950.. This is in comparison with 18.0 per cent and 9.5 per'cent for Bay County and Bay City respectively for the same period. Class I and Class II land comprise aboUt 84 per cent of Hampton Town- shi;>(TABLE I). The Soil Survey (1951) of‘Bay County shows that approxi- znately three-fourths of the township is made up of four soil types: Wiener loam (Class I agricultural land) 59.2 per cent, Wauseon fine sandy loam ((Ilsss II) 16.? per cent, Essexville sandy loam (Class II) 14.0 per cent, axni Thomas loam (Class I) 6.6 per cent. The zoning ordinance, which was adopted in 1941, protects none of tJiis considerable amount (more than 14,000 acres) of good agricultural land for agricultural purposes. Instead, about four—fifths of the township is zoned for residential purposes and the remainder is classed as unrestricted and commercial districts (TABLE I). The failure to set up some type of agricultural district is especially significant when it is considered that at the time of the adoption of the ordinance the population of the town— ship was only slightly more than 5,000 persons. Certainly, the pressure for residences was not so great as to exclude any consideration of agricul— ture. TABLE I DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF HAMPTON TOWNSHIP _—.- “2" _fifi Per cZEt Per cent of Class in each Use-district of ___ Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- distrigt Residential 85.2 81.6 90.5 89.6 26.8 72.5 79.5 Lharestricted 6.1 15.9 7.7 4.2 75.2 24.2 14.2 com0r61al 8e] 4:2 2e0 6e2 -- 2e: 6e: TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 For Cent Of Township 55e1 50.8 2e9 5e“ 8e0 1.8 in each Class Calhoun County -— Battlg Greg: Township This township falls within two land divisions: (1) “Level to Roll- ing wcll Drained Sandy Loams“ (v-57 and v-56 on map), and (2) “Rolling to Steeply Sloping Hell Drained Loamy Sands and Sandy Loams“ (VI-59) . Battle Creek Township abuts the city of Battle Creek to the south- west. The general area, as well as the county as a whole, has experienced considerable growth since the turn of the century. Since 1900, the 35 population of the township has multiplied 15 times, that of the city of Battle Creek 2.6 times, and of Calhoun County 2.4 times. The population of Battle Creek Township almost doubled during the last decade. According to the Soil Survey (1916) about 60 per cent of the town- ship consists of two Class II soil types: Bellefontaine loam (58 per cent) and Fox loam (22 per cent). There are also considerable acreages of “Muck and Peat“ (Class VI)-—more than 7 per cent of the township. TABLE II’ shows that almost two-thirds of the total acreage is Class II agricultural land. Through the zoning ordinance (adopted 1947) some of the better agri- cultural land is partially protected frcm the invasion of non-agricultural uses. The ''agricultural“ district, which includes almost half of the township, contains almost three-fourths of the Class I land and over one- half of the Class 11. However, residential uses and mining are also per- mitted in this district. It is also noteworthy that, though snall in extent (about 400 acres), none of the Class IV and Class V land is zoned for agricultural use (TABLE II). Eaton County - Uindsor Townsgip This township is made up of the "Level to Rolling Loams“ land divi- sion (T-54). Uindsor Township is located immediately off the southwest corner of Lansing Township which is in Inghsm County. In spite of its close proximity to the Lansing metropolitan area it is still predominantly rural. In 1950 the pepulation was about 2,600 people. This was approximately a 75 per cent increase over the 1900 figure and only a 24 per cent increase over the 1940 total. The population of Eaton County has increased .even TABLE II DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG . THE USE-DISTRICTS OF BATTLE CREEK TOWNSHIP *7 f _-: Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Agricultural 75.4 55.5 14.4 - -- 52.8 48.5 Residential 17.4 43.0 51.8 61.2 100.0 25.2 57.9 Industrial 8.5 -- 50.8 58.8 —- 22.5 10.6 Commercial 0.7 5.7 45.0 -- —- 1:5, 5.0 TOTALS 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .O Per cent of Township 11.1 64.6 14.4 1.9 0.6 7.4 in each Class less rapidly, having increased a little more than 26 per cent since the turn of the century. The 1950 Soil Survey of Eaton County indicates that over 65 per cent of Uindsor Township is made up of two Class 1 soil types: Miami loam (Ajmo per cent) and Ccnover loam (20.7 per cent). More than 80 per cent of the entire township is Class I and Class II agricultural land (TABLE 111). Although such a large proportion of the township is made up of high quality agricultural land, and the township is dominantly rural, the zen— ing ordinance (adopted 1949) offers only partial protection to the town- ship's agricultural land. Among the other uses permitted in this district are residences, mining, and airports and landing fields. ‘Igghgg County - Lansing Tgwnship This township falls within the “Level to Rolling Loams“ land division (“P-54) . 57 TABLE III DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMJNG THE USE-DISTRICTS 0F WINDSOR TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of’Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Agricultural 9002 8507 6005 5000 10000 95091 8609 Small Farms 900 1505 5804 59.0 -- 3096 1201 ROCIdOntial 00’ 008 101 501 -- 0009 005 Commercial 002 0s2 -. A509 - 0.04 00? TOTALS 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .00 100 .0 Per cent or Township 6606 1A02 6.0 5s0 001 1001 in each Class Lansing Township completely surrounds the city of Lansing except for a portion in the southern part of the township where the Lansing city limit extends to the township boundary. Census figures show that population growth has been very rapid in this township since the turn of the century. Since 1900,1ts population has multiplied 15.0 times as compared with 5.6 for the city of Lansing or 4.5 for Inghmm County. The unincorporated portion of the township comprises more than 12,000 acres. Approximately 64 per cent of this amount is Class I and Class II agricultural land. According to the Soil Survey (1955) of the area, almost two-thirds of the township consists of four soil types: Conover loom (Class I) 21.4 per cent, Miami loam (Class I) 17.6 per cent, hillsdale sandy loamL(Class II) 17.5 per cent, and Brookston loam.(Class I) 7.6 per cent. The predominant soils, then, are generally well-suited for agri- cultural purposes. TABLE IV shows the distribution of the agricultural land classes among the use—districts stipulated in the ”Lansing Township Zoning Ordinance No. 8' of 1945. Although the “agricultural“ district makes up 47.1 per cent of the township, it contains only 57.9 per cent of the Class I land and 45.5 per cent of the Class 11 land. However, this dis- trict includes more than oneéhalf of the Class III land (primarily Bellefontaine sandy 10am, Griffin loam, and Fox sandy loam) and one-half of the Class IV land (primarily Oshtemo loamy sand, Uallkill loam, and lashtenaw loam) and all of the Class V land (Greenwood peat). Through the zoning ordinance, then, the non-agricultural districts are allotted more of the best agricultural land and less of the poorer agricultural land than the “agricultural' district. Moreover, residential uses and mining are permitted in this district along with agriculture. TABLE IV 'DISTRIBUTION or AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS or LANSING TOWNSHIP m m Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township . in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Small Pm and 5708 4505 5101 5106 10000 7708 4701 Agricultural Residential 49.5 40.7 57.7 58.4 -- 17.9 41.1 Light Industrial 7.5 15.5 5.9 6.9 -— 4.0 7.8 ComerCial 201+ 20: 20: :01 '- 00: 400 TOTALS 100 .0 100.0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 Par cent or Tomlhip 4606 1705 1207 1103 101 1008 in each Class 59 Jackson Qgggty_-’§l§ckman Township This township is made up of three broad land divisions: (1) “Level to Rolling wen Drained Sandy Loams' (v-56), (2) ”Rolling to Steeply Sloping lell Drained Loamy Sands and Sandy Loams' (3-59). and (5) “Organic Soils" (Z-45). Blackman Township is situated immediately north of the city of Jackson. Suburbanization has been quite rapid as evidenced by the popula- tion growth. Since 1900,the population of Blackman Township has multiplied more than seven and a half times as compared with just a little over two times in each case for the city of Jackson and Jackson County. The Soil Survey (1926) of Jackson County reveals that over two-thirds of this township is Class I and Class II agricultural land (TABLE V). Three soil types make up over 67 per cent of the township: Hillsdals loam (Class I) 28.0 per cent, Hillsdale sandy loam (Class II) 25.0 per cent, and Brookston loam.(Class I) 14.2 per cent. However, the 1952 zoning ordinance of Blackman Township reserves none of this better agricultural land specifically for agricultural uses. Instead, about 94 per cent of the township is zoned as a combination “Resi— dential and AgriculturalI district. This district embraces the greatest portion of all classes of land (TABLE V). Jackson County - Leoni Township Three broad land divisions make up this township: (1) I‘Level to Roll- ing Hell Drained Sandy Loams’ (V-56), (2) "Rolling to Steeply Sloping Well Drained Loamy Sands and Sandy Loams' (V-59), and (5) "Organic Soils" (245)- Leoni Township is located a short distance to the east of the city of Jackson. Considering the period from 1900 to 1950, the population of this TABLE V DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF BLACKMAN TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Residential and 9500 9201 8808 100.0 10000 9706 9400 Agricultural Industrial 305 505 809 -- -- 105 402 comr01a1 105 206 2:1 - -"' 1;}. 108 TOTALS 100 .0 100.0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 Per cent of Township 42.2 26.5 12.7 5.5 0.2 15.1 in each Class township has not increased quite as rapidly as that of Blackman-Township, the populations having multiplied 5.9 and 7.6 times, respectively, during that period. However, this trend has been reversed during recent years; from 1940 to 1950 the population of Leoni Township increased 45.1 per cent as compared with 24.1 per cent for Blackman Township. The Soil Survey (1926) shows that the soils of this township are less well adapted for agriculture than those of Blackman Township. Class I and Class II land together make up only about one-fourth of its land area (TABLE VI). Over 70 per cent of the township consists of three soil types: Fox sandy loam (Class III) 50.9 per cent, Hillsdale sandy loam.(Class II) 21.2 per cent, and Rifle peat (Class VI) 19.5 per cent. The zoning ordinance, which was adapted in 1955, makes no attempt to reserve this relatively scarce amount of better agricultural land specifi- cally for agricultural uses. Rather, it sets aside a broad “Residential 41 and Agricultural' district in which residential and agricultural uses are permitted to compete equally without regard for land character. Over 95 per cent of the township is contained in this district (TABLE VI). TABLE VI DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF LEONI TOWNSHIP W Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of ' . Township _f in each I II ' III IV V VI Use- district Residential and 98.1 99.5 91.5 99.2 98.4 95.0 95.2 Agricultural Induatrial 009 '- 5 07 001 O. 405 30) comnial 100 001 208 007 106 001 102 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township 5.5 22.1 56.1 8.5 2.1 28.1 in each Class Kalamazoo Egggty_- Comstock Township This township falls within two land divisions: (1) ”Level to Rolling Hell Drained Sandy Loams” (V-57) and (2) “Rolling to Steeply Sloping Well Drained Loamy Bands and Sandy Loams“ (H-59). Comstock Township is adjacent to Kalamazoo Township which surrounds the city of Kalamazoo. Since 1900,its population has increased 5.8 times as compared with 2.9 times for Kalamazoo County and 2.4 for the city of Kalamazoo. TABLE VII shows that Class I and Class II land comprise about 50 per cent of the township. According to the Kalamazoo County Soil Survey (1922) 42 several soil types are important in this township. The predominant ones are: Fox loam (Class II) 28.2 per cent, Fox sandy loam (Class III) 17.5 per cent, Rodman gravelly sandy loam (Class IV) 9.91 per cent, Muck (Class VI) 9.72 per cent, Fox silt loam (Class I) 8.2 per cent, and Warsaw loam (Class II) 7.1 per cent. The Comstock Township zoning ordinance (“with amendments corrected to June 10, 1955”) makes no specific provision for any type of agricultural district. Agriculture is permitted throughout but has to compete with various non-agricultural uses. TABLE VII shows the districts which have been set forth and the distribution of the agricultural land classes among them. TABLE VII DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF COMSTOCK TOWNSHIP - v Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use—district of 2:. Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- __ district Residential 9907 7909 8600 7802 '0' 9508 8500 Indumtrial 0.5 16.4 11.6 16.0 —- 5.4 12.2 comer31al and "" 106 105 501 "" 001 105 Industrial Business -- _fi 2.1 1.1 0:17 —- 0.] 1.5 TOTALS 100 .0 100.0 100 .0 100.0 -- 100 .0 100.0 Per cent of Township 10.7 41.1 28.6 9.9 -— 9.7 in each Class 45 Kalamazoo County - Kalamazoo Township Two land divisions make up this township: (1) "Level to Rolling Well Drained Sandy Loams' (V-57) and (2) l'Rolling to Steeply Sloping Hell Drained Loamy Sands and Sandy Loams" (H—59). Kalamazoo Township completely surrounds the city of Kalamazoo. Hence, suburbanization has been quite pronounced. Since 1900,the population has mudtiplied more than fourteen times and has more than doubled since 1950. Its rate of growth has been.much more rapid than for either the city of Kalamazoo or Kalamazoo County. The Soil Survey (1922) indicates that over two-thirds of the town- ship is Class I and Class II agricultural land (TABLE VIII). The most extensive soil types in these classes are: Fox loam (Class II) 52.9 per cent, Warsaw silt loam (Class I) 10.5 per cent, Fox gravelly loam (Class II) 9.0 per cent, and Fox silt loam (Class I) 6.8 per cent. Muck (Class VI) and Rodman gravelly sandy loam (Class IV) are also important types, making up 12.5 per cent and 9.0 per cent of the township respectively. The 1947 zoning ordinance of Kalamazoo Township has not provided a single district for agricultural purposes as such. Instead, the entire township has been zoned for residential, industrial, and commercial uses. TABLE VIII shows the distribution of the various land classes among these uses. .Kalamazoo County - Schoolcrggt Township This township falls within the “Level to Rolling Well Drained Sandy Loams' land division (V-57,58). Schoolcraft Township is located in the southern part of Kalamazoo County with another township intervening between it and Kalamazoo Township. Consequently, it has not felt the effects of suburbanization as much as 44 TABLE VIII DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF KALAMAZOO TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Residential 86.8 89.1 85.0 85.2 -- 68.9 85.1 Industrial 9.9 7.9 15.9 11.2 -- 28.6 11.8 Commercial :20:2 :200 :201 :206 "- 20 :20] TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township 17.4 50.6 10.5 9.0 -~ 12.5 in each Class Kalamazoo Township or Comstock Township. Census figures show that its population increase has been at an even slower rate than that of the city of Kalamazoo or Kalamazoo County. Its population has increased only about 66 per cent since the turn of the century. Class I and Class 11 land together make up 65 per cent of Schoolcraft Township (TABLE IX). According to the 1922 Soil Survey of Kalamazoo County over 99 per cent of the township consists of five soil types: Uarsaw silt loam (Class I) 28.8 per cent, Muck (Class VI) 25.6 per cent, Fox loam (Class II) 17.7 per cent, Warsaw loam (Class II) 16.5 per cent, and Fox sandy loam (Class III) 12.9 per cent. In spite of the fact that the township is predominantly rural and that almost two-thirds of its land is well suited for agriculture, the zoning ordinance, which was adopted in 1951, has zoned none of this land for agri- cultural purposes. The township has been zoned only for residential, commercial, and industrial uses as indicated in TABLE IX. 45 TABLE IX DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF SCHOOLCRAFT TOWNSHIP m H M Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district RO sidential 7O 0} 8) 06 99 0 1 --' 100 00 85 01* 82 0 5 Commercial and 29.5 14.6 0.9 —- -- 12.5 16.5 Industrial comerCIEI 002 108 --' '8 .- 2’01 102 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 -. 100.0 100.0 100.0 ‘ Per cent of Township 28.8 54.4 15.1 —- 0.1 25.6 in each Class Kent County - Gaines Township This township falls within three broad land divisions: (1) “Level to Rolling Clay Loam to Silty Clay'Loam 3°11.“ (H-l9), (2) “Level to Hilly Dry Sands' (0-28), and (5) ”Level to Rolling Loams' (T-54). Gaines Township is located in the southern part of Kent County and is far enough from the city of Grand Rapids so as not to be greatly affected by suburbanization. The rate of growth of its pepulation has only been slightly greater than that of Kent County or the city of Grand Rapids. Since 1900, the population of Gaines Township has increased 2.5 times as compared with 2.2 times for Kent County and 2.0 times for the city of Grand Rapids. However, within.the last decade the population of this township increased about 71 per cent. Approximately 66 per cent of the township is Class I agricultural land (TABLE X). The 1926 Soil Survey of Kent County shows that over 55 46 per cent of this township consists of three Class I soil types: Kent silt loam 25.1 per cent, Isabella loam 17.0 per cent, and Miami loam 15.1 per cent. Through the zoning ordinance (adopted in 195C) the township has par- tially protected the majority of this better agricultural land for agri- cultural purposes. An “agricultural“ district has been created covering approximately 89 per cent of the township which includes more than 96 per cent of the Class I and Class 11 land (TABLE X). However, this district is open to the uses which are permitted in the residential districts and, also, I'tourist cabins, tourist courts and motels, and trailer coach parks" are allowed. TABLE X DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF GAINES TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use— district Agricultural 96.8 96.7 89.2 51.5 45.8 99.6 89.0 Residential O06 -" 609 4506 4701 "'- 709 Industrial 1.8 -- 2.1 -— 5.5 -- 1.8 comerc131 008 505 108 :201 ~ 506 004 10:: TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township 65.9 1.2 17.1 6.4 7.1 2.5 in each Class _~ Kent County - Grand Rapids Township This township is made up of two land divisions: (l) I'Level to Rolling 47 Clay Loam to Silty Clay Loam Soils" (ii—19) and (2) "Rolling to Extremely Hilly Well Drained Sands to Sandy Loams" (N—27). Grand Rapids Township adjoins the city of Grand Rapids on the north- east. In spite of its location, the growth of its population has not been especially rapid. Although the population has multiplied 5.“ times since the turn of the century, during the last decade it had only a 52 per cent increase. This was less than Gaines Township experienced (71 per cent) which is situated at a greater distance from an urban center. TABLE XI shows that about one-half of the township is Class I land and about one-third is Class V land. The 1926 Soil Survey of Kent County indicates that approximately 65 per cent of the township is made up of two soil types: Kent silt loam (Class I) 55.1 per cent and Coloma sand (Class V) 50.4 per cent. In a situation of this type, where there is an admixture of good and poor quality agricultural land, zoning can be especially beneficial in guiding land use. However, the township's zoning ordinance (adopted 1955) makes no provision for reserving the better agricultural land for agricul- tural purposes. Instead, over 97 per cent of the township is zoned for residential uses and the remainder as commercial and industrial or local business uses (TABLE XI). ggnt'Countz - Eyoming Township Three broad land divisions comprise this township: (1) “Rolling.to Extremely Hilly Well Drained Sands to Sandy Loams' (N-27), (2) “Level to Hilly Dry Sands" (0-28), and (5) ”Level to Rolling Clay Loams, Silty Clay Loams and Clays" (R-5l). Wyoming Township abuts the southwest corner of the city of Grand Rapids. It has eXperienced considerably more suburbanization than either 48 TABLE XI DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF GRAND RAPIDS TOWNSHIP —-___— — I'— J Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Residential 99.26 95.5 99.5 87.5 94.8 98.8 97.5 commemi‘l md 0071 1‘05 -- 1207 506 008 109 Industrial Local Emineaa 0005 ’- 002 .- 106 00h 006 TOTALS 100.00 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township 49.4 2.4 5.2 1.5 55.5 8.0 in each Class of the other two townships studied in this county. Since 1900, its popu- lation has increased 8.5 times. TABLE XII shows that only about 15 per cent of the township is Class I and Class 11 land whereas 44.8 per cent is Class V land and 27.5 per cent is Class 111. According to the 1926 Soil Survey, approximately three- fourths of the township consists of four soil types: Plainfield sand (Class V) 50.5 per cent, Oshtemo sandy loam (Class III) 19.8 per cent, Coloma sand (Class V) 14.5 per cent, and Isabella 10am (Class I) 10.2 per cent. It is interesting to note that this highly urbanized township has zoned (1954) about 45 per cent of its area as an "agricultural'I district. In 1950 its pepulation was 28,977, a figure which is greater than that for any other township investigated. This "agricultural“ district includes 87.9 per cent of the Class I land and 98.6 per cent of the Class II land. 49 However, it also includes 56.7 per cent of the Class IV land (TABLE XII). In addition to agriculture and related uses, uses of the residential dis— trict, municipal uses, and various athletic and recreational uses are permitted in this district. TABLE XII DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF WYOMING TOWNSHIP r Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Agricultural 87.9 98.6 25.4 56.7 57.7 31.5 45.1 Residential -- 104 4101 20.4 4401 4005 5408 Industrial 1009 -- 2505 170a 902 1501* 1509 Open 102 "- 60} 106 607 1508 508 Commercial -- -— 5.2 5.9 215 1.0 2.4 TOTALS 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100.0 100 .0 100 .0 Per cent of Township 15.6 1.9 27.5 6.4 044.8 5.8 in each Class Lenawee County - Adrian Township Two land divisions make up this township: (1) ILevel to Rolling Clay Loams, Silty Clay Loams and Clays' (R—5l) and (2) “Level to Rolling Hell Drained Sandy Loams' (V-57). Adrian Township partially surrounds the city of Adrian to the north. The city is a small one (population about 18,400 in 1950), thus, sub— urbanization has not been very rapid in the township. This is reflected in the census reports which reveal that the pepulation of the township has increased approximately 52 per cent since 1900. This is in comparison with 91 per cent for Adrian City or 54 per cent for the whole of Lenawee County. This township is generally well suited to farming. Over 85 per cent of its area is Class I and Class II agricultural land (TABLE XIII). The Soil Survey of Lenawee County shows that two soil types comprise approxi- mately 70 per cent of Adrian Township: Fox loam (Class II) 58.2 per cent and Hillsdale loam (Class I) 52.5 per cent. However, the zoning ordinance, which was adopted in 1955, protects none of this large amount (about 19,500 acres) of better agricultural land specifically for agricultural purposes. Instead, 99 Per cent of the town- ship is zoned as a “Residential and Farming” district (TABLE XIII). This district includes the majority of all land classes. TABLE XIII DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF ADRIAN TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Residential and 99.5 99.8 96.9 97.9 -- 100.0 99.5 Farming COMOTCial Oej 002 501 201 10000 "- ___O_J TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township 46.47 59.28 8.64 2.46 0.02 5.15 in each Class 9““- 51 Macomb County - R31 Township The ”Level Poorly Drained Loams, Silt Loams, Clay Loams and Claysn land division (3-52) make up this township. Ray Township is located in the north central portion of Macomb County. It is not very close to any large urban center and this is reflected in its rate of growth. Its pOpulation increased only 25 per cent from 1900 to 1950. This is considerably less than the increase for Macomb County as a whole which was 456 per cent for the same period. The land of this township is well adapted for agricultural purposes; 46.5 per cent is Class I land, 24.5 per cent is Class II land and there is no Class V land (TABLE XIV). According to the 1925 Soil Survey, three soil types make up over two-thirds of the township: Brookston loam (Class I) 45.7 per cent, Nappanee silty clay loam (Class II) 15.4 per cent, and Newton loamy fine sand (Class IV) 9.1 per cent. The township's zoning ordinance (adepted 1951) makes no attempt to create districts according to the suitability of the land for agricultural and non-agricultural uses. Approximately 99.7 per cent of the township has been classed as an "Agricultural and Residential“ district (TABLE XIV) in which the two uses are allowed to compete eqUally throughout regardless of land character. Mgpomb County - Richmond Township This township falls within the ”Level Poorly Drained Loams, Silt Lowms, Clay Loams and Clays' land division (8—52). Richmond Township lies in the extreme northeast corner of Macomb County. The township has not eXperienced much increase in population-- having only 1.2 times as many people in 1950 as in 1900. The county as 52 TABLE XIV DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF RAY TOJNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of ___ Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- distrigt Agricultural and 99.7 99.6 99.8 99.6 —- —- 99.7 Residential ComerClal 0:5 004 002 004 > -- -- 00:: TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 —- -- 100.0 Per cmt Of Township 4605 2h05 1905 907 -- -- in each Class a whole has increased its pepulation 5.6 times over the same period. The demand for land for non-agricultural purposes in this township should not be excessive. A 1925 Soil Survey of Macomb County shows the township as consisting of broad acreages of Class I soils--Brookston (52 per cent) and Conover (28 per cent) being the predominant Class I soils. Approximately 80 per cent of the township is Class I land (TABLE XV). However, the township's zoning ordinance places over 95 per cent of the township in a combination ”Agricultural and Residential" district (TABLE XV). This means that approximately 19,000 acres of Class I agri— cultural land are left essentially unprotected for agricultural purposes. Macomb County - Shelby'Township This township is made up of three broad land divisions: (1) “Level Poorly Drained Loams, Silt Loams, Clay Loams and Clays“ (3-52) , (2) “Level TABLE XV DISTRIBUTICN OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF RICHMOND TOWNSHIP 55 d "'- Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of W Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Agricultural and 94.4 85.5 89.7 96.5 -- —— 95.2 Residential Industrial 5.2 16.4 8.0 5.2 —. -- 6.5 Commercial 0.4 0.1 2.5 cm —- -- 0.5 TOTALS 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100.0 -- -- 100.0 Per cent of Township 80.4 7.4 9.5 2.7 .. .. in each Class to Rolling Loams" (T—54), and (5) ”Level Poorly Drained Sands and Sandy Loans Over Losms to Clays" (3‘40) ° Shelby Township is located in the west central portion of Macomb colmty. It is one township removed from the Pontiac metropolitan area in 0a‘liland County. Since 1900 its population has multiplied 5.4 times and has more than doubled during the decade from 1940 to 1950. Less than 12 per cent of the township is Class I and Class II agri- cultural land and more than 62 per cent is Class IV. However, there is “0 Class V land (TABLE XVI). According to the 1925 Soil Survey, over two- t‘hirds of the township consists of four soil types: Plainfield loamy 3and (Class IV) 22.7 per cent, Newton loamy fine sand (Class IV) 19.9 per cent, Fox gravelly sandy loam (Class III) 15.0 per cent, and Berrien loamy fine sand (Class IV) 11.2 per cent. The township's zoning ordinance (as amended to June 1, 1951) pro- serves none of the better agricultural land, which is scarce in this town- ship, especially for agricultural uses. Over 91 per cent of the township is zoned as “Agricultural and Residential“ which includes the majority of all land classes (TABLE XVI). In this district agriculture has to compete with residences for the good and poor agricultural land alike. TABLE XVI DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS Oi“ SHELBY TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- —— district Aagricultural and 97.9 96.5 72.0 98.65 -- 100.0 91.7 Residential Industrial and Mining -- —- 15.0 -— -- .. 5.8 <3<>nnmercia1 2.1 5.5 6.9 1.55 -- -- 2.9 Induetrial —- -- 6.1 0.02 -- .. 1.6 TOTALS 100 .0 100 00 100 00 100 000 -- 100 .0 100 .0 Per cent of Township 4.1 7.6 25.5 62.4 -- 0.4 in each Class \— Maacomb My - Sterling Township Two land divisions comprise this township: (1) “Level Poorly Drained I«cams, Silt Loams, Clay Loams and Clays" (3-52) and (2) 'Level Poorly Drained Sands and Sandy Loams Over Loams to Clays“ (X—40). Sterling Township is located in the southwest portion of Macomb County and is relatively close to the Lake St. Clair urbanized area and also the Birmingham-Bloomfield Hills built-up area in Oakland County. Since 1900, the population of the township has increased 240 per cent. 55 Sterling Township has 46.7 per cent Class IV land and 41.8 per cent Class I and Class 11 land combined (TABLE XVII). The 1925 Soil Survey zixadicates that approximately 70 per cent of the township consists of three noil types: Berrien loamy fine sand (CLASS IV) 52.7 per cent, Conover loam (Class I) 22.9 per cent, and Nappanee loam (Class II) 15.9 per cent. The townships zoning ordinance, which became effective in 1949, allots 84.2 per cent of the township for combined agricultural and resi- dential uses without setting aside any land specifically for agriculture. The remainder of the township (15.8 per cent) is zoned for industrial and commercial uses. These districts include 15.5 of the Class I land and . 18 .2 per cent of the Class 11 land (TABLE XVII). TABLE XVII DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSE AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF STERLING TOWNSHIP w ‘V—w Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- ______5 district Agar-iculturnl and 86.5 81.7 82.8 84.5 -- 100.0 84.2 Residential Industrial 12.6 17.5 15.0 15.1 -- -- 14.9 oOllimercial 0.9 0.8 2;}; 0.6 -- -- 0.2 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 —- 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township 24.74 17.02 11.54 46.66 —- 0.04 in each Class lLaco-nb County - washington Township This township falls within two broad land divisions: (1) ”Level 4 _-, ‘ Lin-ti u~:¢n~r 56 Poorly Drained Loams, Silt Loams, Clay Loams and Clays" (3-52) and (2) “Level to Rolling Loams'I (T-54) . Hashington Township is located in the northwest portion of Macomb County. It has not been greatly affected by suburbanization. Its popu- lation has increased only 76 per cent since 1900. TABLE XVIII shows that Class I and Class III are the predominant land classes-«Class I being 44.7 per cent of the township and Class III 24.5 per cent. Class I and Class 11 land together make up 57 per cent of the township. The Macomb County Soil Survey (1925) shows that approximately one-half of this township consists of three soil types: Miami loam (Class I) 22.2 per cent, Conover loam (Class I) 15.9 per cent, and Bellefontaine sandy loam (Class III) 12.7 per cent. However, Hashington Township, similar to the other townships studied in this county, groups agricultural and residential uses into a single use- diatrict. This district includes 84.5 per cent of the township and the Inajority of all land classes (TABLE XVIII). WM - Egleston Township Three land divisions make up this township: (1) I'Level to Hilly Dry 38chis" (0-28), (2) "Mixed Wet and Dry Sands with Organic Soils" (Po29), and (5) 'Organic Soils“ (Z—45). Egleston Township is adjacent to Muskegon Township on the east. The laflirts:- partially surrounds the city of Muskegon. Suburbanization in this tOWnship has been quite pronounced. The population has increased 12.4 times since 1900, 4.2 times since 1950, and 2.5 times since 1940. ' The township has very little good agricultural land; Class I and class 11 land together make up less than 1 per cent of the total area, Whereas Class IV and Class V land combined make up over 84 per cent (TABLE 57 TABLE XVIII DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use—district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district AgtiCUItural and 9001 8803 6909 8905 -" 7705 8405 Residential Mining 7.0 10.0 29.8 5.8 -- 16.5 12.7 Industrial 207 -- 005 506 -- 602 205 Commercial 0.2 l.z -- 1.1 -- -- 0.5 TOTALS 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .O -- 100 .0 100 .0 Per cent of Township 44.7 12.4 24.5 15.8 -- 2.8 in each Class XIX). The Muskegon County Soil Survey (1924) shows that more than two- thirds of the township is made up of Plainfield loamy sand (Class IV) alone. The Egleston Township zoning ordinance (adopted 1949) has seemingly wisely zoned only 7.5 per cent of the township as an |'agricultural“ dis- tevict. (TABLE XIX). This so-called "agricultural" district is essentially an Open district, however, since “this ordinance shall not apply to such a~E1'1cultura1 districts.u WM - Laketon Township Two broad land divisions make up this township: (1) 'Level to Hilly Dry Sands“ (0-28) and (2) “Mixed Wet and Dry Sands with Organic Soils” (P~29). Laketon Township is located on Lake Michigan immediately north of the °1ty of Muskegon. However, it has experienced less suburbanization-than TABLE XIX DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE—DISTRICTS OF EGLESTON TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Re aidential -- 66.7 6.5 95.6 97.4 19.1 81 .5 30-0” -. ’- 5701 108 -- 7102 1006 Agricutuml 100 .0 5505 5604’ 509 1 04 907 705 Commercial -- -- -- 0. Z 142- -- 0.6 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township 0.6 0.2 8.8 75.2 9.5 509 in each Class vv' v- ' —vv"f'w " —' "v fi— 'i Egleston Township. Since 1900 the pOpulation of Laketon Township has only multiplied 4.5 times as compared with 12.4 for Egleston Township. Most of the township's soils are not well adapted for general agri- culture. Class I, Class II, and Class III agricultural land together com- Priac only 9.1 per cent of the township (TABLE XX). The 1924 Soil Survey Of the area shows that almost two-thirds of the township consists of three 3011 types: Plainfield loamy sand (Class IV) 54.5 per cent, Saugatuck Band (Class V) 16.1 per cent, and Bridgman fine sand (Class V) 15.1 per cent. The township's zoning ordinance (adopted 1950) zones the entire town- 81erI) for residential and commercial uses (TABLE XX). Since agriculture is peI'mitted and good agricultural land is scarce (slightly under 1,000 acres Of Class I and Class II land), it might have been wise to create some small a81’ch ultural districts . 59 TABLE XX DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF LAKETON TOWNSHIP v 7 - w' W'__ -w Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- * district Residential 10000 10000 9708 9806 9907 9806 9900 Comemitl "’ ""’ 20:— 101+ 00} 104 100 TOTALS 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 1C0 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 ' w "v .—t Per cent of Township 0.8 7.5 0.8 58.0 29.2 .7 in each Class \N W County - Sullivan Township This township falls within two land divisions: (1) “Level to Billy Dry Sands' (0-28) and (2) "Mixed wet and Dry Sands with Organic Soils“ (P-29). Sullivan Township is situated in the south central part of Muskegon county. It has experienced less suburbanization than either Egleeton Town- 'hip or Laketon Township. Its population has increased only 2.5 times Sing. the turn of the century, and the total population in 1950 W88 only slightly more than 1,000 persons. This township has very little good agricultural land. Class I and class II land together make up approximately three per cent of the town- ahip, whereas the total for Class IV and Class V land cwprises almost 90 p91. cent (TABLE XXI). The Muskegon County Soil Survey (1924) shows that two 8011 types make up about 77 per cent of the township: Plainfield loamy a“'le (Class IV) 59.5 per cent and Saugatuck sand (Class V) 57.4 per cent- 60 The township has zoned (in 1949) about one--alf of its area for resi- dential purposes, about one-third for ”agriculture“, and slightly more than one-eighth fo r forestry. Though small in extent, most of the Class I and Class II land have been zoned for 'agriculture", but 45.5 per cent of the Class V land is also included in this district. It is especially note- worthy that the forestry districts include essentially Class IV and Class TABLE XXI DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF SULLIVAN TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of - __”__ Township in each I II III IV V VI Use— _ -_ district Reflidontial 60h -- 5406 5602 5006 5004 5008 Agricultural 95.6 100.0 62.9 19.5 45.5 49.6 54.8 Forestry —- -- 1.0 25.6 6.0 —- 15.9 Commercial -- .... n 0.5 0.1 -- 0.5 I ndustrial -1 __ n- I; 0 .2 -- -- 0.2 TOTALS 100 .0 100 .0“ 100 .0 1C0 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 Per cent of Township 1.5 1.6 6.5 48.1 41.6 0.9 in each Class m County - Allendale Township Three broad land divisions make up this township: (1) “Level to ROlling Clay Loam to Silty Clay Loam Soils' (Ii-19) , (2) ”Level to Hilly Dry Sands“ (0-28), and (5) I'Mixed Net and Dry Sands with Organic Soils" ( P-29) . 61 Allendale Township is centrally located in Ottawa County. It is not near any large urban center and this is reflected in the rate of its popu- lation growth. Since 1900, the population has increased only slightly more than 16 per cent. Class IV and Class V land make up approximately 54 per cent of the township and Class I and Class II land ccmprise about 26 per cent (TABLE XXII). According to the 1922 Soil Survey of the area, a little over one- half of the township consists of two poor agricultural soil types: Plain- field sand (Class V) 40.5 per cent, and Newton loamy fine sand (Class IV) 1200 ”1' CODte The township's zoning ordinance (adopted 1949) stipulates an “agri- cultural' district which makes up about two—thirds of the township. In general, this district includes a proportional amount of each land class, instead of having more of the better agricultural land and less of the poor qUality land (TABLE xxu). M29231 ' Blendon Township Three land divisions comprise this township: (1) “Mixed Wet and Dry Sands with Organic Soilsa (P-29), (2) “Level to Rolling Clay Loams, Silty clay Looms and Clays“ (Fl-51), and (5) “Organic Soils” (2-45). Blendon Township is located in the central portion of Ottawa County 'ldjacent to Allendale Township. It has experienced even less population growth than the latter, its population having increased only 10 per cent since 1M0 Roughly, three-fourths of the township is Class IV and Class Vagri- cultural land and about 22 per cent is Class I and Class II land (TABLE '\ KXIII), The Ottawa County Soil Survey (1922) shows that two soil types 62 TABLE XXII DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF ALLENDALE TOWNSHIP W Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Agricultural 6903' 6700 6101 7109 6407 7502 6601 Residential 50.1 29.2 22.0 25.8 50.7 14.1 27.8 Industrial -- 108 1609 "’ 102 1109 509 Commercial 0.6 2.0, -- 2.5 5.4 0.8, 2.2 TOTALS 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .O 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 Per cent of’Township 8.9 17.9 15.6 12.5 41.7 5.6 in each Class make up about two-thirds of the township: Newton loamy fine sand (Class IV) 57.5 per cent, and Plainfield sand (Class V) 28.9 per cent. The township's zoning ordinance (adapted 1950) has placed 96.7 per cent of the township into an “agricultural“ district which includes the vast majority of all land classes (TABLE XXIII). The uses permitted in the residence district are also permitted in this district. Ottawa County — Crockery Township This township is made up of three land divisions: (1) “Level to Roll— ing Clay Loam to Silty Clay Loam Soils“ (H-l9), (2) “Level to Hilly Dry Sands“ (0-28), and (5) “Mixed Wet and Dry Sands with Organic Soils“ (P-29). Crockery Township is located in the north central part of Ottawa County. It is predominantly rural and has had only a 54 per cent increase in population since 1900. TABLE XXIII DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE—DISTRICTS OF BLENDON TOWNSHIP gm Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district AgtiCUlt-Ul‘al 9806 9706 -" 97075 91‘056 99 .0 96066 Reaidential 005 1 07 ’° 1076 5.89 -‘- 2058 oomorc181 101 007 "- 00h9 1050 100 009’ Induatrial "" ” "' O 022‘ O 005 "" 000 2 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 -- 100.00 100.00 100.0 100.00 Per cent of Township 4.2 18.0 -- 40.5 54.8 2.5 in each Class About one-fourth of the township is Class I and Class II agricultural land and approximately two-thirds is Class IV and Class V land (TABLE XXIV). The 1922 Soil Survey for the area shows that five soil types are fairly important, comprising a little over 71 per cent of the township: Plainfield loamy fine sand (Class IV) 25.0 per cent, Ssugatuck sand (Class V) 15.4 per cent, Nappanee silty clay loam"(01ass n) 12.0 per cent, Plain— field sand (Class V) 10.7 per cent, and Newton loamy fine sand (Class IV) 10.2 per cent. The Crockery Township zoning ordinance (adapted 1950) creates an “agricultural“ district which comprises 75.2 per cent of the township. This district includes only 78.5 and 72.6 of the Class I and Class II agricultural land respectively, whereas, the residential district which makes up about 24.5 per cent of the township includes 21.7 per cent and 26.4 per cent of these two land classes (TABLE XXIV). Moreover, the uses 64 permitted in the residential district are also permitted in the “agricul- tural“ district. TABLE XXIV DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF CROCKERY TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use—district of Township V in each I II III IV V VI Use- district AgtiCUltural 780 5 7206 82 05 720 5 710“ 85 0 j 750 2 Residential 21.7 26.4 17.5 25.6 24.4 15.2 24.4 CommerCIQI "'" 009 -- 109 507 105 201 Industrial -- 0.1 -- o.g_ 0.57 -— 0.5 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township 2.2 25.5 5.5 55.5 52.5 5.2 in each Class Ottawa County .- Park Township Two broad land divisions make up this township: (1) “Level to Hilly Dry Sands“ (0-28) and (2) “Mixed Wet and Dry Sands with Organic Soils“ (P-29) - Park Township is located in the southwest corner of Ottawa County on the shore of Lake Michigan. It is also near the small city of Holland (population 15,858 in 1950). Consequently, it has eXperienced a greater increase in population than either of the other townships studied in this county. Its population has increased 500 per cent since 1920 and approxi- mately 75 per cent during the decade from 1940 to 1950. This township is extremely poorly suited for general agriculture. Over 90 per cent of its area is Class V land (TABLE XXV), and according to 65 the 1922 Soil Survey, three soil types make up all of this amount: Bridgman fine sand (44.8 per cent), Saugatuck sand (50.4 per cent), and Plainfield sand (16.0 per cent). There is no Class I agricultural land in the township and only 1.2 per cent is Class II land. About 75 per cent of the township has been zoned (1946) as an "agri- cultural“ district (TABLE xxv), but the uses of the residential district are also permitted in this district. TABLE XXV DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE—DISTRICTS OF PARK TOWNSHIP W . Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Agricultural -— 100.0 —— 85.0 72.ll 68.5 72.70 Residential - - -- 17.0 25.94 27.9 25.57 Commercial -- -~ -- - 1.95 5.8 1.91 Industrial -- -_ -- -~ 0.02 -— 0.02 TOTALS -- 100 .0 -- 100 .0 100 .00 100 .0 100 .00 Per cent of Township -- 1.2 —- 5.6 91.2 4.0 in each Class Ottawa County - Robinson Township This township is made up of two land divisions: (1) “Level to Hilly Dry Sands“ (0-28) and (2) "Mixed Wet and Dry Sands with Organic Soils" (P-29) - Robinson Township is adjacent to Allendale Township in the north central portion of Ottawa County. Since 1900, its population has increased 76 per cent as compared with 86 per cent for the whole of Ottawa County. 66 Similarly to Park Township, Robinson has no Class I agricultural land and Class IV and Class V land together make up more than 92 per cent of its area (TABLE XXVI). The 1922 Soil Survey reveals that about four— fifths of the township consists of two soil types: Plainfield sand (Class V) 48.6 per cent and Newton loamy fine sand (Class IV) 51.1 per cent. The township's zoning ordinance (adopted 1949) zones 71.6 per cent of the township as an "agricultural'I district which also permits uses of the residential districts (TABLE XXVI). TABLE XXVI DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF ROBINSON TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use—district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district AgriCUItural —. 7801 7802 75 01" 68.9 7801 71 06 Residential -— 21.5 5.9 25.7 28.6 19.5 26.2 Commercial "- 006 "" 0.8 1.05 206 102 IndUBtrial -- —— 17 ’9 0 01 1 02 -" . 1 00 TOTALS -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township -- 2.2 1.4 51.8 61.0 5.6 in each Class *— -. “- Ottawa County - Spring Lake Township Two broad land divisions comprise this township: (1) uLevel to Hilly Dry Sands' (0-28) and (2) "Mixed Wet and Dry Sands with Organic Soils" (P—29). 1 Spring Lake Township is in the extreme northwest corner of Ottawa County on the shore of Lake Michigan and is adjacent to the city of Grand 67 Haven. Since the turn of the century, its pepulation has increased 215 per cent as compared with 101 per cent for the city of Grand Haven. Over 96 per cent of the township is Class IV and Class V agricul— tural land (TABLE XXVII). According to the 1922 Soil Survey of Ottawa County, about 85 per cent of the township consists of four soil types in these two classes: Bridgman fine sand (Class V) 27.9 per cent, Plainfield sand (Class V) 22.0 per cent, Saugatuck sand (Class V) 18.5 per cent,and Plainfield loamy fine sand (Class IV) 16.9 per cent. Similarly to the other townships studied in this county, Spring Lake Township's zoning ordinance (1952) creates an "agricultural'I district which permits residential uses in addition to agriculture and related practices. This district includes 47.8 per cent of the township (TABLE XXVII). TABLE XXVII DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF SPRING LAKE TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- ___ district Agricultural #200 "" "" 46 08 4707 6205 4708 Residential 55.5 -. -- 54.5 42.8 55.2 40.7 Induatrial ’- "' -~ 1604 705 -. 902 ComerCial A01 _ "' “1; 205 202 20§ 20:5 TOTALS 100.0 -- -- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township 0.9 -— —- 2#.5 72.1 2.7 in each Class Saginaw Qggggy ~ Buena Vista ngnghlp This township falls within the "Level, Poorly Drained Loams, Silt Loans, and Clay Loams'I land division (I-20,21). Buena Vista Township adjoins the northern part of the city of Saginaw. Suburbanization has not been very rapid in this township since its p0pu- lation has increased only about 9k per cent since 1900. This is in com- parison with 89 per cent for Saginaw County and 119 per cent for the city of Saginaw during the same period. The Saginaw County Soil Survey (1955) reveals that approximately three—fourths of the township consists of four Class I soil types: Brookston loam 25.5 per cent, Wiener clay loam 21.5 per cent, Thomas clay loam 15.5 per cent, and Brookston.clay loam 12.6 per cent. ClassI and Class II land together make up more than 91 per cent of the township (TABLE XXVIII). The township in general, then, is well suited for agri- culture. The township's zoning ordinance (adopted 1952) has classed 85 per cent of the township as an “agricultural“ district (TABLE XXVIII), but the uses permitted in the residential and commercial zones and various recrea— tional uses are also permitted in this district. However, it is noteworthy that this so-called agricultural district, which comprises some 19,500 acres, includes about 17,800 acres of Class I and Class II agricultural land. . Saginaw County - Carrollton Township This township falls within the “Level, Poorly Drained Loams, Silt Loans, and Clay Loame“ land division (I-21). Carrollton Township is located directly north of and adjoining the city of Saginaw. Its rate of growth has been slightly less than the city 69 TABLE XXVIII DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF BUENA VISTA TOWNSHIP v r —— _—-: Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Agricultural 85.4 74.6 88.5 64.6 -- 85.7 85.0 Residential 11.1 9.8 8.4 55.8 -- 1.6 11.0 Recreational 5.0 4.6 5.1 1.6 100.0 2.1 5.1 Industrial 2.1 11.0 -- -- —- 10.6 2.6 Commercial 0.4 -- -- -~ -- -- 0.5 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 lO0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township 88.9 2.5 2.6 1.9 0.1 4.0 in each Class of Saginaw, its population having increased 102 per cent since 1900 as compared with 119 per cent for the latter. Approximately three-fifths of the township is Class I and Class II agricultural land (TABLE XXIX). The Soil Survey (1955) of the area shows that about 79 per cent of the township is made up of five soil types: Brookston silt loam (Class I) 19.8 per cent, Wiener clay loam (Class I) 17.9 per cent, Hauseon loamy fine sand (Class III) 14.2 per cent, Essex- ville loamy fine sand (Class II) 14.1 per cent, and Granby loamy fine sand (Class IV) 15.2 per cent. I Carrollton Township's zoning ordinance (adopted 1955) stipulates no agricultural district although agriculture is permitted in the other dis- tricts. Instead, 85.2 per cent of the township is zoned as residential and the remainder as various industrial and commercial districts (TABLE xxxx) . 70 TABLE XXIX DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF CARROLLTON TOWNSHIP f “J H Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Residential 94.9 69.4 92.1 98.0 2.7 .— 85.2 Industrial 4.5 26.5 7.4 -— 97.5 -- 15.5 C-Omerc1al 008 405 002 2.0 .- "" 10:2 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 Per cent of Township 45.2 14.1 18.1 15.9 8.7 in each class S_a_gimw County - Saginaw Township The “Level, Poorly Drained Loams, Silt Loans, and Clay Loams' land division (I—20) makes up thie.township. Saginaw Township abuts the western part of the city of Saginaw. It has experienced more pepulation growth than either of the other townships studied in this county. Since the turn of the century, its population has multiplied 4.7 times. According to the 1925 Soil Survey, approximately 55 per cent of the township is made up of three Class 1 soil types: Brookston loam (20.1 per cent), Kawkawlin.fine sandy loam.(17.9 per cent), and Kawkawlin.1oam (16.9 per cent). All of the Class I soil types together comprise 71 per cent of the township (TABLE XXX). The township's zoning ordinance (adopted 1951) places 86.5 per cent of this good agricultural land in an ”agricultural“ district which 71 comprises 84.5 per cent of the township (TABLE XXX). However, in this district various residential and recreational uses are also allowed. TABLE XXX DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USEéDISTRICTS OP SAGINAU TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Agricultural 860) 5601'} 8705 78012 85 06 —- 8405 Residential 12.5 45.6 12.5 21.17 12.4 -- 14.5 Commercial 1.5 -- -- 0.68 -- -- 1.1 Industrial 0.1 -- -- 0.05 2.0 -- 0.1 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0C 100.0 -- 100.0 Per cent of Township 71.0 0.4 5.5 22.0 1.5 -- in each Class Uashtenaw County - A_g_n Arbor Township Two broad land divisions make up this township: (1) ”Level to Roll- ing Clay Loams, Silty Clay Loams and Clays” (R-51) and (2) "Level to Roll- ing Loams' (T—54) . Ann Arbor Township essentially surrounds the city of Ann Arbor. Its population growth, however, has been at a slower rate than that of the city of Ann Arbor or Hashtenaw County. Since 1900, its population has multiplied 2.7 times as compared with 5.5 times for the city of Ann Arbor and 2.8 times for Hashtenaw County. A A little over oneéhalf of the township is Class I agricultural land and slightly more than one-third is Class III agricultural land (TABLE 72 XXXI). The Washtenaw County Soil Survey (1950) shows that two soil types make up almost two—thirds of this township: Miami loam (Class I) 45.0 per cent and Bellefontaine sandy loam (Class III) 20.8 per cent. The township's zoning ordinance (1946) places about three-fourths of the Class I agricultural land into an I'agricultural" district which includes 69 per cent of the township (TABLE XXXI). However, residential and recreational uses are also permitted in this district. TABLE XXXI DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF ANN ARBOR TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of _' Township in each I II III IV V VI Use— district Agricultural 7601 6607 5801 6602 -" 7501 6900 Residential 22.2 -- 55.8 29.4 .. 25.9 26.7 Park 004 1805 607 106 "' 100 208 Commercial 115 _l5.0 1.4 2.8 -- -— 1.5 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -- 100.0 100.0 Per cent Of Township 5507 006 5501‘} 606 -- 507 in each Class Washtenaw County - Pittsfield Township This township falls within the “Level to Rolling Clay Loams, Silty Clay Loans and Clays" land division (R-5l). Pittsfield Township is located directly south of and adjoining Ann Arbor Township. It has experienced considerably more population growth ‘than.Ann Arbor Township, its population having increased 5.1 times since 1900 as compared with 2.7 times for the latter. 75 The 1950 Soil Survey of Washtenaw County shows that one Class I soil type, Miami silt loam, makes up over one-half of the township. All of the Class I soil types together make up 62.6 per cent of the township (TABLE XXIII). The Pittsfield Township zoning ordinance (adopted 1950) creates an 'agricultural' district which makes up 86.9 per cent of the township. This district includes about 85 per cent of the Class I agricultural land, but various other uses (residential, recreational, etc.) are also permitted. TABLE XXXII DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF PITTSFIELD TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district AgriCUItural 8502 9506 6401 95 05 9407 9707 8609 Residential 9.8 509 5005 2.0 108 108 902 Commercial 2.8 -- 2.8 1.8 5.5 0.1 2.2 Industrial 2.2 0.2 2-8 0.] -. 0.4 , 1.1 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Per cent Of Tmahip 6206 807 702 1000 105 1002 in each Class Uashtenaw County - Superior Township This township is made up of four land divisions: (1) "Level to Roll- ing Clay Loams, Silty Clay Loams and Clays“ (R—jl), (2) “Level Poorly Drained Loams, Silt Loams, Clay Loams and Clays” (3-52), (5) "Level to Rolling Loams' (T-54), and (A) "Level to Rolling Well Drained Sandy Loams" (V—57). 74 Superior Township adjoins Ann Arbor Township on the east and is just north of the city of Ypsilanti. Its population has grown at a very rapid rate, especially within recent years--dur1ng the decade from 1940 to 1950 its population increased 5.h times. Approximately 64 per cent of the township is Class I and Class II agricultural land (TABLE XXXIII). The 1950 Soil Survey of Nashtenaw County shows that about 54 per cent of the township consists of three soil types: Miami silt loam (Class I) 27.h per cent, Miami loam (Class I) 15.9 per cent, and Nappanee silt loam (Class II) 10.8 per cent. The Superior Township zoning ordinance (adapted 1951) classes 95.8 per cent of the township as "agricultural” (TABLE XXXIII). This district, of course, includes the majority of all land classes. However, “one- family detached dwellings other than farm dwellings' are also permitted in this district. ‘Eashtenaw_County — Ipsilanti Township Three broad land divisions comprise this township: (1) “Level to Rolling Clay Loams, Silty Clay Loams and Clays" (R-fil), (2) "Level Poorly Drained Loams, Silt Loams, Clay Loams and Clays" (3-52), and (5) “Level to Rolling Hell Drained Sandy Loams' (v-57). I Ypsilanti Township almost completely surrounds the city of Ypsilanti. Its pepulation growth has been greater than any other township studied in Washtenaw County. Since 1900 its population has multiplied 11.9 times (3.5 times from 1990 to 1950) as compared with 2.5 times for the city of ‘Ypsilanti or 2.8 times for flashtenaw County. ClasslII and Class IV agricultural land make up 72.0 per cent of the 'township and Class I and Class 11 make up 22.1 per cent (TABLE xxxxv). TABLE XXXIII DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE-DISTRICTS OF SUPERIOR TOWNSHIP __ w " W Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- district Agricultural 98.2 91.8 87.6 88.8 85.1 91.5 95.8 Residential 0.4 5.9 6.2 5.9 14.9 2.6 5.1 Garden Homes Residential 101+ 005 “.6 001+ -- 100 107 Small Farms Residential ~- l.7 1.4 4.2 —— 5.1 1.2 Commercial -« 0.57 0.2 0:17 - ~- 0.2 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ICC-C 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township 49.7 14.2 19.6 11.9 0.} 4.5 in each Class According to the Soil Survey (1950) of the area, approximately one-half of the township consists of six Class III and Class IV soil types: Plainfield loamy sand (Class IV) 11.2 per cent, Ottawa loamy fine sand (Class IV) 8.8 per cent, Griffin loam (Class III) 8.5 per cent, Oshtemo loamy sand (Class IV) 7.7 per cent, Fox sandy loam (Class III) 6.9 per cent, and Gilford sandy loam (Class III) 6.9 per cent. The township's zoning ordinance (adopted 1949) provides for an "agricultural“ district which comprises 52.2 per cent of its total area. This district includes 59.4 per cent of the Class I agricultural land and 87.1 per cent of the Class II land (TABLE XXXIV). However, various uses permitted in the residential districts are also permitted in this district. 76 TABLE XXXIV DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES AMONG THE USE—DISTRICTS OF YPSILANTI TOWNSHIP Per cent Per cent of Class in each Use-district of Township in each I II III IV V VI Use- _ district Agricultural 59.4 87.1 44.5 45.9 75.0 60.4 52.2 Residential 40.5 11.5 414.9 56.7 25.0 55.8 57.2 Industrial "'" "“ 906 15 06 -- 5 0“ 90h comr01‘1 0d 104 1.0 108 -~ 00" —-—_L2- TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 lC0.0 100.0 100.0 Per cent of Township 11.7 10.4 55.4 56.6 0.6 5.5 in each Class The Thirty-Four Townships in Toto As mentioned earlier, not one of the townships studied has adapted a zoning ordinance that sets up a district in which only agriculture and related practices are permitted. However, it has also been indicated that in many instances so—called “agricultural" districts have been created which offer some degree of protection to agriculture against the invasion of non-agricultural uses whether intentional or not. Moreover, the primary use in these districts is agriculture and will probably con— tinue to be so on an appreciable part for a long time. On this basis TABLE XXXV'and TABLE XXXVI have been set up to summarize the results of the study. All districts which have been classed as “Agricultural“ or WAgricultural and Residential“, or similarly so, are designated as agri- cultural districts. DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASSES BETWEEN AGRICULTURAL AND NON-AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS IN ALL TOUNSHIPS STUDIED TABLE XXXV 77 Agricultural Non-agricultural Class Land Districts Districts Totals __. _—_ Per C lessee Per cent Per cent Cent Acres of Class Acres of Class Acres of Totals Totals Total Area Class I 158,895 76.0 50,264 24.0 209,159 51.6 Class II 62,491 59.0 45,455 41.0 105,946 16.0 Class 111 55,708 60.5 56,699 59.7 92,407 14.0 Class IV 72,988 58.9 51,050 41.1 124,018 18.7 Class V 48,461 54.8 59,959 45.2 88,400 15.4 Class VI 25.509 60.8 16,471 59.2 41,980 6.5 D1 strict Totals Acres 424,052 257,858 661,910 Per cent of 64.1 55.9 Total Area TABLE XXXVI PER CENT OF AGRICULTURAL AND NON-AGRICULTURAL DISTRICTS OCCUPIED BY EACH AGRICULTURAL LAND CLASS IN ALL TOWNSHIPS STUDIED Land Agricultural Non-agricultural Classes Districts Districts 018.88 I 5705 2101 0183. II 1408 1805 Class III 15.1 15.4 Class IV 17.2 21.5 Class V 11.4 16.8 Class VI 6.0 6.9 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 78 TABLE XXXV shows that the unincorporated portions of the 54 townships comprise approximately 662,000 acres. Of this amount, about 424,000 acres (61+-l per cent) have been zoned for "agricultural" purposes and almost 258,000 acres (55.9 per cent) for non-agricultural uses. Approximately 515,000 acres (47.6 per cent) of the total area are Class I and Class II agricultural land and more than 212,000 acres (52.1 per cent) are Class IV and Class V land. However, only 67.5 per cent of the Class I and Class 11 land has been placed in the so-called "agricultural“ districts, whereas those districts include 56.8 per cent of the Class IV and Class V land. TABLE XXXVI presents the per cent composition of the agricultural and non-agricultural districts by agricultural land classes. Considering all Of the “agricultural“ districts, only 52.5 per cent of their total area in Class I and Class 11 land, whereas 28.6 per cent is Class IV and Class V land. This means that only about one-half of the land zoned as "agri— cultural“ is actually well-suited for agriculture, while more than one- fourth of the land area of these districts is poorly adapted for general a~EI’icultural purposes. 0n the other hand, Class I and Class II agricul- tul'al land make up 59.4 per cent of the non—agricultural districts and °n1y 57.2 per cent of these districts consists of the two poorest agricul- tural land classes. Some Economic and Physical Limitations in Zoning Land Solely for Agricultural Use Of course, it is not possible, or even desirable, to zone every acre or Class I and Class 11 land for agricultural purposes or, similarly, to exclude all Class IV and Class V land from such use. Factors such as 10cnation and demand may be sufficiently important in some instances as to 79 minimize any consideration of land character. Also, a limited amount of Class IV and Class V land may be economically utilized in a farming pro— gram for permanent pasture or farm woodlot. Moreover, it is a general characteristic of Southern Michigan that within a relatively small area several soil types of the various land Classes may be encountered. Certainly, it would not be feasible to sort out all of the small areas of Class IV and Class V land which may be dis- persed throughout a broad area of generally good agricultural land and zone them for non—agricultural purposes. Likewise, it would not be practical to select a few acres of first-class agricultural land which are scattered throughout a broad area of generally poor qUality agricultural land and dedicate them to agricultural use. However, it is not likely that these situations can account for the large amount of seemingly poor Zoning encountered in this study. Implications The results of the study have two important implications. First, many townships have drawn up their zoning ordinances without adhering to tohe basic principle of good land use, in fact of the zoning enabling act itaelf: to guide the use of land, insofar as possible, in accordance With its suitability for certain uses. This is important even without considering the desirability or necessity of preserving good farm land for future agricultural use. Considering all of the townships studied as a WI'lole, more than 28 per cent of the areas zoned for ”agriculture“ is not Suited for general agricultural purposes, while more than 59 per cent of t he areas zoned for non-agricultural uses is good agricultural land. Second, the removal of good agricultural land from agricultural pro- cllgction has important implications for the future. In view of the fact 1L11at the population is expected to increase indefinitely and that non- Engricultural developments will continue to occupy more and more land, it taeaems extremely important that the best agricultural lands should be pro- t>escted and reserved as much as possible for future production of food and tffiibre. There is a total of slightly more than 515,000 acres of Class I earid Class II agricultural land in the townships involved in this study. }i<3wever, about 95,700 of these acres, or 29.7 per cent, have already been cassentially lost for agricultural purposes. ioreover, the remainder of ‘tliis good farm land is by no means completely protected from the encroach- nnent of various non—agricultural uses. SUMMARY Hithin comparatively recent years the spread of residential, commercial and industrial developments from urban centers into adjacent unincorporated areas has reached significant proportions. Consequently, much land is being removed from agricultural production. Since the pOpulation is rapidly increasing, it is important that the better agricultural lands be protected as much as possible from the encroachment of non—agricultural uses and reserved for the future pro- duction of agricultural products. This is possible to a large degree in Michigan since the State Legislature, through rural zoning enabling acts, has granted counties and townships of the State the power to zone the unincorporated portions of their areas. Thirty-four selected townships in Southern Michigan were investigated to determine the disposition they have made of their better agricultural lands by means of the zoning ordinances they have adopted. As far as the state is concerned, it is doubly significant that some attempt should be made to protect good farm land in this portion because here the suburbani- zation force is at its greatest and here, also, are the best soils and climate for general agricultural purposes. For each township the use-districts stipulated in the zoning ordinance were correlated with the natural suitability of the land for general agri- culture on the basis of six agricultural land classes: Class I including those soil types best suited for agriculture, Class V those least suited, and Class VI those which could not be readily classified on the basis of soil type alone. (7?“ '1‘ 1- all 57?“- W“ “72* . ”W..- , .(f 4 ”1‘7“ :“W The unincorporated portions of the townships studied total almost 662,000 acres. Almost 48 per cent of this amount is Class I and Class II agricultural land. Yet, not a single acre has been zoned specifi— cally for agricultural purposes. Many of the townships investigated have created so—called "agricul— tural" districts, but in each case various non—agricultural uses are per- mitted in addition to agriculture. However, almost 50 per cent (95,719 acres) of the Class I and Class II land has been zoned "away” from agri- culture even if these districts are considered as truly agricultural in nature. Approximately 64 per cent (424,052 acres) of the total area of the thirtyefour townships has been included in such ”agricultural" districts. Almost 29 per cent of this amount is Class IV and Class V agricultural land. This is especially significant in view of the fact that about 59 per cent of the non—agricultural districts (which embrace 257,858 acres) consists of Class I and Class 11 land. The implications of the results, then, are two-fold: (1) much good agricultural land is not adequately protected against the encroachment of non-agricultural uses and (2) many townships have drawn up zoning ordi- nances without giving due consideration to the character of their lands and their suitability for certain uses. LITERATURE CITED Ab rams , Charles 1955. Urban land problems and policies. United Nations Housing and Town and Country Planning B21. 7: 5.58. Albera’ J. M. 1940. Progress in county zoning: Marathon County, Wisconsin. Land Econ. 16: 595-402. Andrews, Richard B. 1942. Elements in the urban—fringe pattern. land Econ. 18: 169—85. Appel, William H. 1952. The conservation of property. Soil Cons. 18(1): 8-11. Arpke, Frederick 1942. Land-use control in the urban fringe of Portland, Oregon. ‘EEEQ Econ. 18: 468—80. Bassett, Edward M. 1956. Zoning. Russell Sage Foundation, New York, 275 pp. Black, Russell VanNest 1958. Zoning as a planning tool. Pennsylvania Planning 4(2): 15—14. Ehrlichman, Ben B. 1952. Cities urged to reach out. Nat. Munic. g. 41: 187-89. Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control 1952. Zoning and Traffic. The Eno Foundation for Highway Traffic Control, Saugatuck, Connecticut, 160 pp. Faust, Lloyd M. 1942. The Eugene, Oregon rural-urban fringe. Proc. Commonwealth Conf., Univ. 955., April 16—17: 12-19. Gilbert, James H. 1942. Financial problems of the fringe area. Proc. Commonwealth Conf., Univ. 959., April 16—17: 20-27. Graves, Richard 1952. “hat is urban should be municipal. Amer. City 67: 85—84. Green, Philips, Jr. 1952. Zoning in North Carolina. Institute of Government, The University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 429 pp. H.10i im-‘-= as“ ._—e—- -___ .- .-s .n"' l 84 fkaar, Charles M. and Lloyd Rodwin 1955. Urban land policies: United States. .gnited Nations Rggging and Town and Country Planning Bul. 7: 125-52. Henderson, Sidney and M. L. Upchurch 1945. Relocation of manpower and zoning. Land Econ. 19: 5—17. iiendrickson, C. I. 1955. Rural Zoning. United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, Division of Land Economics, 58 pp. Burlburt, Virgil 1940. Rural zoning for Missouri. Land Econ. 16: 151-58. Johnson, V. Hebster and Herman Valker, Jr. 1941. Centralization and coordination of police power for land-control measures. Land Econ. 17: 17—26. _ ;\'.""i.-‘ 14“ .1 am“: n-g-ofl ‘V Martin, Jack ; 1946- Zoning of farm land. Calif. Citrog. 52: 72-75. E Martin, Halter T. 1955. The rural-urban fringe. Univ. Ore. Mon.; Studies 33 Sociology 1, 109 pp. Mason, John E. 1945. Zoning for rural Virginia. '13. State Planning Board Planning Mon. Series 2(5), 45 pp. McKain, Halter 0., Jr. and Nathan L. Whetten 1949. OccUpational and industrial diversity in rural Connecticut. Storra Agre Expte Sta. Bills 265, 51‘ ppe Michigan.Department of Economic Development 1949. Michigan Laws Related to Local Planning. Michigan.Department of Economic Development, Lansing, Michigan, 140 pp. New England Regional Planning Commission 1957. Rural zoning—-a monograph. New Engiand Regional Planning Commission Publication 49, 76 pp. Penn, Re Jo, U. Fe I'IUBbBCh and N. Ce Clark 1940. Possibilities of rural zoning in South Dakota. ‘§, 2, égg. Expt. gig.“ 9.9.1.3 545: 25 PP‘ Pennsylvania Department of Commerce State Planning Board 1940. The Pennsylvania Zoning Primer. Planning and Zoning; ngggg and Procedures 5, 16 pp. 1949. Regions, counties, townships of the second class. Planning Egg Zoning; Powers and Procedures 1 (rev. ed.), 84 pp. Pollard, U. L. 1951. Outline of the law of zoning in the United States. Annals Amer. Acad. P01. and Soc. Sci. 155(2): 15-55. Reed, Thomas H. 1950. Hope for 'suburbanitis'. Nat. Munic. R. 59: 542-55. Roterus, Victor and I. Harding Hughes, Jr. 1948. Governmental problems of fringe areas. Pub. Management 50: 94-97. Rowlands, U. A. and F. B. Trenk 1955- Rural zoning ordinances in Wisconsin. Univ. Vise. Agg. 0011. Ext. {my 361'. 011.60 281, 40 pp. 3 Rozman, David 1941. Interrelationship of land uses in rural Massachusetts. Mass. figg. Expt. Sta. Bul. 587, 48 pp. ‘ i and Ruth Sherburne 1950. Transfer of ownership in rural areas and its effect on land utiliza- tion. M3330 Agr. EXEte .BILE. .B—‘il. 458, 50 pp. H»...— a t’ t " u. Salter, Leonard A., Jr. 1940. Land Classification along the rural-urban fringe. M9. Agg. Expt. .S—t—g. 81110 421: 1147-560 1945. County zoning and postwar problems. State Government 18: 187-89. Sciaroni, R. H. and George Alcorn 1955. Farm land disappears. Univ. Calif. Agr. Ext. Ser.,3ept., 4 pp. Solberg, Erling D. 1951. Rural zoning, present and future. 'J. Farm Econ. 55: 756-67. 1952. Rural zoning in the United States. U.§.Q.A_. _A_g5. Ipformation Eul. 59. 85 ppo Tableman, Betty 1952. How cities can lick the fringe problem. PEP. Management 54: 50-54. Tax Institute Incorporated 1947. The disintegration of the American city. 33} Policy 14(6-7): 5—12. Tilton, L. Deming 1951. Regulating land uses in the county. Annals Amer. Acad. P91. and 2.2-.631. 155(2): 125-56- United nations 1955. Preface. United Nations Housing'and prn and Country Planning Bul. 7: 1. Wehrwein, George S. 1942. The land uses of the rural-urban fringe. Proc. Commonwealth Conf. Univ. 0re., April 16—17: 1—11. Whitnall, Gordon 1951. History of zoning. Annals Amer. Acad. P01. and §gg. S91. 155(2): 1'14. Holfanger, Louis A. 1955. Our biggest rural problem. Prairie Farmer,Jan. l5: 8, cont., 22, 29—50. .4, (“TV APPENDIX 1.” CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL TYPES AND MISCELLANEOUS SOIL CLASSES ENCOUNTERED IN STUDY 91212 I. Brookston loam Brookston silt loam Brookston clay loam Clyde loam Clyde clay loam Colwood silt loam Conover loam Crosby loam Fox silt loam Hillsdale loam Homer loam Homer clay loam Roytville clay loam Isabella loam Isabella silty clay loam Kawkawlin fine sandy loam Kawkawlin loam Kent silt loam Miami loam iiami silt loam Morley loam Pewamo clay loam Class I Continued Poygan clay loam Selkirk loam Selkirk silt loam Thomas loam Thomas clay loam Tuscola very fine sandy loam Tuscola silt loam Wabash loam Warsaw silt loam Uisner loam Eisner clay loam 9.12.9.2 .I.I_ Allendale fine sandy loam Bellefontaine loam Berrien clay loam Brady loam Bronson loam Essexville loamy fine sand Essexville sandy loam Fox gravelly loam Fox fine sandy loam Fox loam 2.3.. ”I“ 7 . ‘ ha 25:. DARE. ”A...“ unr- 89 CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL TYPES AND MISCELLANEOUS SOIL CLASSES ENCOUNTERED IN STUDY CONTINUED _C_1_a_s_s_ _I_I_ Continued Gilford loam Hillsdale sandy loam Isabella sandy loam Matinee loam Maumee silty clay loam Nappanee loam Nappanee silt loam Nappanee silty clay loam Newton loam Newton silty clay loam Toledo silty clay Uarsaw loam iaukesha loam Hauseon fine sandy loam Class I I Allendale sandy loam Bellefontaine sandy loam Bellefontaine fine sandy loam Berrien sandy loam Berrien fine sandy loam Brady sandy loam Bronson sandy loam Cadmus sandy loam Class III Continued Fox gravelly sandy loam Fox sandy loam Genessee fine sand . II: "0 .QTHI I. \I Genessee fine sandy loam Gilford sandy loam t Granby sandy loam Griffin fine sandy loam Griffin loam Griffin clay loam Newton sandy loam Oshtemo sandy loam Oshtemo loam Plainfield sandy loam Plainfield fine sandy loam Haukesha sandy loam Hauseon loamy fine sand 9.1216. 2.! Arenac fine sand Arenac loamy sand Arenac loamy fine sand Bellefontaine loamy sand Berrien loamy sand Berrien loamy fine sand . .— arso— -__._ 9O CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL TYPES AND MISCELLANEOUS SOIL CLASSES ENCOUNTERED IN STUDY CONTINUED _(_3_1§_es_s_ I_V Continued Coloma loamy sand Coloma loamy fine sand Genesee very fine sandy loam Genesee loam Genesee silt loam Granby loamy fine sand Newton loamy sand Newton loamy fine sand Oshtemo loamy sand Ottawa loamy fine sand Plainfield fine sand Plainfield loamy sand Plainfield loamy fine sand Rodman gravelly sandy loam Rodman sandy loam Nallkill loam Washtenaw loam 9.12.9.3; I Bridgman fine sand Coastal beach Coloma sand Coloma fine sand Eastport sand 21333 2 Continued Greenwood peat Kerston Muck Made land Marsh Mines, Pits, & Dumps Plainfield sand Saugatuck sand Wallace fine sand Basal! Burned muck Carlisle muck Houghton muck Muck Muck.& Peat Rifle peat FEDmL CENSUS POPULATION FIGURES BY DECADES FROM 1900 TO 1950 FOR THE COUNTIES, TOUNSHIPS, AND RELATED URBAN CENTERS INVOLVED IN THE STUDY 1950 1940 1950 1920 1910 1900' BAY COUNTY 88,461 74,981 69,474 69,548 68,258 62,578 Hampton Township 5,857 5,046 4,211 5,511 5,025 5,519 Bay City 52.525 47.956 47.555 47.554 45.166 27.628 CALHOUN COUNTY 120,815 94,206 87,045 72,918 56,658 49,515 Battle Creek Township 15,105 7,844 6,554 2,079 1,064 1,008 Battle Creek City 48,666 45,455 45,575 56,164 25,267 18,565 EATON COUNTY 40,025 54,124 51,728 29,577 50,499 51,668 windsor Township 2,628 2,114 1,798 1,554 1,547 1,497 INGRAM COUNTY 172,941 150,616 116,587 81,554 55,510 59,818 Lansing Township 17,627 14,274 8,518 2,815 1,760 1,555 Lansing City 92.129 78.755 78.597 57.527 51.229 16.485 JACKSON COUNTY 107,925 95,108 92,504 72,559 55,426 48,222 Blackman Township 12,905 10,401 7,585 2,825 1,746 1,695 Leoni Township 8,468 5,918 4,794 2,076 1,408 1,458 Jackson City 51,088 49,656 55,187 48,574 51,455 25,180 KALAMAzOO COUNTY 126,707 100,085 91,568 71,225 60,427 44,510 Comstock.Township 6,442 4,515 4,459 2,281 1,918 1,694 Kalamazoo Township 27,252 16,827 15,559 5,587 5,050 1,904 Schoolcrsft Township 5,542 2,575 2,551 2,542 2,577 2,158 Kalamazoo City 57,704 54,097 54,786 48,487 59,457 24,404 KENT COUNTY 288,292 246,558 240,511 185,041 159,145 129,714 Gaines Township 5,502 1,950 1,651 1,545 1,511 1,542 Grand Rapids Township 9,241 6,069 5,460 5,260 4.598 2.748 Vyoming Township 28,977 20,596 18,277 6,501 5,964 5,596 Grand Rapids City 176,515 164,292 168,592 157,654 112,571 87,565 LENAwss COUNTY 64,629 55,110 49,849 47,767 47,907 48,406 Adrian Township 2,600 2,728 1,759 1,505 1,665 1,708 Adrian City 18,595 14,250: 15,064 11,878 10,765 9,654 MACOMB COUNTY 184,961 107,658 77,146 58,105 52,606 55,244 Ray Township 1,671 1,459 1,570 1,194 1,240 1,565 Richmond Township 2,804 2,512 2,502 1,914 2,171 2,275 Wm.m.——-p.___——w__. 1 - It. 1:771 I ‘7 FEDERAL CENSUS POPULATION FIGURES BY DECADES FROM 1900 TO 1950 FOR THE COUNTIES, TOWNSHIPS, AND REIATED URBAN CENTERS INVOLVED IN THE STUDY CONTINUED 1950 1940 1950 1920 1910 1900 MACOMB COUNTY CONTINUED Shelby Township 5,950 2,946 2,184 1,544 1,497 1,726 ,Sterling,Township 6,509 5,648 2,462 1,729 1,675 1,915 wsshington Township 5,507 2,822 2,468 2,500 1,895 1,995 East Detroit City 21,461 8,584 5,955 -- —- -- Mount Clemens City 17,027 14,589 15,497 9,488 7,707 6,576 NUSKECON COUNTY 121,545 94,501 84,650 62,562 40,577 57,056 Egleston Township 5,941 1,716 948 524 577 519 Laketon Township 1,901 1,077 659 555 545 419 Sullivan Township 1,020 660 542 479 415 447 Muskegon City 48,429 47,697 41,590 56,570 24,062 20,818 OTTAvA COUNTY 75,751 59,660 54,858 47,660 45,501 59,667 Allendale Township 1,665 1,577 1,525 1,507 1,489 1,429 Blendon Township 1,849 1,709 1,590 1,750 1,700 1,680 Crockery Township 1,765 1,412 1,245 1,259 1,587 1,518 Park.Township 5,412 1,974 1,470 851 -- -- Robinson.Township 1,281 1,041 816 794 899 729 Spring Lake Township 5,524 5,592 2,827 2,091 1,920 1,765 Grand Haven City 9:556 89799 8:545 79 205 59856 [+9745 Rolland City 15,858 14,616 14,546 12,185 10,490 7.790 SACINAw COUNTY 155,515 150,468 120,717 100,286 89,290 81,222 Buena Vista Township 6,958 4,556 5,026 5,149 5,757 5,581 Carrollton Township 5,945 5,259 5,009 2,498 2,128 1,952 Saginaw Township 5,876 5,254 2,222 1,524 1,454 1,244 Saginaw City 92,918 82,794 80,715 61,905 50,510 42,545 NASHTENAH COUNTY 154,606 80,810 65,550 49,520 44,714 47,761 Ann Arbor Township 2,795 2,414 1,707 1,051 989 1,056 Pittsfield Township 5,569 5,198 2,294 1,017 970 1,050 Superior Township 7,181 1,521 988 778 917 1,059 Ypsilanti Township 14,650 4,155 2,618 1,085 1,082 1,255 Ann Arbor City 48,251 29,815 26,944 19,516 14,817 14,509 Ypsilanti City 18,502 12,121 10,145 7,415 6,250 7,578 ISLE ROYALE MAJOR MICHIGAN SOIL ASSOCIATIONS I. F. Schneider and E. P.‘ Whiteside MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Agricultural Experiment Station Soil Science Department EAST LANSING LAKE SUPERIOR 7 . SCALE OF MILES SUGAR I. 1 41 ‘ J S" SCHOOLCRAFT NEEBISH I. "K DRUMMOND I. , MACKINAC I. 30 BOIS BLANC I. BEAVER I. L__ . % KI ‘ 26 CHARLEVOlX—ZTI1 V I _, LEGEND . LAND AREA N. MANITOU I. Q DIVISION NUMBER SOIL ASSOCIATIONS 27 I. PODZOL REGION (Non-Limy Materials) 5. MANITOU I. 1 Munising, Keweenaw, Skanee 2 Iron River Silt Loam 3 ron iver Loam LAKE HURON 4 Gogebic, Wakefield, TuIa 5 Gogebic, Trenary, Hiawatha 6 Munising, Keweenaw, Hiawatha 7 Marenisco, Gogebic, Vilas 8 Keweenaw, Munising, Hiawatha [E 9 Rubicon, Omega, Pence - 10 Onota, Waiska - 11 Baraga, Champion, Pests 12 Champion, Rock Knobs, PeaIs 13 Iron River, Gogebic, Rock Knobs 14 Gogebic, Rock Knobs, Ahmeek 15 Vilas, Munising, Rock Knobs ll. PODZOL REGION (Limy Materials) 16 Ontonagon, Pichord ., 17 Pickford, Bergland, Pests LAKE MICHIGAN 18 Watton, Ontonagon, Bohemian 19 Nester, Kawkawlin, Selkirk 20 Sims, Kawkawlin, Capac, Iosco 21 Wisner, Essexville, Marsh . 22 Onaway, McBride, Guelph, Pests 23 Angelica, Richter, Peats 24 Bruce, Brimley, Pests - 25 Brevort, Iosco, Sims, Pedts - 26 Montcalm, Kalkaska, Emmet, undulating E 27 Montcalm, Weonrd, Emmet, hilly 28 Rubicon, Roselawn, Grayling - 29 Roscommon, Au Gres, Peaks - 30 Longrie, Summerville, St. Ignace |l|.GRAY-BROWN PODZOLIC REGION (Limy Materials) 31 St. Clair, Blount 32 Brookston, Blount, Hoytville 33 Toledo, Co wood 34 Miami, Conover 35 Coldwater, HiIIsdaIe 36 Hillsdale, Bellefontaine, Spinks 37 Fox, Oshtemo 38 arsaw 39 Bellefontaine, Hillsdale, Boyer, hilly t X 40 Berrien, Wauseon Plainfield, Newton, Ottawa 42 Coloma, Spinks .43 Organic Soils LITHO IN U. S, A Y0... Q.“ ‘8SE C‘L‘I