2013 Ohio 4973
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Sunset Estate Properties, LLC and Meadowview Village, Inc. each operate mobile home parks in the Village of Lodi; both parks are zoned R-2 but are authorized nonconforming uses.
- Many individual lots within each park were vacant for more than six months (21 of 33 at Sunset; 17 of 44 at Meadowview); Lodi refused to reactivate utilities to those vacant lots.
- Lodi relied on Lodi Zoning Code §1280.05(a), which treats a nonconforming use as abandoned if discontinued for six months, and states that for nonconforming mobile homes "their absence or removal from the lot shall constitute discontinuance."
- Plaintiffs sued seeking declarations that §1280.05(a) is unconstitutional (facially and as applied), that its application effects a regulatory taking, compensatory damages, and mandamus/appropriation relief; both parties moved for summary judgment.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the Village; the Ninth District Court of Appeals reversed in part, holding §1280.05(a) is facially unconstitutional and remanding for remedial proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Facial constitutionality of L.Z.C. §1280.05(a) | Ordinance is ambiguous, arbitrary, and allows involuntary, piecemeal extinguishment of a park's nonconforming use by treating individual lots as abandoned after six months; thus unconstitutional on its face | Ordinance is a valid exercise of municipal police power under Ohio law and R.C. authority to limit nonconforming uses | Court: §1280.05(a) is facially unconstitutional because it is ambiguous, arbitrary, and lacks substantial relation to legitimate government interests when applied to mobile home parks as parcel-wide businesses |
| Whether individual lots (vs. the park as a whole) can be treated as nonconforming uses | Park owners: nonconforming use is the park as a whole; individual vacant lots alone do not demonstrate voluntary abandonment of the park's nonconforming use | Village: treats absence/removal of a mobile home from a lot as discontinuance of the nonconforming use for that lot | Court: Ordinance contains no clear definitions or scheme to treat lots separately; absent an express local provision, the park, not individual lots, should be the nonconforming unit; village bears burden to prove voluntary abandonment |
| Whether non-use alone establishes abandonment | Park owners: abandonment requires intent plus acts — non-use alone is insufficient | Village: six-month vacancy triggers conclusive presumption of abandonment under §1280.05(a) | Court: Non-use alone is insufficient; ordinance improperly creates involuntary abandonment by operation of law for mobile home lots |
| Whether the court should resolve takings and remedy issues now | Park owners: ordinance application results in regulatory taking and relief (compensation/appropriation) is required | Village: ordinance constitutional so no taking; no appropriation necessary | Court: Declined to decide takings/remedy after finding ordinance facially invalid; remanded for proceedings consistent with that ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (standard for de novo review of summary judgment)
- Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Moreland Hills, 107 Ohio St.3d 339 (facial challenge standard for zoning ordinances)
- Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (zoning as valid exercise of police power)
- Akron v. Chapman, 160 Ohio St. 382 (limits on extinguishing nonconforming uses; protection of vested property rights)
- Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (due process protection of fundamental rights framework)
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (construe zoning limitations narrowly; in favor of property owner)