2019 Ohio 3713
Ohio2019Background
- In April 2016 Broadview Heights Planning Commission denied Gloria Wesolowski’s application to subdivide her property; she appealed claiming the commission violated R.C. 711.09(C)’s 30‑day approval requirement.
- The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court found the commission failed to act within the statutory time frame and granted a declaratory judgment ordering issuance of a certificate of approval.
- The Broadview Heights Planning Commission appealed; the Eighth District affirmed, holding R.C. 711.09(C) applies to cities and that local subdivision regulations are an exercise of police power and cannot conflict with the statute.
- The Supreme Court accepted two propositions for review: (1) whether municipal subdivision regulations are an exercise of local self‑government and thus prevail over state law, and (2) whether R.C. 711.09(C) applies to city planning commissions.
- The Supreme Court affirmed the court of appeals: R.C. 711.09(C) applies to both cities and villages, the adoption of subdivision regulations is an exercise of police power (not purely local self‑government), and the statute prevails over any conflicting municipal ordinance.
- Justice Kennedy dissented, arguing Broadview Heights’ ordinance governed internal municipal procedure and therefore was an exercise of local self‑government protected by the Home Rule Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wesolowski) | Defendant's Argument (Broadview Heights) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does R.C. 711.09(C) (30‑day approval/deemed approval rule) apply to city planning commissions? | The statute applies to cities; commission must approve/deny within 30 days. | The statute’s first paragraph refers to villages and not cities, so it does not apply to city commissions. | The Court: R.C. 711.09(C) applies to both cities and villages; the 30‑day limit governs city planning commissions. |
| Are municipal subdivision regulations adopted under home‑rule an exercise of local self‑government (immune from conflicting state law) or of the police power (subject to general law)? | R.C. 711.09(C) controls; the city ordinance conflicts and must yield to state law. | The city’s subdivision ordinance addresses internal municipal procedure and is an exercise of local self‑government, so it prevails. | The Court: Adoption/enforcement of subdivision/planning regulations is an exercise of the police power; conflicting municipal regulations give way to R.C. 711.09(C). |
| Remedy: Must the commission issue a certificate of approval where it failed to act within 30 days? | A certificate of approval must be issued on demand when commission fails to act within 30 days. | Commission opposed immediate issuance. | The Court affirmed that a certificate of approval shall be issued (trial court’s declaratory relief affirmed). |
Key Cases Cited
- Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149 (establishes three‑part test for when state statute prevails over local ordinance)
- Marich v. Bob Bennett Constr. Co., 116 Ohio St.3d 553 (distinguishes local self‑government from police power)
- State ex rel. Kearns v. Ohio Power Co., 163 Ohio St. 451 (adoption/enforcement of planning measures is an exercise of local police power)
- N. Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Assn. v. Parma, 61 Ohio St.2d 375 (examples of municipal matters that are local self‑government)
- Beachwood v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 167 Ohio St. 369 (ordinances of local self‑government relate solely to internal municipal administration)
- P. H. English, Inc. v. Koster, 61 Ohio St.2d 17 (statutory 30‑day limit is intended to prevent bureaucratic obstructionism)