1985 005 Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

justification in the police power•,of the state utilized for the public welfare, but that.the exercise of the police power is note-~ license to legislate unreasonably or to enact arbitrary, confisca- tory and unconstitutional;;land.use restrictions, Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises,'~;426 U.S•:668 (1976); Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 273 U.S. 359 (1926); Curtiss v. Cleveland (1959), 170 Ohio St. 127; C. Miller Chevrolet y. Willoughby Hill s_ (1974), 38 Ohio St. 2d 298; Central Motors Corp. v. Pepper Pike (1979), 63 Ohio App. 2d 34; Pure Oil.Division:Y.. Brookpark (1971), 26 Ohio App. 2d 153. ~ ~ - A zoning ordinance,-~_as applied to particular property, is valid and sustainable if and only•:if .it is not arbitrary or un- reasonable and does bear a substantial relationship to the health, safety, morals and welfare of the community. Mobil oil Corp. v. Rocky River (1974), 38 Ohio St. 2d 23; Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., supra; C. Miller Cherolet v. Willoughby Hills, supra; SOM Center Properties v. Solon: .(19.79.).;,:. Eighth District Court of Appeals Case No. 40372:- 4~:,`' ... i" .` A judicial analysis a$ to the-propriety and constitutionality of a particular zoning ordinance, as applied to specific property at a particular time and'•location requires a balancing of inter- eats as between the community and:..the property owner. Where the benefit of the zoning ordinance'to`the community is small or non- existent, but the hardship impo.sed:_•upon the property owner as a result thereof is great,:-;there:eRsts no cogent reason to the validity of the ordinance. _;See•.Curtiss v. Cleveland, sustain supra. See also Akron v. Chapman,_.(1953).,.`;.160 Ohio St. 383; State, ex rel Stuhlberg v. Leighton, Commissioner:;(1959), 113 Ohio App: State, ex ref Prentke ~a.'SrookFark (,1958); 207 Ohio App. 487; 325; Loesch Allotment Co. v.~Newburg Heights (1950), 45 Ohio Ops. 215 •