The Ohio Channel

September 10, 2014

09-10-2014

2,430 Views

Audio Only Share Download

Start At sec End At sec

Link

Embed Code

Available Versions

Download 360p Video Download 480p Video Download 720p Video Download 1080p Video Download Audio (mp3)

To download a video: right-click on the version you'd like to save, then choose "Save Link As..." and save to your desktop.

Collections

Supreme Court of Ohio

Description

Is Municipal Zoning Ordinance Addressing Nonconforming Use Unconstitutional?

Village of Lodi, Ohio v. Sunset Estate Properties, LLC, et al., Case No. 2013-1856

Ninth District Court of Appeals (Medina)

ISSUES:

- Is a municipal zoning ordinance unconstitutional when it precludes a property owner from re-establishing a nonconforming use after a specified period of nonuse?

- Does such an ordinance facially violate the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Section 16, Article I of the Ohio Constitution?

Tags

Ohio Government Judicial Branch Supreme Court of Ohio Property Facial Challenge Unconstitutional Constitutional Nonconforming Use Vacant Mobile Home Manufactured Home Conflict of Laws As-Applied Challenge Takings Clause Taking Zoning Grandfather Clause Abandoned

Markers Transcript

00:00:52	Irving Sugerman for the Village of Lodi, Ohio
00:20:28	John Monroe for Sunset Estate Properties, LLC and Meadowview Village, Inc.
00:39:32	Summation: Irving Sugerman for the Village of Lodi, Ohio

There is no transcript for this video.

Note : Transcripts are compiled from uncorrected captions