Ketchel v. Bainbridge Tp.

• Decision Date: 18 July 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-693,89-693
• Parties: , 1 A.L.R.5th 1137 KETCHEL, et al., Appellants, v. BAINBRIDGE TOWNSHIP, et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 239

52 Ohio St.3d 239

557 N.E.2d 779, 1 A.L.R.5th 1137

KETCHEL, et al., Appellants, v. BAINBRIDGE TOWNSHIP, et al., Appellees.

No. 89-693.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted April 4, 1990.

Decided July 18, 1990.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Township trustees may set minimum lot sizes in the exercise of the zoning authority conferred by R.C. 519.02. (State, ex rel. Bugden Development Co., v. Kiefaber [1960], 113 Ohio App. 523, 18 O.O.2d 169, 179 N.E.2d 360; State, ex rel. Grant, v. Kiefaber [1960], 114 Ohio App. 279, 19 O.O.2d 207, 181 N.E.2d 905, affirmed [1960], 171 Ohio St. 326, 14 O.O.2d 3, 170 N.E.2d 848; and 1970 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 70-074, approved.)

2. A local zoning authority may consider the conservation of underground water resources when adopting zoning regulations.

This case concerns a challenge to the Bainbridge Township Zoning Resolution by the owners of a two hundred fifty-six-acre tract of mostly undeveloped land southeast of the city of Chagrin Falls.

The Subject Property

The subject property lies along the township's northern border between two major highways just north of an intersection known as McFarland's Corners. A portion of the Bainbridge Township zoning map, showing the location of the subject property as shaded, is appended to this opinion.

The property is bordered on the north by Chagrin Lakes, a residential subdivision made up of one-acre lots in the village of South Russell in Russell Township. State Route 306, a north-south highway, runs along the eastern boundary of the subject property. At the time of trial, Washington Road, a.k.a. E. Washington Street on the southwest boundary, was U.S. Route 422. ¹ On the southern side, the property borders on a small factory, a condominium complex, and a former drive-in movie theatre. ² A high-voltage power line crosses the western part of the subject property. A trunk sewer line runs beneath the middle of the property, north to south.

Going beyond the adjacent properties, there has been considerable non-residential development along Washington Road northwest of McFarland's Corners. Also there has been development in an industrial park south of the highway. These areas are zoned for commercial and light industrial uses. Lake in the Woods, a residential subdivision of one and one-half-acre lots, is located along Route 306 just southeast of the subject property. Other nearby property is used for residences, farming, and a church.

Ownership of the subject property is divided among the appellants.

The Zoning Resolution

Prior to 1979, the property was zoned "R-1 Residence District," which permitted single-family residences on one or one and one-half-acre lots. Effective December 5, 1979, the township zoning resolution was amended to reclassify the property to "R-3A Rural Residential District." The R-3A classification restricts the use of the subject property to agriculture, single-family dwellings, churches, schools, public recreation, governmental buildings, and cemeteries. It establishes a minimum lot size of three acres (130,680 sq. ft.), and a minimum width of two hundred feet, for any lot on which a building is erected.

The Bainwood Center Zoning Proposal

On August 23, 1984, appellants petitioned to amend the zoning resolution to reclassify the subject property as a "Multi-Use District." The multi-use zoning would have allowed Edwin J. Ketchel, the husband of appellant Gaetana R. Ketchel, and his associates to construct "Bainwood Center" on the property. Bainwood Center would feature "massed open space," with permitted uses, including light industry, retail stores, restaurants, nursing homes, and multi-family dwellings, "inter-mixed and integrated to create a well-balanced living environment." Mr. Ketchel estimated that Bainwood Center would ultimately employ ten thousand people.

The proposed amendment received a favorable recommendation from the Geauga County Planning Commission. Despite this recommendation, the Bainbridge Township Trustees refused to adopt the amendment.

The Litigation

Appellants brought an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Geauga County seeking to declare the R-3A zoning classification unconstitutional. After a three-day trial, the court held the zoning constitutional and entered judgment for appellees. This judgment was affirmed by the court of appeals in a split decision.

The cause is before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion to certify the record.

Edwin J. Ketchel, Thomas & Boles and Stephen G. Thomas, Chagrin Falls, for appellants.

Forrest W. Burt, Asst. Pros. Atty., for appellees.

ALICE ROBIE RESNICK, Justice.

This case tests both the township's power to zone and the validity of the zoning resolution is adopted. For the reasons which follow, we hold the zoning resolution valid as applied to the property in question.

I The Power of Bainbridge Township to Zone

Because they have no inherent or constitutional police power, townships have only the zoning power delegated to them by the General Assembly. Yorkavitz v. Bd. of Trustees of Columbia Twp. (1957), 166 Ohio St. 349, 351, 2 O.O.2d 255, 256, 142 N.E.2d 655, 656. The General Assembly has delegated this power to township trustees through R.C. 519.02, which provides:

"For the purpose of promoting the public health, safety, and morals, the board of township trustees may in accordance with a comprehensive plan regulate by resolution the location, height, bulk, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, including tents, cabins, and trailer coaches, percentages of lot areas which may be occupied, set back building lines, sizes of yards, courts, and other open spaces, the density of population, the uses of buildings and other structures including tents, cabins, and trailer coaches, and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, or other purposes in the unincorporated territory of such township, and for such purposes may divide all or any part of the unincorporated territory of the township into districts or zones of such number, shape, and area as the board determines. All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of building or other structure or use throughout any district or zone, but the regulations in one district or zone may differ from those in other districts or zones."

A Minimum Lot Sizes

Appellants initially contend that the Bainbridge Township Zoning Resolution is invalid because R.C. 519.02 gives township trustees no authority to set minimum lot sizes. They point to R.C. 711.05, one of the statutes governing the recording of subdivision plats, which provides in pertinent part:

"The board may adopt general rules governing plats and subdivisions of land * * * for the avoidance of future congestion of population detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare but shall not impose a greater minimum lot size than forty-eight hundred square feet."

Appellants assert that this statute gives exclusive authority to set minimum lot sizes to the county commissioners. They further argue that, by virtue of this statute and R.C. 711.09 (which governs villages and cities and contains similar language), no local zoning authority anywhere in Ohio may set a minimum lot size greater than 4,800 square feet, which is a little more than one tenth of an acre. We do not agree.

R.C. 519.02 does not contain the specific words "lot size." However, R.C. 519.02 does empower the board of township trustees to regulate population density. The establishment of minimum lot sizes is a "commonly approved technique" for achieving this objective. State, ex rel. Grant, v. Kiefaber (1960), 114 Ohio App. 279, 292, 19 O.O.2d 207, 215, 181 N.E.2d 905, 915, affirmed (1960), 171 Ohio St. 326, 14 O.O.2d 3, 170 N.E.2d 848.

Further, R.C. 519.02 expressly grants the power to regulate the "size of * * * buildings and other structures, * * * percentages of lot areas which may be occupied, set back building lines, [and] sizes of yards, courts, and other open spaces * * *." Even if we were to hold that the statute does not empower the township trustees to set a minimum lot size, the township trustees could follow the statute literally to create a de facto minimum lot size requirement by setting a minimum building size, a minimum yard size, and a maximum percentage of occupancy. The General Assembly could not have intended to withhold the power to regulate lot size directly while granting the power to do so indirectly.

Finally, we reject the argument that R.C. 711.05 grants county commissioners the exclusive authority to set lot sizes. The statutes in R.C. Chapter 711 govern the recording of plats. Plats are recorded, not as a means of regulating land use, but as a part of the process of subdividing and conveying land. See, generally, 35 Ohio Jurisprudence 3d (1982), Dedication, Section 46. The platting process is initiated by the actions of landowners and not by local government. The platting statutes are not a substitute for zoning.

Accordingly, we adopt the position long held by Ohio legal authorities, see Grant, supra; State, ex rel. Bugden Development Co., v. Kiefaber (1960), 113 Ohio App. 523, 18 O.O.2d 169, 179 N.E.2d 360; 1970 Ohio Atty.Gen.Ops. No. 70-074; see, also, Reed v. Rootstown Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (1984), 9 Ohio St.3d 54, 9 OBR 260, 458 N.E.2d 840 (approving five-acre minimum lot size imposed by township), and hold that township trustees may set minimum lot sizes in the exercise of the zoning authority conferred by R.C. 519.02.

B Conservation of Water Resources

The Bainbridge Township Zoning Resolution states that the purpose of the R-3A zoning classification is to "provide for the development of lands * * * in accordance with the ability of such lands to support development without central water supply and/or central sewerage disposal facilities, to prevent pollution of such lands and the underlying aquifers by excessive development, and to protect the aquifer recharge areas *...