Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Farmakis v. City of Conneaut, 2008-A-0013 (12-19-2008)
Citation: 2008 Ohio 6774Docket: No. 2008-A-0013.
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; December 18, 2008; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Appellant James Farmakis, representing Townhouse Corporation, appeals a February 1, 2008 judgment from the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, which ruled in favor of The City of Conneaut regarding his declaratory judgment complaint. Since acquiring the Conneaut Shores Golf Course property in 1974, Farmakis sought rezoning from R-2 to R-4 to facilitate multi-unit housing construction, intending to enhance the property's marketability for sale. Farmakis's earlier attempts included a December 15, 2003 petition for a writ of mandamus for a land use variance, which the court dismissed on April 15, 2004. This dismissal was upheld in a July 22, 2005 appellate decision. On December 12, 2005, the city denied Farmakis's rezoning request, citing concerns about public health, safety, and welfare, lack of infrastructure support, and insufficient development plans. Following this, on August 25, 2006, Farmakis filed a complaint claiming the R-2 restriction was unconstitutional. After a series of motions and a bench trial on August 22, 2007, the trial court ruled against him on February 1, 2008, stating he did not provide adequate evidence to prove the existing zoning classification unconstitutional. Farmakis's appeal includes allegations that the trial court improperly relied on unproduced zoning maps and an ordinance conflicting with the official zoning record. The trial court's ruling against the appellant on the declaratory judgment was erroneous, as the appellant has a clear legal right to zoning that is not supported by any legitimate state interest related to community health, safety, or welfare. The appellant contends that the trial court improperly relied on zoning maps and an ordinance that were not part of the record, contrary to the specific zoning ordinance that was on file. He asserts that his property was consistently zoned R-4 and argues that he had exhausted all remedies before filing the action for declaratory judgment. According to R.C. 2721.03, any individual affected by a statute can seek a declaration regarding their rights under that statute, provided a real and justiciable controversy exists and that timely relief is necessary. Ohio courts do not issue advisory opinions. The purpose of zoning ordinances is to restrict land use for public welfare, and while a township can regulate land use, this power must be considered in light of the specific circumstances of the land in question. The appellant notes that the zoning map was not presented at trial; however, the controlling factor is the zoning regulations rather than the maps. The Conneaut Zoning Code allows for amendments to the zoning text or map to be initiated by the planning commission or the city council, or by property owners affected by the proposed changes. When such an amendment is proposed, notice must be given to property owners within the affected area, though the council and planning commission are not required to file an application to amend the Zoning Code. The council can amend zoning regulations based on public necessity, convenience, and good zoning practices after receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission and conducting a public hearing. Section 1105.03 of the Conneaut Zoning Code mandates that the Planning Commission must review any proposed zoning amendments before the Council considers them. Amendments can be initiated through: (1) a Planning Commission motion, (2) a Council resolution forwarded to the Commission, or (3) an application by property owners or interested parties. R.C. 713.12 outlines notice requirements before municipal zoning amendments can be passed, while R.C. 713.121 stipulates that challenges to zoning ordinances must be filed within two years of their adoption. Notice requirements apply only if the amendment is initiated by an application from a property owner or interested party, not by the Council or Planning Commission. Johnston, the Housing/Zoning Inspector, informed the City Manager in 1994 and the appellant in 1999 about zoning changes from R-4 to R-2, providing actual notice. The trial court noted that the appellant's objections to the zoning change were raised for the first time in this case. Zoning ordinances are presumed valid, and the burden of proof lies with the party challenging the ordinance to demonstrate that it denies economic viability and fails to serve a legitimate governmental interest. In this case, the appellant did not meet his burden, as he does not plan to develop the property but seeks a zoning change to increase its market value. The trial court's ruling against the appellant’s complaint for declaratory judgment was upheld, and his first assignment of error was deemed without merit. In his second assignment, the appellant argued that he has a legal right to R-4 zoning, citing insufficient evidence of a state interest in protecting community health, safety, or welfare. Courts typically refrain from intervening in zoning decisions unless there is clear evidence that a municipality acted arbitrarily or unreasonably, and the decision lacks a substantial connection to public health, safety, morals, or welfare. The focus of constitutional scrutiny is on the zoning ordinance rather than the proposed use by property owners, with a presumption of constitutionality given to the ordinance. In appeals regarding zoning variance denials, evidence indicating that removing a zoning restriction could increase property value does not automatically prove the denial to be unreasonable or unconstitutional. In the case at hand, the appellee justified maintaining a single-family zoning classification based on its comprehensive plan and concerns about adequate infrastructure for multi-unit developments. The appellant failed to demonstrate that the current zoning completely denies economically viable use of the property, only that it limits potential economic benefits. Consequently, the court affirmed the judgment of the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, with appellant's claims deemed unmerited. Costs were assigned to the appellant, and reasonable grounds for the appeal were acknowledged.