Full text of the Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Moreland Hills decision

In early January, the Ohio Supreme Court denied Jaylin Investments Inc. the court order it sought to declare a provision of the Village of Moreland Hills Zoning Code unconstitutional.1 The 5-2 ruling clarifies that when analyzing the constitutionality of a zoning law, the focal point is the ordinance itself, not the owner’s proposed use of the property.

Jaylin owns an 18-acre tract of undeveloped land in the Village of Moreland Hills that is zoned for singlefamily homes and therefore subject to a zoning provision establishing a nearly two-acre minimum lot size. Jaylin developed plans to build a 29-home subdivision on the property that would consist of single-family residences on half-acre lots. Jaylin’s development would include a sewer system, stormwater management and protection against hillside erosion. The Village Planning Commission rejected the proposal because it violated the minimum two-acre lot size requirement.

Jaylin did not apply for a variance, nor seek a rezoning of its property. Nor did Jaylin argue that the zoning ordinance constituted a ‘taking’ of its property. Instead, Jaylin filed a complaint for declaratory judgment stating that the “prohibition of the proposed use by the Village’s Planning and Zoning Code does not advance the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the Village, is arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable and is therefore, unconstitutional as applied to the property.” In that complaint, Jaylin asked for an order requiring the Village to permit Jaylin to develop its property as proposed.

During the trial, Jaylin produced numerous experts who stated that expensive large houses on two-acre lots would not sell on this site due to nearby smaller, lowercost residences. Jaylin believed enforcement of the twoacre provision in this instance was unreasonable and served no legitimate purpose. The Village maintained its position that the two-acre minimum lot size is reasonable and necessary to protect the environment.

Jaylin conceded that the Village had the right to enact ordinances to limit residential lot sizes to protect the environment, but argued that the minimum lot size requirement was unnecessary in this case. According to Jaylin, the proposed development of half-acre residential lots would have no more of an adverse impact on the property than development of two-acre lots because of extensive environmental development features.

Jaylin’s position that a municipality may not prohibit a proposed use that meets the government’s underlying goal for such prohibition was successful. The Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court issued an order allowing Jaylin to develop the property as proposed. Moreland Hills appealed and the 8th Ohio District Court of Appeals overruled the trial court decision on the basis that the trial court erroneously focused on the environmental impact of the proposal, as well as the economic impact on Jaylin if the zoning ordinance in question were applied. Jaylin appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Justice Evelyn Stratton, writing for the majority, said Jaylin’s challenge must focus on the constitutionality of the Moreland Hills ordinance, not the reasonableness of the proposed use. Citing Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co,2 Justice Stratton noted that any analysis of local zoning laws begins with the presumption that the ordinance is constitutional. Therefore Jaylin bears the burden of showing, beyond fair debate, that the Moreland Hills zoning ordinance is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable.

Jaylin’s basic argument was that the proposed development met or exceeded the environmental goals underlying the zoning ordinance; therefore it was unconstitutional for Moreland Hills to prohibit the development. Jaylin supported this position by offering testimony that building homes on two-acre lots would be difficult to market in this area due to geography and surrounding developments and that the environmental impact of developing on half-acre lots would be minimal. The Court recognized that such evidence is relevant, but noted that it does not alone render the zoning ordinance unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court upheld the decision holding that Jaylin failed to show that the Moreland Hills ordinance was arbitrary and unreasonable or substantially unrelated to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community as applied to prohibit Jaylin’s proposed use of the property.

Impact of the Moreland Hills Case

While it’s not clear if or how this case will change the behavior of developers and builders, it is clear that challenges to local zoning laws have been limited in Ohio. Moreland Hills placed a significant emphasis on the presumption in favor of the local government ordinance. Although Jaylin seemed to produce credible evidence supporting its contention that the proposed development would meet or exceed the underlying goals of the Moreland Hills zoning ordinance, the Court felt such analysis was misplaced in this case. The majority consistently brought any such contention back to the question of whether the lot size requirement has any reasonable relationship to the underlying goal of environmental protection. Other than cases involving an alleged ‘taking’ of property, it now seems that one seeking to challenge the validity of a zoning ordinance, as applied to a particular piece of property, should focus almost entirely on the ordinance itself and save the arguments about the reasonableness of the proposed use for local planning, zoning and variance hearings.

Footnotes

1. Jaylin Investments, Inc. v. Moreland Hills, 107 Ohio St.3d 339, 2006-Ohio-4, 839 N.E.2d 903 (2006).

2. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926).

Reprinted from Finley’s Ohio Municipal Service, with the permission of the publisher and copyright owner, West Group.