1985 005 Resolution - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

and State, ex rel Weber v. Vajner Bldg. Commissioner (1952), 92 Ohio App. 233,. - .. __ . When, as here, the-.effect of zoning ordinances arbitrarily restricts the property from being. developed for any practical or economically feasible purpose,-and renders the property unuseable, such a zoning ordinance amounts to and results in an unconstitu- tional confiscation of private property without fair compensation. j State, ex el Rice v. Woodmere (1961), 172 Ohio St. 359; Brockman v. Morr (1960), 112 Ohio. App. 445; State, ex rel Rosenthal v. Bedford (1956), 74 Ohio Law Abs. 425; Superior Uptown, Inc. v. Cleveland (1974), 39 Ohio St. 2d.$6; State, ex rel Stuhlberg v._ Leighton, supra; State, ex rel Prentke v. Brookpark, supra; Kessler v. Smith (1.957), 104 Ohio App. 213; Pure oil Division v. Brookpark, supra; State, ex rel Killeen v. East Cleveland (1959), 169 Ohio St. 375; Mayfield-Dorsh v. South Euclid •(1981), 68 Ohio St. 2d 156; and Negin v.,_Board of Building and Zoning Appeals (1982), 69 Ohio St. 2d 492. The standard of proof in constitutional challenges to muni- • cipal zoning regulations~in Ohio is that la zoning regulation, as applied to a particular parcel of.property, is unconstitutional when the evidence establishes beyond fair debate that the zoning regulation is unreasonable-,and arbitrary and bears no substantial relationship to the health., welfare, safety or morals of the com- munity. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., su ra; Central Motors Corp. v. Pepper Pike, supra; State, ex rel Beerman v. Kettering (1960), 120 Ohio App. 309; Mobil Oil v.~Rocky River (1974), 38 Ohio State 2d 23; Willott v. Beachwood (1964), .175 Ohio State .557. Undisputed evidence. has established, clearly beyond fair debate, that. the present,-zoning .classifications of the subject 14.06 acres, as applied.to..the subject property, are unreasonable _~_ :'~ . _,~ - -. - -