*1 v McGarvie TOWNSHIP v McGARVIE FREMONT 4, 1986, Decided 88807. December at Detroit. Docket No. Submitted 7, 1987. December parcel property a of James and Donella McGarvie owned acres, Township. property, in within Fremont The excess of district, designated by township’s as the is within a commercial zoning moved a mobile home ordinance. When the McGarvies residence, township property denied onto the to use as a request permit, requested of the mobile their for a removal brought against eventually suit the McGarvies court, seeking injunctive relief. The Tuscola Circuit Court J., Joslyn, granted plaintiffs summary for R. motion Patrick enjoining an order defendants from and entered pur- continuing for to maintain the mobile home poses. appealed. Defendants Appeals held: Court zoning pertinent to commercial The article of the ordinance prohibit mobile home districts would defendant’s general allows uses otherwise in the ordinance. zoning permit provisions ordinance a mobile home of at square parcel on a least 720 feet of floor place- exceeding Upon of the wheels and five acres. permanently a constructed ment of the mobile foundation, home ceases to be considered mobile meaning home and is considered a satisfied, provisions the use these are ordinance. When in a commercial district is of a mobile home as a residence permitted. Reversed. References 13, 2d, Homes, Camps and Tourist §§

Am Jur Mobile Trailer Parks 14. restricting building regulations Validity mobile homes or parks. 17 home or trailer or trailers to established mobile ALR4th 106. relating application zoning regulations Validity to mobile parks. or trailer 42 ALR3d 598. under Mobile in the Index to Annotations See also the annotations Zoning. Homes, Parks, Camps Tourist Trailer 164 Opinion Court Danhof, C.J., general dissented. He would hold that provisions upon by majority relied were intended only. to residential districts He would affirm. *2 Zoning — — 1. Ordinances Judicial Construction. underlying principle proper zoning construction of a ordinance is to discover intent and effect the lawmaker. Zoning — 2. Judicial Construction. language interpreted, of a ordinance must be for purposes determining the extent of a restriction the property, property in favor of the owner where doubt legislative body. exists as to the intention of the Zoning — 3. Mobile Homes. prohibit A ordinance which otherwise would the use of a commercially mobile home as a residence zoned district is stop governing ineffective to such use where the article com- "except mercial districts concludes with the words as otherwise general provisions in this Ordinance” and set forth later in the ordinance allow the use of a mobile home as a requirements residence when certain are met.

Ránsford, Crews & E. Burgess, P.C. Duane (by Burgess), plaintiff. for

Law Office of J. A. W. Drillock Richard (by Rinn), for defendants. Shepherd C.J.,

Before: A.W. Danhof, JJ. Porter,* A. appeal right

W. J. Defendants as of Porter, from an order of in favor of summary plaintiff township. enjoined The order defendants from continuing to maintain a mobile home for purposes property on that was zoned for commercial use. We reverse.

The pertinent by facts were established the alle- gations plaintiffs complaint that were admitted parcel by defendants’ answer. Defendants owned a * assignment. judge, sitting Appeals by Circuit on the Court of McGarvie Fremont Opinion of the Court Township of Fre- within exceeding parcel, apparently acres, This mont. designated by district, as a commercial is within Township Zoning When Ordinance. prop- home onto the moved a mobile defendants plaintiff erty residence, defen- to use denied as a requested request permit, for a dants’ eventually instituted this injunctive suit for relief. governs Zoning

Article V of the Ordinance 5.01 of Section use of land commercial districts. pertinent part: that article states and no No land shall hereafter be used erected, altered or moved or structure hereafter any premises upon more of for other than one or used following uses, as otherwise providedin Ordinance: *3 I. MobileHome Parks. part not of a mobile home is

Since defendants’ mobile single park, unit, the rather is a but 5.01(1) inapplicable. permitted by § use contemplate permissible §in not uses 5.01 do other a mobile permit strictly home, nonresi- instead but shops, e.g., businesses, uses, barber retail dential organizations. Therefore, motels, banks, fraternal unambiguously prohibit appears de- Article V exception home, § 5.01 unless the fendants’ mobile provided this Ordinance” uses "as otherwise for is applicable. rely Provi- IX-General on Article

Defendants Section 9.01 states: sions. Except Ordinance, as otherwise existing building (subject to Section or

no land 9.02) here- shall no or structure new upon erected, located, or altered moved after be App op Opinion the Court premises any than in conformity other with the provisions of this Ordinance. respect provides homes, § With to mobile 9.07 pertinent part: occupied A. All mobile shall homes be located in parks mobile jurisdiction under of the

Michigan Health, Department herein- as provided. after (5) B. The owner acres of real may estate (1) or erect move not more than one mobile home upon premises permanently, providing such they meet twenty the minimum floor of seven hundred (720) square feet. Upon E. the wheels from a mobile placement home and structed deemed a upon its a permanently con- foundation, it shall not thereafter be but a meaning of this Ordinance. 9.07(B), argue Defendants satisfied, when exempts the of a mobile home from all other Zoning use restrictions in Article V Ordi- agree. nance. We underlying principle proper construc-

tion a ordinance is discover and Bangor Twp effect to the intent of the lawmaker. Spresny, App 177, 179; 143 Mich 371 NW2d 517 interpreting language When an ordi- nance determine extent of a restriction property, language the use of the must interpreted, exists, where doubt in favor of the Midland, owner. Talcott v *4 (1985). 143, 147; 387 NW2d provisions use in Articles Ill-Residential IV-Agricultural Districts, Districts, and Residential pro- and V-Commercial Districts are identical vide: McGarvie v Opinion of the Court and no land hereafter be used No shall erected, altered or moved hereafter or structure upon any premises other than one or and used for following except as otherwise uses more [Emphasis added.] in this Ordinance. provisions in contrast, Articles VI-In-

In 1-2, I-I, VH-Industrial Districts dustrial Districts do not include and VIII-Recreational Districts portions the ordinance. We reference to other dispositive. believe pertaining provisions residential, to The use agricultural residential, commercial dis- including xx, of Article tricts allow sections 9.07(B), applied they § to to such districts where inapposite Further, are not on their face. since most article is entitled "General Provisions” and apply by language, sections, of its their to several 9.07(B) appears districts, was all of or intended to well to commercial districts as agricultural as to residential and and residential districts.

Ambiguous interpreted are as a whole statutes are so as effect to each and provision construed produce a harmonious and consis- Dep’t Hagen Ed, tent result. 662, 670; This 398 NW2d rule of statu- applies tory equally construction ordi- interpretation nances. of the ordinance Plaintiffs portion gives meaning emphasized no to the provision order use of permanently in Article v. The trial court’s plaintiff, summary disposition in favor of which enjoined from the contin- defendants ued residential use of their mobile district, a commercial is reversed. light ruling,

In we will not address defen- of our dant’s additional claims.

Reversed. *5 App

616 611 by Danhof, Dissent C.J.

Shepherd, J., concurred. Danhof, C.J. (dissenting). I affirm would circuit court’s of summary order be- cause subsection b of 9.07 Fremont Town- ship Zoning Ordinance was intended to apply ordinances, residential only. Exceptions districts like statutory exceptions, are construed narrowly. Detroit, Fink 44; 333 NW2d 376 Estates, Rzepka Inc, (1983); v Farm 83 Mich App 702; 269 NW2d 270 b provides Subsection that one home placed mobile be on five may acres of real estate provided that the mobile home meets the minimum requirement floor of 720 square feet. Since 720 feet square is minimum floor space requirement for structures located in districts, residential I think this is evidence that b subsection was meant to residential apply districts. The space requirement minimum floor for commercial uses is 320 feet. square Subsection b should not be extended to commercial uses when its minimum space requirement floor is a clear indication that it was intended to residen- tial uses only. addition,

In b subsection allows the mobile home to be placed on the property "permanently.” "Per- manently” is not defined in the ordinance. How- ever, e, subsection b be may read with subsection which refers to a mobile on a "permanently constructed a "permanent” foundation.” Such mo- bile home "shall not thereafter deemed mo- bile but a meaning this Ordinance.”

The majority’s reading of the ordinance defeats purpose overall of zoning, keep which is to like uses of land together separate and to unlike uses. Mobile homes are clearly required to be mobile However, parks commercial districts. v McGarvie by Danhof, C.J. Dissent recognizes cases a in some ordinance appropriately as a is treated home more placed permanently on use when and it at least acres land has at least five square space. Thus, it defeats the feet floor purpose is allowed if a mobile home such *6 restricted to districts rather than commercial districts. be affirmed. court should The order circuit