Opinion
No. 70-429
Decided March 24, 1971.
Municipal corporations — Village planning commission — Refusal to approve plat — Unreasonable and unlawful, when — R.C. 711.09.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County.
On February 15, 1966, appellant Pelham Corporation submitted a plat for a proposed subdivision of land to the appellee Planning and Zoning Commission of the village of Orange for its approval. Appellee refused to endorse its approval on the plat, on the grounds that such plat contained violations of village zoning ordinances, Sections 703.11, 717.03, and 717.05 of the codified ordinances of the village of Orange. Thereupon, appellant filed an action in the Court of Common Pleas, pursuant to R.C. 711.09, seeking an order for approval of the plat, and to require the Cuyahoga County Recorder to record the plat when it was presented.
Judgment in the Court of Common Pleas was entered for the defendants, which judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The cause is now before this court on a motion to certify the record from the Court of Appeals of the Eighth District, Cuyahoga County, and as an appeal as of right.
Messrs. Falsgraf, Reidy, Shoup Ault and Mr. Harry J. Lehman, for appellant.
Mr. Albert M. Heavilin, village solicitor, for appellees.
This court has recently determined, in Gates Mills Investment Co. v. Parks (1971), 25 Ohio St.2d 16, that under R.C. 711.09 the planning commission of a village may not refuse to endorse its approval on a plat for a proposed subdivision for the sole reason that the plat would violate a zoning ordinance passed by that municipality's legislative authority. Here as in Gates Mills the record does not indicate that the planning commission itself has adopted any plan or rules and regulations.
The facts in the instant case falling directly under the purview of Gates Mills Investment Co. v. Parks, supra, the motion to certify the record is allowed, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. As in Gates Mills, we make no finding here concerning the validity of the zoning ordinance; but leave that for adjudication in a proper action.
Judgment reversed.
O'NEILL, C.J., SCHNEIDER, HERBERT, DUNCAN, CORRIGAN, STERN and LEACH, JJ., concur.