Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Sherry's Treasures, LLC, and its representatives challenged a decision by the Stark County Court of Common Pleas affirming a City of Alliance Board of Zoning Appeals ruling concerning the effective date and application of Alliance Ordinance 28-03. The ordinance, which redefined 'family' to restrict the number of unrelated persons residing in single-family homes, was signed on May 21, 2003, as an emergency measure. The appellants argued that the ordinance's effective date should be later and claimed a prior non-conforming use of their property as a rental for four unrelated tenants, which was not upheld by the court since occupancy began after the ordinance's effective date. Furthermore, they contended that the ordinance constituted an unconstitutional taking of property. The court rejected this claim, citing that the ordinance did not eliminate all economically viable use of the property. Ultimately, the court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the ordinance was validly enacted as an emergency measure, and the appellants' use of the property did not meet the requirements for a prior non-conforming use. The decision upheld the integrity of the zoning laws and assessed costs to the appellants.
Legal Issues Addressed
Constitutional Taking under Zoning Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that there was no unconstitutional taking of property, as the ordinance did not eliminate all economically viable use.
Reasoning: The Court found that the Appellants could still rent the property, albeit to fewer individuals than desired, thus not denying all economic use.
Effective Date of Ordinance under City Chartersubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the effective date of Ordinance 28-03 as May 21, 2003, due to its classification as an emergency measure requiring immediate effect.
Reasoning: The trial court maintained that the emergency declaration was valid under R.C. 731.30, referencing the Ohio Supreme Court's stance that the legislative declaration of an emergency is not subject to judicial review, provided sufficient reasons are stated for the emergency status.
Prior Non-Conforming Use in Zoning Lawsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that the property did not qualify for a prior non-conforming use because the tenants did not occupy the premises until after the ordinance took effect.
Reasoning: In their second assignment, the Appellants contended that their property should be classified as a prior non-conforming use. However, the Court upheld the trial court's decision, noting that the tenants signed a lease in April 2003 but did not occupy the property until June 2003, after the amended definition of 'family' took effect on May 21, 2003.