Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/02/2003

Home

Page 2 -- November 25, 2002 26 Takings -- Auto customization business tries to lease out its building ]tillage denies occupancy permits for potentlal tenants . OHIO (!0/03/02) -- Accent Group Inc. bought property in. 1996 and spent more than $760,000 to convert one building into a showroom and automobile accessorY installation area. Until 1999, when it ceased operations, Accent opm erated an automobile electronics and customization' business in the same build- ing under an occupancy permit from the village. Accent tried to lease the building, but three potential tenants, inCluding one who intended to operate an automobile parts installation and repair business, were denied occupancy permits under various interpretations of the village zoning code. .' In January 2001, the village enacted a new zoning code that provided, in part, automobile service and repair were not permitted uses in the district where Accent's property was located. Accent sued, alleging the village's refusal to issue the occupancy permits to the prospective tenants was arbitrary, capricious, and caused it to lose sub~ stantiat revenues. Further, Accent alleged the new zoning code was also arbi- trary,, unreasonable, and without substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the village. Accent claimed the new zoning code was unconstitutional on its face. Finally, Accent alleged the'prohibition of automobile service in that district amounted to an unconstitutional "taking" of its property. The village asked the court for judgment without a thai, claiming 1) Ac~ cent failed to exhaust adm/nistrative remedies; 2) the challenged ordinance was constitutional; and 3) Accent Was not denied all economically viable use of its property, so its taking claim failed. The lower court ~anted judgment for the village. Accent appealed. DEciSION: Reversed and remanded... ' The case had to be sent back to. the lower court because it failed' to explain the basis of its decision. The lower'court failed to make any declaration regarding 'the parties' fights and obligations under the statute at. issue.. Thus, it was not possible to deter- mine whether the lower court .granted judgment because Accent. failed to ex- haust administrative remedies or because it determined the statute, was not'un- constitutional. Finally, the trial court never addressed the elements surrounding the "tak- ing'' issue. The appeals court could not' guess at how the lower, court reached' its decision. Citation: Accent Group Inc. v. Village of North Randall, Court of Appeals of' Ohio, 8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga Co., No. 80890(2002). '.. see also: Watdeck v. Ci~, of North College 3]il.l, 493 N.2~.2d ]375 (]985).