Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOUNCIL MINUTES 1959-02-02 ADJOURNED Page 3782 MINUTES OF THE ADJOURNED TWO HUNDRED SIXTY-NINTH REGULAR MEETING OF THE COUNCIL OF TIE CITY OF LIVONIA On February 2, 1959, the above meeting was held at 33001 Five Mile Road, Livonia, Michigan, and was called to order by the President at approximately 8:44 P. M. Roll was called with the following result: Present-- Austin T. Grant, Frank O'Neill, Sydney B. Bagnall, Rudolf R. Kleinert, Robert Sasser, Jack Salvadore and James R. McCann. Absent-- None. By Councilman McCann, seconded by Councilman Sasser, it was #76-59 RESOLVED that, the Council having considered the veto of the Mayor dated January 26, 1959, which vetoed Ordinance No. 232, adopted by the Council at its regular meeting held January 12, 1959, the Council does hereby readopt Ordinance No. 232, pursuant to the provisions of Section 24, Chapter IV of the City Charter. Councilman Salvadore was excused at 8:50 P.M., and returned at 8:51 P.M. Marie W. Clark, City Clerk, read a letter dated January 26, 1959, from the Mayor, as follows: Honorable Members of the Council City of Livonia, Michigan Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section 24, Chapter IV of the City Charter, I do hereby veto Ordinance #232 entitled "An Ordinance amending Section 11.05 of Article 4.00 of Ordinance No. 60, as amended, entitled "Zoning Ordinance of the City of Livonia," adopted by the City Council on January12, 1959. The reasons for this veto are hereinafter stated: 1. The objectionable portion of the above ordinance is sub-section (c) of Section ! .05, as set forth in Section 1 of the ordinance as follows: "(c). as to all lots within Sections 4 through 9, inclusive, and Sections 16 through 21, inclusive, of the City of Livonia, eighty-four hundred (8400) square feet in area and seventy (70) feet in width;" The effect of the above is to require that all R-1 areas within 12 square miles situated north of Schoolcraft and west of Farming- ton Road be platted in lots having a minimum width of 70 feet. A glance at the zoning map indicates that of these 12 square miles only about 3 miles have thus far been zoned as R-1. Throughout the remainder of the City numerous subdivisions have already been platted R-1 with a minimum lot width of 60 feet. Thus most of the Page 3783 12 square miles in question is now zoned as either AG or IIJ, the former having a minimum area requirement of three acres and the latter of one-half acre. Present zoning is therefore adequate to insure large lots in the area in question without the necessity of changing the long established general 60 foot minimum requirement for R-1 throughout the City. Most of the parcels in the area in question can be used for R-1 only by changing the zoning with the consent of the City Planning Com- mission and the Council; 2. Owners of the land in question have either held the same in their families for many years in the hopes of eventually develop- ing and using their land in a manner consistent with existing zoning, or they are people who have purchased the land in reliance on its present zoning. In my opinion it would be both unreasonable and arbitrary to change the pattern of zoning after it has been in effect for a long period of time and after reliance has been put upon it by property owners. I believe that, under our American system of law, every man has a constitutional right to use and enjoy his own property except where it clearly presents a danger or hazard to public health arra welfare. I see no risk whatever to public health or welfare in allowing the long established rule as to 60 foot lot width to r emain as it is and I am firmly convinced that any change at this late date would result in numerous court actions in which the City would not be successful. There is definitely no relationship between sub- L tracting the 10 feet from the present minimum width in R-1 districts and protecting the public health and welfare, and our Supreme Court has said many times that zoning cannot be based merely upon aesthetic principles; 3. Furthermore, it clearly appears that neither the Council nor the City Planning Commission intended to include Sections 19, 20, 21 in the amendment. To adopt the amendment as it is presently worded and then later put through an additional amend- ment with new public hearings would cost the City several hundreds of dollars and will be a needless expense. I am attaching a true copy of the City Attorney's report on this particular error in the form of a letter dated January 19, 1959. This report, in my opinion, raises grave doubts as to the legality of the proposed amendment. Cordially yours, William W. Brashear, Mayor Councilman James R. McCann read the following statement: TO THE PEOPLE OF LIVONIA: As your elected representatives, we the undersigned tonight are voting to over-ride Mayor'Brashear's veto of an ordinance restricting the area North of Five Mile Road and West of Farmington Road to a minimum of 70 foot frontage lots. This ordinance was introduced and supported by Councilmen James R. McCann, Sydney B. Bagnall, Rudolf R. Kleinert, Robert Sasser and Jack Salvadore. Page 37d4 In defense of this ordinance, we wish to answer the points raised by Mayor Brashear in his veto message. The reasons the land was rezoned was to save ane part of our City, while there was still time, from being subdivided into the minimum sized lots of sixty-feet and from having the whole of Livonia one large project. By restricting this nine square mile area to a minimum of 70 foot frontage, we hope to protect the favorable tax ratio now existing in Livonia. We are fortunate in having a large amount of our tax dollar paid by clean industry in Livonia. About two-thirds of our taxes are paid by this industry and each new home in Livonia, without a com- parable amount of industry, helps destroy this tax ratio. We must keep in mind that a new home demands services - police, fire, drainage - which must be taxed against the old homes also, and most important, schools, which are already over-crowded, bearing in mind that three-fourths of our local tax dollar is now going to support our present schools. The taxes received from these new homes does not, by any means, cover these costs. Industry pays the difference and new industry will only enter Livonia if a reasonable tax base can be maintained. The Mayor's veto message states the land we wish to restrict is already under our present zoning laws of lots of three acres minimum. Just reading this you ask "why all the fuss if the minimum size is above 70 foot - why veto it". The reason is that any builder who comes in may rezone this land and have approved a plat of 60 foot minimum lots. Point Two in the Mayor's veto message states that the land in question has been held in certain families for many years and that rezoning would create a hardship on these owners. We of the Council feel that most of this land is either being held under option by developers at this time, or will be sold to developers in the very near future. To say that it is arbitrary to change this zoning, which in effect will decrease the value of this land, is not accurate in light of the true facts. This land has become valuable in the last few years because of the influx of population and industry in Livonia. Therefore, the people of Livonia have a vested right in the development of their City. It is clearly a danger to the public health and welfare when homes can be crowded into an area without adequate drainage and to the extent that the taxes of the existing residents and industry shall be increased to support these new devabpments. Point Three of the Mayor's veto message states that the Council did not intend, nor the City Planning Commission intend, to include Sections 19, 20 and 21 in this amend- ment. This part of the veto is correct and the Council recognized it at the time and requested the Planning Commission to take immediate action to rezone these three sections back to the 60 foot minimum lots. In the opinion of the Council this overcomes any possible hardship to those people who have property in these sections. Point Four: This area now is zoned on our Master Plan as AG, HU and RUF. By changing the zoning to 70 foot minimum lots we are simply establishing a minimum. In no way would a man intending to build under the old zoning be prevented to build by these new restrictions. s/s James R. McCann s/s Sydney B. Bagnall s/s Rudolf R. Kleinert s/s Robert Sasser s/s Jack Salvadore. Page 3(05 A roll call vote was taken on the foregoing resolution with the following result: AYES: Sasser, Salvadore, McCann, Bagnall and Kleinert. NAYS: O'Neill and Grant. The President declared the resolution adopted and the Mayor's veto over-ruled. The r ecommendat ion of the Director of Public Safety regarding purchase of additional vehicles, and the recommendation on bids for Water Service Parts and Fittings were withdrawn to the next study meeting. By Councilman Bagnall, seconded by Councilman Kleinert, it was #77-59 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the report and recommendation of the Superintendent of Operations Division and the Director of Public Works dated January 22, 1959, the Council does hereby accept the bid of Thomson Sand and Gravel, 48399 W. Seven Mile Road, Northville, Michigan, for supplying the City with 22-A gravel delivered and 22-A gravel, spread, and the Council further accepts the bid of Hayes Washed Sand and Gravel Company, W. Seven Mile Road, Northville, Michigan, for supplying the City with 22-A gravel picked up at pit, 21-A gravel delivered, 60-40 washed gravel, and Mason Sand, such bids having been, in fact, the lowest bids received for each of the above items; and the City Clerk is hereby authorized to do all things necessary to the full performance of this resolution. A roll call vote was taken on the foregoing resolution with the following result: AYES: Sasser, Salvadore, McCann, O'Neill, Bagnall, Kleinert and Grant. NAYS: None. By Councilman Kleinert, seconded by Councilman Sasser, it was #78-59 RESOLVED that, pursuant to the report and recommendation of the Superintendent of Operations Division and the Director of Public works dated January 22, 1959, the Council does hereby accept the bid of the Plymouth Oil Company, 1005 Plymouth Road, Detroit 27, Michigan, for supplying the City with No.1 fuel oil, and also accepts the bid of Sinclair Refining Company, 4051 Heywood Avenue, Wayne, Michigan, for supplying the City with No.2 fuel oil at their respective submitted prices for such items, such having been, in fact, the lowest bids received for those items; and the City Clerk is hereby authorized to do all things necessary to the full performance of this resolution. A roll call vote was taken on the foregoing resolution with the following result: AYES: Sasser, Salvadore, McCann, O'Neill, Bagnall, Kleinert and Grant. NAYS: None. Councilman Sasser introduced the following Ordinances Page 37db NO. AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 5 OF ORDINANCE NO. 167 OF THE CITY OF LIVONIA ENTITLED, "AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE SESSIONS FOR THE MUNICIPAL JUDGE; THE HOURS AND PLACE OF HOLDING COURT; TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF HEARING DATES; TO ESTABLISH JURISDICTION OF CIVIL ACTIONS; AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE APPOINTMENT AND COMPENSATION OF A SUBSTITUTE MUNICIPAL JUDGE." THE CITY OF LIVONIA ORDAINS: Section 1. Sections 2, 3 and 5 of Ordinance No. 167 of the City of Livonia entitled, "An Ordinance to Establish the Sessions for the Municipal Judge; the Hours and Place of Holding Court; to Provide for the Regulation of Hearing Dates; to Establish Jurisdiction of Civil Actions; and to Provide for the Appointment and Com- pensation of a Substitute Municipal Judge, " are hereby amended to read as follows: Section 2. Establishment of Regular Sessions. The Municipal Judge of the City of Livonia shall hold regular sessions on the following days at the times hereinafter stated: Monday, 9:00 a. m. to 12:00 noon, and 7:00 p. m. to 10:00 p. m.; Tuesday, 7:00 p. m. to 10:00 p. m.; Thursday, 9:00 a. m. to 12:00 noon; Friday, 9:00 a. m. to 12:00 noon. Section 3. Additional Sessions. The Municipal Judge may hold court on such other dates, and during such other hours in addition to the sessions and hours established in Section 2, as may in his discretion, be necessary to properly dispose of those matters presented during the regular sessions and to serve the needs of justice. Section 5. Regulation of Hearing Dates. The Municipal Judge shall establish certain dates for the hearing of traffic cases and other violations of City ordinances, in a sufficient number to promptly and properly expedite the handling of such matters; and certain other dates for the hearing of offenses against State laws; and reasonable periods for the transaction of such civil litigation as may be brought in his court. Section 2. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed only to the extent necessary to give this ordinance full farce and effect. Section 3. Should any portion of this ordinance be held invalid for any reason, such holding shall net be construed as affecting the validity of the remain- ing portions of this ordinance. The foregoing Ordinance was placed on the table for consideration at the next regular meeting of the Council. By Councilman Sasser, seconded by Councilman Bagnall and unanimously adopted, it was Page 3787 #79-59 RESOLVED that, having considered the report and recommendation of the City Planning Commission dated January 29, 1959, in regard to Petition No. 1-353 as submitted by Clarence R. Charest, attorney for Edward J. and Norman J. Martin and Bruce Polozker for change of zoning in the Southwest 1A4 of Section 17 from AGB to R-1-A,Petition No. Z-353 is hereby approved; and the Department of Law is instructed to prepare an ordinance amending Ordinance No. 60 in accordance with this resolution. On motion of Councilman Kleinert, seconded by Councilman McCann and unanimously adopted, this adjourned 269th regular meeting of the Council of the City of Livonia was duly adjourned at 9:25 P. M., February 2,1959. Airdr Irgre ri Clark, City Clerk