Ehemann Real Estate, Ltd. v. Anderson Twp. Zoning Comm.

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 1091

Syllabus

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW/CIVIL – TOWNSHIP – ZONING – DUE PROCESS: Where the plaintiffs appealed to the common pleas court the township's decision approving the 2012 planned unit development (\PUD\) on the condition that plaintiffs remove a nonconforming billboard, the trial court did not err in considering the record from the 2008 PUD when ruling on the 2012 PUD, because the record from the 2008 PUD was made part of the record of the 2012 PUD appeal, and it was necessary for the court to understand the 2008 PUD in order to determine whether the 2012 PUD imposed a condition that was contrary to law. The trial court did not err in finding that defendant Township's zoning decision was contrary to law where the Township, as part of its approval of the 2012 PUD, required the plaintiffs to remove a legal nonconforming billboard located on the property, thereby modifying the written conditions of the 2008 PUD and violating Anderson Township Zoning Regulation 4.1.I. The trial court did not err in granting summary judgment in favor of the Township on the plaintiffs' constitutional causes of action where there was never a taking of the plaintiffs' property, the Township's zoning decision was not arbitrary or unreasonable, and without a violation of their constitutional rights, the plaintiffs could not sustain claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 or 42 U.S.C. 1988(b).