Laserfiche WebLink
October 10, 2012 I Volume 6 1 Issue 19 <br />Zoning Bulletin <br />In finding that the Moores had standing to bring the declaratory judgment <br />action, the court held that: "[P]roperty owners whose property is adjacent to <br />property rezoned by a foreign municipality may use a declaratory -judgment <br />action to challenge the constitutionality of the zoning action if the owner <br />pleads that he has suffered an injury caused by the rezoning that is likely to be <br />redressed." In so holding, the court pointed to the fact that Ohio's Revised <br />Code broadly authorizes plaintiffs to bring actions for a declaration of "rights, <br />status, and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be <br />claimed." (R.C. 2721.02.) In other words, property owners whose property <br />rights are directly affected by a statute or ordinance are "entitled to obtain a <br />declaratory determination as to the validity of the statute or ordinance." <br />Declaratory relief would be available to the Moores if they could show that: <br />(1) a real controversy existed between them and the City; (2) the controversy <br />was justiciable; and (3) speedy relief was necessary to preserve the rights of <br />the parties. <br />Here, the court found that the Moores' allegations of the declaratory judg- <br />ment complaint based on equal protection and due process theories pleaded a <br />real, justiciable controversy over zoning regulations enacted by the City that <br />affected the Moores' rights. Thus, the court concluded that the Moores had <br />standing to challenge, in a declaratory judgment action, the constitutionality <br />of the City's ordinances. (The court made no opinion on the merit of the <br />Moores' claims.) <br />See also: Clifton v. Blanchester, 131 Ohio St. 3d 287, 2012-Ohio-780, 964 <br />N.E.2d 414 (2012). <br />See also: Borough of Cresskill v. Borough of Dumont, 15 N.J. 238, 104 <br />A.2d 441 (1954). <br />Case Note: <br />In its decision, the court made clear that a property owner does not always lack stand- <br />ing to bring a mandamus claim against a municipality when the affected property is <br />outside the municipality's corporate limits. <br />Case Note: <br />Also in its decision, the court expressly "decline[d] to limit standing to residents of the <br />municipality that zoned or rezoned the land." <br />4 ©2012 Thomson Reuters <br />