Schenck v. City of Hudson

• Decision Date: 07 August 1997
• Docket Number: No. 96-3881,96-3881
• Citation: 114 F.3d 590
• Parties: Mark SCHENCK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The CITY OF HUDSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

Page 590

114 F.3d 590

Mark SCHENCK, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. The CITY OF HUDSON, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 96-3881.

United States Court of Appeals,

Sixth Circuit.

Argued Feb. 6, 1997

Decided June 4, 1997.

Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En Banc Denied Aug.

7, 1997. ^*

John W. Solomon, Brouse & McDowell; Nicholas T. George, Akron, OH; Mark A. Ferguson (briefed), and Timothy J. Grendell (argued), Taft, Stettinius & Holister, Cleveland, OH, for Planitiffs-Appellees.

John E. Gotherman; Malcolm C. Douglas (briefed), Columbus, OH; Robert E. Manley, Timothy M. Burke, Manley, Burke, Lipton & Cook; Karl P. Kadon, III, City Solicitor's Office for the City of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, for Amici Curiae.

Amie L. Bruggerman (argued and briefed), Charles E. Zumkehr, Roetzel & Andress Before: NORRIS and MOORE, Circuit Judges; RUSSELL, District Judge. ^*

Akron, OH, and Charles T. Reihl, Walter & Haverfield, Cleveland, OH, for Defendants-Appellants.

RUSSELL, D.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which MOORE, J., joined. NORRIS, J. (pp. 595-596), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

OPINION

RUSSELL, District Judge.

This case involves a slow-growth zoning ordinance enacted by the defendant City of Hudson. The plaintiffs, primarily developers who already own land in Hudson, brought this action seeking a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the ordinance. After a two-day hearing, the district court granted a preliminary injunction ¹ and this appeal ensued. Upon review, we find that the plaintiffs have failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits and, therefore, dissolve the preliminary injunction and remand this case for proceedings.

I.

The City of Hudson, located in northern Ohio, is the result of a 1994 merger between the City of Hudson Village and Hudson Township. The City covers 25 square miles and has an estimated population of 21,000. Over the last thirty years the City and the Township have grown very rapidly, increasing by more than 50 percent in the 1970s and more than 35 percent in the 1980s. In a part of the state where the population has generally been declining, the area that is now the City of Hudson has had a rate of growth of 3.5 percent each year for the past 15 years.

In accordance with its conditions of merger, the City established a Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan"). The Plan, developed in conjunction with community input, public meetings, and the commission of studies on the City's infrastructure, concerns land use, recreation, community facilities, transportation, historic preservation, and growth management. Among the goals set forth in the Plan are the following: To manage the City's growth rate so that it does not exceed the capabilities of its infrastructure; To avoid the need for new infrastructure so that the City can meet current needs; and To protect the City's "unique" character. In addition, the Plan suggested that the City encourage nonresidential development to decrease the disparity between residential and nonresidential growth.

The City passed several zoning ordinances to implement the Plan's proposals, including Chapter 1207, the provision at issue in this case. In enacting these ordinances, the City relied upon studies that indicated the following: The City's sewer facilities were operating beyond capacity; ² The City's water treatment and distribution systems are inadequate; The City's roads are insufficient for existing traffic needs; Emergency services are unable to meet the City's current needs, both in personnel and equipment; ³ and The property taxes collected from new home construction are less than the costs to the City generated by the home's construction.

Under Chapter 1207, an applicant for a zoning certificate to construct a "residential dwelling unit" must receive a residential development allotment first. Each year the City Council determines how many residential allotments will be issued in that year, based upon the level of residential development for the previous year and the ability of the City's infrastructure to cope with new development. In July 1996, the first allotment after the ordinance's enactment, the number of allotments to be awarded for the year was set at 100 with 30 more allotments to be granted by the City Council for special projects, such as housing with 25% of the units reserved for the elderly and disabled and those with mixed commercial and residential uses that are located in the downtown area. Under the ordinance's provisions, the City can award thirty additional allotments for applicants who are denied allotments in the lottery. An unsuccessful applicant can apply for one of these allotments by showing hardship. ⁴ An applicant denied allotments in the lottery can also appeal to the City Council.

The allotments are distributed twice a year by a lottery system. Eighty percent of each distribution is reserved for the "priority development pool," which includes the following:

(1) Affordable housing;

(2) Housing reserved for the disabled and those over the age of sixty-two;

(3) Lots that were created and received preliminary or final plat approval before the ordinance's effective date; and

(4) Lots of five acres or more with access to a public street, public water, and sewer systems.

§ 1207.03(c)(2). All of the plaintiffs in this action qualified for the priority development pool. However, the City of Hudson has 350-375 lots that have preliminary or final plat approval and are, therefore, qualified for the priority pool. As a result, all 84 applicants in the July 1996 distribution were priority applicants, and the distribution was determined by a lottery, in which no applicant received more than one allotment. After the July 1996 distribution the plaintiffs filed this action.

II.

We review the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. First Technology Safety v. Depinet, 11 F.3d 641, 647 (6th Cir.1993). A district court abuses its discretion when it applies the incorrect legal standard, misapplies the correct legal standard, or relies upon clearly erroneous findings of fact. Id.; Lorain NAACP v. Lorain Board of Educ., 979 F.2d 1141, 1147-48 (6th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 509 U.S. 905, 113 S.Ct. 2998, 125 L.Ed.2d 691 (1993); United States v. School Dist. of Ferndale, 577 F.2d 1339, 1351 (6th Cir.1978).

The reviewing court should consider four factors when determining whether the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction was an abuse of discretion: (1) the likelihood of success on the merits of the action; (2) the irreparable harm which could result without the relief requested; (3) the impact on the public interest; and (4) the possibility of substantial harm to others. L.P. Acquisition Co. v. Tyson, 772 F.2d 201, 205 (6th Cir.1985).

"To show a likelihood of prevailing on the merits, the [party seeking the injunction] must show the likely existence of a constitutional violation causally related to the result sought to be enjoined." Id. (quoting Martin-Marietta Corp. v. Bendix Corp., 690 F.2d 558, 565 (6th Cir.1982)). In reviewing a zoning ordinance, a federal court may only consider "whether the legislative action is rationally related to legitimate state land use concerns." Pearson v. City of Grand Blanc, 961 F.2d 1211, 1223 (6th Cir.1992). Therefore, to prevail in this action, the plaintiffs must show that the zoning provision is not rationally related to a legitimate land use concern.

"The power of local governments to zone and control land use is undoubtedly broad and its proper exercise is an essential aspect of achieving a satisfactory quality of life...." Schad v. Borough of Mount Ephraim, 452 U.S. 61, 68, 101 S.Ct. 2176, 2182, 68 L.Ed.2d 671 (1981); Pearson, 961 F.2d at 1223. A legislative body need not even select the best or the least restrictive method of attaining its goals so long as the means selected are rationally related to those goals. See National Paint & Coatings Ass'n v. City of Chicago, 45 F.3d 1124, 1129 (7th Cir.) ("If there are alternative ways of solving a problem, [the federal courts] do not sit to determine which of them is best suited to achieve a valid state objective."), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1143, 115 S.Ct. 2579, 132 L.Ed.2d 829 (1995). Likewise, despite the temptation it is not the province of a federal court to act as a super-zoning board. Exxon Corp. v. Governor of Maryland, 437 U.S. 117, 124, 98 S.Ct. 2207, 2213, 57 L.Ed.2d 91 (1978) ("[T]he Due Process Clause does not empower the judiciary 'to sit as a superlegislature to weigh the wisdom of legislation.' " (quoting Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 731, 83 S.Ct. 1028, 1032, 10 L.Ed.2d 93 (1963))).

It is clear that the City of Hudson had a proper purpose, land use. As noted above, Chapter 1207 of the City's zoning code has several stated land use goals, ⁵ which are based on enumerated findings of fact. See §§ 1207.01, 1207.02. The Supreme Court has specifically recognized similar goals as legitimate state interests. See, e.g., Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L.Ed.2d 797 (1974) (holding goals of reducing traffic, noise and parking problems legitimate state interests); Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 393-94, 47 S.Ct. 114, 120-21, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926) (holding desire to decrease traffic congestion, increase safety and security, and economic administration legitimate purposes); Construction Indus. Ass'n v. City of Petaluma, 522 F.2d 897, 909 (9th Cir.1975) (holding desire to preserve small town character, open spaces, and low density and to grow at "an orderly and deliberate pace" legitimate governmental interests), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 934, 96 S.Ct. 1148, 47 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976). Therefore, to survive a substantive due process challenge, Chapter 1207 must merely be rationally related to its purpose.

We conclude that it is. "Federal court review of a zoning ordinance may only determine whether it is...