DocketNumber: No. 08AP-586.
Citation Numbers: 909 N.E.2d 152, 181 Ohio App. 3d 384, 2009 Ohio 1102
Judges: TYACK, Judge.
Filed Date: 3/12/2009
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 1/13/2023
{¶ 42} Being unable to join the majority's disposition of Dublin's second assignment of error, I must respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.
{¶ 43} The basis for my disagreement is that I do not believe that the statutory scheme in question is a general law for purposes of the Home Rule Amendment. That test requires that we consider (1) whether the statute is part of a statewide and comprehensive legislative enactment; (2) whether it applies to all parts of the state alike and operates uniformly throughout the state; (3) whether the statute sets forth police, sanitary, or similar regulations, rather than purports to grant or limit the legislative power of a municipality to set forth police, sanitary, or similar regulations; and (4) whether the statute prescribes a rule of conduct on citizens generally. Marich v. Bob Bennett Constr. Co.,
{¶ 44} I believe that the statutory scheme setting forth the state's building code fails the general-law test because it merely purports to limit the ability of municipalities to adopt and enforce building-code provisions that conflict with the state code. R.C.
{¶ 45} The Supreme Court of Ohio has stated that when applying the third part of the general-law test, a statute that prohibits a municipality from exercising its home-rule powers must serve an overriding statewide interest.Clermont Environmental Reclamation Co. v. Wiederhold
(1982),
{¶ 46} For the above stated reasons, I would sustain Dublin's second assignment of error and overrule the remainder of the city's assignments of error as moot. I concur in overruling the state's cross-assignment of error.