1985 005 Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and arbitrary and that these classifications do not bear. any rela- tionship whatsoever to the health, safety, ,welfare or morals of _ _ the village of Mayfield.. Indeed, the exact opposite is true. Therefore, the court finds that the single-family zoning and. the office-laboratory zoning, as applied to the subject property, are unconstitutional and invalid zoning regulations. Having so determined, it is, .the further duty of. the court, r' ~ ~~ under the mandates of Union Oil .v. Worthington (1980), g2 Ohio St. 2d 263 and Mayfield-Dorsh v. South Euclid (1981), 68 Ohio State 2d 156, to order the zoning~authority~of Mayfield Village to rezone the property in a constitutionally.permissable~manner. Such re- zoning by court decree.is.not subject to a referendum. See SOM Center Properties v. Solon, supra, et al. Under ordinary circumstances the court would not determine, at this stage of the proceedings, what that permissible use shoulc be. - However, the court has been advised that the parties have reached an agreement which appears to work out a fair compromise between the desires of the village to retain single-family zoning along SOM Center Road and-the rights of the owners of the subject property to be able to use their land in a reasonable manner. The agreement is as follows: 1. In consideiration'`of ,_the plaintiffs agreeing,, :aa~~contnue single-family zoning on~:the SOM `Center Road frontage~:of;the subject property, refraining`~';from any;;:access to SOM Center Road from,~~~;the„production- distributon zonecl~'=portion of the subject property,-~,ag~eeing to grant . deed restrictions=requiring the SOM Center Road, frontage to remain single-family, platting the SoM Center xroratage for., single-family lots, granting ara.access easement to Beta Road::~across, tYieir property to an ..kM1'~ V 1'~. -