Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/04/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin April 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 8 reconnect water and electrical service when a new tenant wanted to rent the lot. As a result, the Park Owners were not able to rent those lots "and essentially lost a property right as to that portion of their property." The Park Owners sued the Village. They asked the court to declare that the Ordinance was unconstitutional and constituted a taking of their properties. Finding no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter on the law alone, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the Village. The court concluded that the Ordinance was not unconsti- tutional on its face or as applied, and that it did not constitute an unrea- sonable interference with the Park Owners' property rights or a taking of their property. The Park Owners appealed. The appeals court entered judgment for the Park Owners, finding the Ordinance unconstitutional on its face. The Village appealed. On appeal, the Village asserted the following proposition of law: "A municipal zoning ordinance which precludes a property owner from re-establishing a nonconforming use after a specified period of nonuse does not facially violate the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution." DECISION: Judgment of court of appeals affirmed; matter remanded. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that the last sentence of the Ordinance, which provided that the absence or removal of nonconform- ing mobile homes from property for a period of six months or more constituted discontinuance or abandonment of the nonconforming use from the time of absence or removal, was unconstitutional. In so holding, the court noted that in making a facial challenge to the validity of the Ordinance, the Park Owners had to show that the Ordinance, on its face, had no rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose and could not constitutionally be applied under any circumstances. The Village had asserted that the Ordinance was rationally related to the legitimate government purposes of: protecting property values; and encouraging the development of surrounding properties. The court indicated that such purposes would be rationally related to prohibiting or regulating the new development of property, but the court differentiated that, here, the Park Owners were seeking to maintain a legal nonconforming use. The court pointed to the 14th Amendment to the United States Con- stitution and Article I, § 16 of the Ohio Constitution, which provide that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. With those constitutional references, the court found © 2015 Thomson Reuters 7 1