Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
3Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Moore v. City of Middletown, No. 2012-1363 (Ohio Aug. 30, 2012)

Moore v. City of Middletown, No. 2012-1363 (Ohio Aug. 30, 2012)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 3,419 |Likes:
Published by robert_thomas_5

More info:

Published by: robert_thomas_5 on Sep 05, 2012
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as
 Moore v. Middletown,
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3897.]
NOTICEThis slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published inan advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requestedto promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio,65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical orother formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may bemade before the opinion is published.
S
LIP
O
PINION
N
O
.
 
2012-O
HIO
-3897M
OORE ET AL
.,
 
A
PPELLANTS
,
 
v
.
 
C
ITY OF
M
IDDLETOWN
,
 
A
PPELLEE
.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets,it may be cited as
 Moore v. Middletown,
Slip Opinion No. 2012-Ohio-3897.]
(No. 2010-1363—Submitted September 6, 2011—Decided August 30, 2012.)
 Declaratory judgments—Zoning—Standing—Owner of property adjacent to property rezoned by foreign municipality has standing to bringdeclaratory-judgment action to challenge constitutionality of zoning if owner pleads injury caused by rezoning that is likely to be redressed.
 A
PPEAL
from the Court of Appeals for Butler County,No. CA2009-08-205, 2010-Ohio-2962.__________________
S
YLLABUS OF THE
C
OURT
 Property owners whose property is adjacent to property rezoned by a foreignmunicipality may use a declaratory-judgment action to challenge theconstitutionality of the zoning action if the owner pleads that he hassuffered an injury caused by the rezoning that is likely to be redressed.__________________
 
S
UPREME
C
OURT OF
O
HIO
 
2
O’C
ONNOR
,
 
C.J.{¶ 1}
 
In this appeal, we return to territory recently visited in
Clifton v. Blanchester 
, 131 Ohio St.3d 287, 2012-Ohio-780, 964 N.E.2d 414. There, weheld that property owners asserting a regulatory-taking claim lack standing tobring a mandamus action against a municipality to compel appropriation when theaffected property is outside the municipality’s corporate limits.
 Id.
at ¶ 24 and 29.
{¶ 2}
 
In this appeal, we are presented with a more complex question.The appellants here are property owners who allege that a foreign municipalityrezoned land that lies in the municipality, but that is also adjacent to their propertyin another municipality, for the benefit of private enterprise rather than publichealth. They allege violations of due process and equal protection, as well as aregulatory taking for which they are entitled to compensation.
{¶ 3}
 
Consistent with our decision in
Clifton
, we hold that the propertyowners do not have standing to bring a mandamus action to compel amunicipality to appropriate property outside the municipality’s jurisdiction. But,for the reasons that follow, we hold that the property owners do have standing tobring a declaratory-judgment action to challenge the constitutionality of theordinances. Accordingly, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand to thetrial court for additional proceedings consistent with this decision.
R
ELEVANT
B
ACKGROUND
 {¶ 4}
 
Because the claims were resolved on motions to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, we acceptas true all material allegations in the appellants’ complaint and construe allreasonable inferences in their favor.
Warth v. Seldin
, 422 U.S. 490, 501, 95 S.Ct.2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975);
 Mitchell v. Lawson Milk Co.
, 40 Ohio St.3d 190,192, 532 N.E.2d 753 (1988).
{¶ 5}
 
Appellants, Lori A. and Matthew E. Moore (“the propertyowners”), own property in Monroe, Ohio, that is adjacent to a parcel of property
 
January Term, 2012
3
that lies wholly in Middletown, Ohio. The Middletown property, known as theMartin-Bake property, is central to this appeal.
{¶ 6}
 
The Martin-Bake property includes 157 acres of land. BeforeAugust 2008, the Martin-Bake property was zoned only for low-densityresidential use. Although one side of the parcel abuts space zoned for industrialuse, the Martin-Bake property is largely bordered by nonindustrial properties,such as residential housing, a church, a school, and a nursing facility. But throughtwo enactments, Ordinance No. 02008-63 and Ordinance No. 02008-64,Middletown rezoned the Martin-Bake property into a general industrial zone andrevised a setback provision that had required all industrial activities to be 600 feetfrom the property line, eliminating that requirement for activities that are“incidental or ancillary” to the manufacturing process. By doing so, Middletownpermitted the Martin-Bake property to be transformed dramatically.
{¶ 7}
 
A general industrial zone in Middletown, called an “I-2 District,”is “intended to accommodate those industrial uses which cannot entirely eliminatecertain objectionable features and influences, but which must, nevertheless, beaccommodated within the urban area.” Middletown Zoning Code 1258.01. As anI-2 District, the Martin-Bake property could be used for a wide array of pursuits,including the manufacturing, compounding, processing, packaging, or assemblyof electric and gas appliances, as well as the manufacturing of acid, asphalt,bleach, concrete, helium, hydrogen, insecticides, lye, oxygen, “poison of anykind,” radium, “soda ash or caustic soda or similar chemical products,” fuelbriquettes, fertilizers, gelatin, animal glue, turpentine, rubber, and soap.Middletown Zoning Code 1258.02(b)(1), (3), (4), and (10). It also could house afoundry, junk yard, or power-generating station. Middletown Zoning Code1258.02(b)(5) and (c)(4) and (6).
{¶ 8}
 
The property owners, however, allege that the ordinances clearedthe way for construction of a coke plant that would be owned and operated by

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->