Shemo v. Mayfield Hts.

• Decision Date: 09 February 2000
• Docket Number: No. 98-2054.,98-2054.
• Citation: 722 NE 2d 1018,88 Ohio St.3d 7
• Parties: SHEMO ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ET AL., APPELLEES.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

88 Ohio St.3d 7

722 NE 2d 1018

SHEMO ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. MAYFIELD HEIGHTS ET AL., APPELLEES.

No. 98-2054.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Submitted November 17, 1999.

Decided February 9, 2000.

Kahn, Kleinman, Yanowitz & Arnson Co., L.P.A., Sheldon Berns and Benjamin J. Ockner, Chester, Willcox & Saxbe, L.L.P., and J. Craig Wright; Forbes, Forbes & Associates and George L. Forbes, for appellants.

The Carr Law Firm, L. Bryan Carr and Leonard F. Carr, for appellees.

FRANCIS E. SWEENEY, SR., J.

In this case, we are asked to decide whether Mayfield Heights' U-2-A zoning classification of the property is unconstitutional. Initially, we must decide whether the court of appeals was correct in remanding the case for reconsideration under the Goldberg decision. For the reasons that follow, we find that remand to the trial court was unnecessary. Since there was competent, credible evidence supporting the trial court's conclusion that the U-2-A zoning classification does not substantially advance a legitimate health, safety, and welfare concern of Mayfield Heights, we reverse the judgment of the court of appeals and reinstate the trial court's judgment declaring the zoning ordinance unconstitutional.

Prior to our decision in Goldberg Cos., Inc. v. Richmond Hts. City Council, supra, this court adhered to a two-part test when reviewing the legitimacy of zoning ordinances. Under that test, which was set forth in Gerijo, Inc. v. Fairfield, supra, we held that "[a] party who attacks a municipal zoning ordinance on constitutional grounds must prove, beyond fair debate, both that the enactment deprives him or her of an economically viable use and that it fails to advance a legitimate governmental interest." Id. at syllabus. In Goldberg, we revisited this test and determined that the economic-viability prong is applicable only to those cases where the owner alleges a taking of the property. Id., 81 Ohio St.3d at 210, 690 N.E.2d at 512. We found that "Gerijo established an unduly broad standard that encompassed both the standard for challenging the constitutionality of zoning regulations and the test to prove a taking." Id. at 213, 690 N.E.2d at 514. In modifying Gerijo, we discarded the two-prong test in favor of a single criterion. Thus, under Goldberg, where no taking is alleged, we need only decide whether the ordinance was "`clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.'" Id., quoting Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926), 272 U.S. 365, 395, 47 S.Ct. 114, 121, 71 L.Ed. 303, 314.

The court of appeals determined that a remand was necessary because the trial court did not have the opportunity to apply the case law articulated in Goldberg, which was decided during the pendency of the appeal. Appellants contend that remand is unnecessary because they had already shown that the ordinance was unconstitutional under the more stringent test of Gerijo. Thus, appellants maintain that even without the evidence regarding economic viability, there was still sufficient evidence presented to support the trial court's decision that the zoning ordinance failed to substantially advance legitimate governmental interests. The city disagrees, believing that remand is necessary, since the trial court's decision wrongly considered both prongs of the Gerijo test, and because the economic-viability prong is inextricably intertwined with the health/safety/welfare prong.

We find no merit in the city's argument that the trial court incorrectly relied upon economic viability to come to the conclusion that the zoning ordinance was unconstitutional. A review of the trial court's decision reveals that the trial court discussed each prong of the Gerijo test separately, and independently found the ordinance unconstitutional under each prong of the test. Under these circumstances, where the trial court's opinion clearly sets forth the evidence relied upon to show that the zoning ordinance was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, the Goldberg standard has been met and there is no need for a remand to the trial court. Furthermore, we have previously held that a remand to consider new case law is unnecessary where the new case law has lessened the standard of proof for the prevailing party. See Wagner v. Midwestern Indemn. Co. (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 287, 699 N.E.2d 507. Since the trial court found that the zoning ordinance was unconstitutional under the more stringent Gerijo test, we find that it is unnecessary in this case to remand for reconsideration under the lesser Goldberg standard.¹

We must next decide whether there was competent, credible evidence to support the trial court's judgment. In reviewing the trial court's judgment, it is well established that every reasonable presumption must be made in favor of the judgment and findings of fact. Seasons Coal Co. v. Cleveland (1984), 10 Ohio St.3d 77, 10 OBR 408, 461 N.E.2d 1273. Furthermore, judgments supported by competent, credible evidence going to the material elements of the case will not be disturbed as being against the manifest weight of the evidence. C.E. Morris Co. v. Foley Constr. Co. (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 279, 8 O.O.3d 261, 376 N.E.2d 578, syllabus.

In considering the evidence, we begin with the premise that all zoning ordinances are presumed constitutional. Cent. Motors Corp. v. Pepper Pike (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 581, 583-584, 653 N.E.2d 639, 642. However, a zoning ordinance will be struck down if a property owner challenging the ordinance proves, beyond fair debate, that the ordinance is "arbitrary and unreasonable and without substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community." Goldberg, supra, 81 Ohio St.3d at 214, 690 N.E.2d at 515.

The city argued that the zoning ordinance advances three legitimate governmental health, safety, and welfare concerns: (1) it will maintain the residential character of the neighborhood, (2) it will maintain a balanced mix of uses in the city, and (3) it will not exacerbate traffic congestion and noise in the area. The trial court found that appellants proved beyond fair debate that these concerns were not valid and that the ordinance was unconstitutional. We agree, and find that the trial record is replete with evidence to support the trial court's findings.

With respect to the argument that the U-2-A zoning was intended to advance the city's interest in maintaining the residential nature of the neighborhood, appellants presented ample evidence to show that this interest is not met by the U-2-A zoning. The property in question is located near the intersection of Interstate 271 and Mayfield Road. Although there are residential properties to the north and west on Ridgebury Boulevard and Bonnie Lane, the predominant uses to the south are commercial. The Golden Gate Shopping Center is located to the southwest of the intersection. A Best Buy store, a Budgetel Motel, and a Bob Evans restaurant are adjacent to the property. The Eastgate Shopping Center is east of Interstate 271 and north of Mayfield. In total, there are approximately three-quarter million square feet of retail space located in the vicinity of the property.

Nonetheless, the city argues that the area needs to be kept residential in nature. For support, the city presented the testimony of some current residents who are opposed to the commercial development of the property because there will likely be increased traffic in their neighborhood. While we do not mean to minimize the concerns of these residents and, in fact, sympathize with their plight, we cannot ignore the fact that their homes are adjacent to high-density commercial property, which carries with it a heavy volume of traffic. Traffic on the interstate alone exceeds ninety-two thousand vehicles passing by appellants' property daily. Therefore, although their streets are obviously residential in nature, Robert Hill, city planner for several Cleveland suburbs, stressed that the existing development pattern around appellants' property indicates a nonresidential character. We reject the city's argument that the U-2-A zoning is necessary to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood.

We also reject the city's argument that the U-2-A zoning classification is necessary to advance the legitimate governmental...