Reid v. Architectural Board of Review
192 N.E.2d 74, 92 Ohio Law. Abs. 271, 119 Ohio App. 67 (1963)
Rule of Law:
A municipal ordinance empowering an architectural review board to regulate building design in order to maintain the high character of community development and protect property values is a constitutional exercise of the police power. Aesthetic considerations are a valid basis for such regulation when coupled with other legitimate police power objectives like the preservation of real estate values.
Facts:
- Donna S. Reid owned a lot on North Park Boulevard in Cleveland Heights, a primarily residential community.
- The neighborhood in which the lot was located consisted mainly of 'dignified, stately and conventional' multi-story homes.
- Reid applied for a permit to build a single-story, flat-roofed residence described as a 'complex of twenty modules' with walls made of 60% glass and cement panels, arranged in a U-shape.
- The proposed design included a ten-foot-high wall around the property, which would have been the only part of the structure visible from the street.
- Reid's proposed home design satisfied all technical requirements of the Cleveland Heights Zoning and Building Codes regarding size, height, mass, and setback.
- The Architectural Board of Review, composed of three architects, reviewed Reid's plans as required by city ordinance.
- The Board denied the permit, stating the design 'does not maintain the high character of community development in that it does not conform to the character of the houses in the area.'
Procedural Posture:
- Donna S. Reid applied to the Building Commissioner of the City of Cleveland Heights for a building permit.
- The application was referred to the city's Architectural Board of Review, which disapproved the project and denied the permit.
- Reid (as applicant) appealed the Board's decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County (a state trial court).
- The Court of Common Pleas rendered a judgment in favor of the Architectural Board, affirming its decision.
- Reid (as plaintiff-appellant) then appealed the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas to the Ohio Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a municipal ordinance that allows an architectural review board to deny a building permit for a home that complies with all zoning and building codes, on the grounds that its design does not conform to the character of the neighborhood, represent an unconstitutional exercise of police power?
Opinions:
Majority - Kovachy, P. J.
No, the ordinance does not represent an unconstitutional exercise of police power. An ordinance aimed at protecting property values and maintaining a high character of community development serves the public interest and general welfare. The ordinance provided definite standards for the expert architectural board to follow, including regulating design based on 'proper architectural principles' to protect property values and community character. While aesthetics played a part in the Board's decision, it was not the sole factor; the Board also considered the home's radical departure from the neighborhood's character, its single-story design in a multi-story area, and the potential detriment to property values and future development. The court held that when aesthetic considerations are linked to serving a recognized ground for exercising police power, such as protecting property values, the regulation is valid.
Dissenting - Corrigan, J.
Yes, the ordinance as applied represents an unconstitutional exercise of police power. The denial of the building permit was based exclusively on aesthetic considerations, which is an impermissible use of municipal regulatory power under Ohio law. Testimony from a board member confirmed that the application was denied 'solely on the ground that the house did not conform to the character of the other houses' and that there was no evidence it would impair public health, safety, or welfare, or even depress market values. Because the proposed home met all technical zoning and building code requirements, prohibiting its construction purely based on its appearance violates the owner's property rights and unlawfully stifles individual architectural expression.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for broadening the scope of municipal police power in land use regulation by legitimizing aesthetic considerations when tied to economic impacts like property values. It moves away from the traditional rule that aesthetics alone are an insufficient basis for zoning or building restrictions. The case empowers municipalities to create architectural review boards to enforce a certain level of design conformity to preserve neighborhood character, a concept that has since been widely adopted. This ruling provides a legal foundation for design-based ordinances that go beyond mere use and bulk regulations, impacting future development in both established and new communities.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Reid v. Architectural Board of Review (1963)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"