unnecessary hardship

Petitioner Florence Dolan owns a plumbing and electric supply store located on a 1.67-acre parcel of land in the business district of the city of Tigard, Oregon. The store is on a parcel that includes a 9,700-square-foot building, and Fanno Creek flows through the southwestern corner of the lot within the 100-year floodplain. In the early 1970's, the city developed a comprehensive plan for managing surface water drainage in the Fanno Basin serving the area where the property is located. The comprehensive plan also contained provisions for a pedestrian and bicycle pathway system throughout the city, one of which was to follow along Fanno Creek. In 1988, petitioner applied for a permit to expand her store and pave the parking lot. The city planning commission granted the permit but required petitioner to dedicate a portion of her property for the construction of a public greenway along Fanno Creek and an additional 15-foot strip of land adjacent to the greenway for a pedestrian and bicycle pathway. The dedication required encompasses approximately 7,000 square feet, or roughly 10% of the property. Petitioner requested a variance from the city's dedication requirements. The planning commission denied the variance, and the city council affirmed the denial. Petitioner then filed suit in Oregon state court claiming an uncompensated taking. The Oregon trial court upheld the city's requirements. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed, as did the Oregon Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. The question presented was what standard of review applies to a claim that a city's exaction of a dedication of private property as a condition of a building permit constitutes an uncompensated taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

The Village of Euclid is an Ohio municipal corporation that adjoins and is practically a suburb of the City of Cleveland. Its estimated population is between 5,000 and 10,000, and its area spans from twelve to fourteen square miles, with the greater part consisting of farm lands or unimproved acreage. It lies roughly in the form of a parallelogram measuring approximately three and one-half miles each way and is traversed east and west by three principal highways and two railroads. Ambler Realty Co. owns a tract of land containing 68 acres situated in the westerly end of the village. This tract abuts on Euclid Avenue to the south and the Nickel Plate railroad to the north. Adjoining this tract on both the east and the west, restricted residential plats have been laid out upon which residences have been erected. On November 13, 1922, the Village Council adopted an ordinance establishing a comprehensive zoning plan. The ordinance divides the village into six use districts denominated U-1 to U-6, three height districts denominated H-1 to H-3, and four area districts denominated A-1 to A-4. Appellee's tract is classified as U-2 for the first 620 feet north of Euclid Avenue, U-3 for the next 130 feet, and U-6 for the remainder. Enforcement of the ordinance is entrusted to the inspector of buildings under rules and regulations of the board of zoning appeals. The board holds public meetings, keeps minutes of its proceedings, and possesses authority to interpret the ordinance in cases of practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, while penalties are prescribed for violations. Ambler Realty Co. filed suit alleging that the tract has been held for years for sale and development for industrial uses for which it is especially adapted. The bill further alleged that unrestricted market value is about $10,000 per acre but limited to residential purposes the value does not exceed $2,500 per acre, that the first 200 feet back from Euclid Avenue has a value of $150 per front foot if unrestricted but not in excess of $50 per front foot if limited to residential uses, and that the ordinance confiscates and destroys a great part of its value while deterring prospective buyers. The bill sought an injunction restraining enforcement of the ordinance. The district court overruled a motion to dismiss on the ground that the suit was premature. The district court held the ordinance unconstitutional and void and enjoined its enforcement.

In early 1973, Mrs. Inez Moore received a notice of violation from the city of East Cleveland. The notice stated that her grandson John Moore, Jr., was an illegal occupant of her home. It directed her to comply with the housing ordinance. Mrs. Moore lived in her East Cleveland home together with her son Dale Moore, Sr., and her two grandsons Dale Moore, Jr., and John Moore, Jr. John came to live with her after his mother's death when he was less than one year old. When she failed to remove John from the home, the city filed a criminal charge against her. Mrs. Moore moved to dismiss the charge. She claimed that the ordinance was constitutionally invalid on its face. Her motion was overruled. Upon conviction she was sentenced to five days in jail and a $25 fine. The East Cleveland ordinance limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family. The ordinance defined family to include only a husband or wife of the nominal head of the household, unmarried children of the head or spouse provided they have no children residing with them, a parent of the head or spouse, or not more than one dependent child of the head or spouse along with that child's spouse and dependent children. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction after giving full consideration to her constitutional claims. The Ohio Supreme Court denied review of the case. The United States Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction of her appeal.

The city of Eastlake, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland, has a comprehensive zoning plan codified in a municipal ordinance. Respondent, a real estate developer, acquired an eight-acre parcel of real estate in Eastlake zoned for light industrial uses at the time of purchase. In May 1971, respondent applied to the City Planning Commission for a zoning change to permit construction of a multifamily, high-rise apartment building. The Planning Commission recommended the proposed change to the City Council. By popular vote, the voters of Eastlake amended the city charter to require that any changes in land use agreed to by the Council be approved by a 55% vote in a referendum. The City Council approved the Planning Commission's recommendation for reclassification of respondent's property to permit the proposed project. Respondent then applied to the Planning Commission for parking and yard approval for the proposed building. The Commission rejected the application on the ground that the City Council's rezoning action had not yet been submitted to the voters for ratification. Respondent filed an action in state court seeking a judgment declaring the charter provision invalid as an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the people. While the case was pending, the City Council's action was submitted to a referendum, but the proposed zoning change was not approved by the requisite 55% margin. Following the election, the Court of Common Pleas and the Ohio Court of Appeals sustained the charter provision. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed.

The Village of Euclid is an Ohio municipal corporation adjoining and practically a suburb of the City of Cleveland. Its estimated population is between 5,000 and 10,000, and its area covers twelve to fourteen square miles, the greater part consisting of farm lands or unimproved acreage. The village lies roughly in the form of a parallelogram measuring approximately three and one-half miles each way. East and west the village is traversed by three principal highways: Euclid Avenue through the southerly border, St. Clair Avenue through the central portion, and Lake Shore Boulevard through the northerly border near Lake Erie. The Nickel Plate railroad lies 1,500 to 1,800 feet north of Euclid Avenue, and the Lake Shore railroad lies 1,600 feet farther north. The three highways and the two railroads are substantially parallel. Ambler Realty Company owns a tract of land containing 68 acres situated in the westerly end of the village. The tract abuts Euclid Avenue to the south and the Nickel Plate railroad to the north. Restricted residential plats upon which residences have been erected adjoin the tract both on the east and on the west. On November 13, 1922, the Village Council adopted an ordinance establishing a comprehensive zoning plan. The ordinance divides the entire village area into six classes of use districts denominated U-1 to U-6, three classes of height districts denominated H-1 to H-3, and four classes of area districts denominated A-1 to A-4. A zone map is annexed showing the location and limits of the various districts. Ambler's tract comes under U-2, U-3, and U-6. The first strip of 620 feet immediately north of Euclid Avenue falls in class U-2, the next 130 feet to the north falls in U-3, and the remainder falls in U-6. The lands lying between the two railroads for the entire length of the village area are left open for industrial and all other uses. Ambler Realty Company filed a bill in equity alleging that the tract has been held for years for sale and development for industrial uses for which it is especially adapted. The bill further alleges that the ordinance restricts the land so as to reduce its market value from about $10,000 per acre to not in excess of $2,500 per acre and the first 200 feet back from Euclid Avenue from $150 per front foot to not in excess of $50 per front foot. Prospective buyers are deterred, and the ordinance constitutes a cloud on title. The district court held the ordinance unconstitutional and void and enjoined its enforcement at 297 Fed. 307, after overruling a motion to dismiss on the ground that no building permit or zoning board appeal had been sought.