finding residential zoning reasonable and constitutional even though shopping centers, gasoline stations and other commercial establishments were within the general vicinity of the subject property
How later courts described this case
- finding residential zoning reasonable and constitutional even though shopping centers, gasoline stations and other commercial establishments were within the general vicinity of the subject property
- “[T]he party challenging a zoning ordinance, has the burden of demonstrating the unconstitutionality of such an ordinance. * * * Zoning ordinances, enacted pursuant to a municipality’s police powers, are presumed valid until the contrary is clearly shown by the party attacking the ordinance.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
William B. Brown, J.,
dissenting. The Court of Appeals concluded, based upon the record, that the subject parcels “are accompanied almost entirely by non-residential structures” and that for the last 25 years there has been no single family use along Central Avenue on the north side. Moreover, no other single-family residential structures have been built facing Central Avenue in the area surrounding the subject parcels since the early 1950’s. Given these factual considerations, I would find the Toledo City Council’s retention of an R-2 zoning classification to be illegal, arbitrary and confiscatory, and, therefore, unconstitutional.