## Facts

- A homeowner applied for a building permit to construct a single-family residence on a lot in Cleveland Heights, Ohio.
- Under municipal ordinance, the application’s plans and specifications were referred to the city’s Architectural Board of Review, composed of registered architects with substantial experience.
- The surrounding neighborhood was primarily residential and largely consisted of multi-story homes.
- The proposed design was an unconventional one-story residence intended to be largely screened from street view.
- The Board disapproved the plans, stating the one-story proposal in a multi-story area did not maintain the “high character of community development” and did not conform to the character of nearby houses.
- The applicant appealed to the court of common pleas, which upheld the Board’s decision and found the ordinance constitutional, the Board authorized, no abuse of discretion, and due process satisfied.
- The applicant then appealed on questions of law to the Ohio Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Whether the architectural review ordinance authorizing denial of permits to maintain neighborhood character and protect property values is a constitutional exercise of municipal police power.
2. Whether the Architectural Board of Review acted within its delegated authority and without abusing its discretion in denying the permit based on nonconformity with the area’s character.
3. Whether the permit denial process and available review provided the applicant due process of law.

## Decision

- The court of appeals affirmed the judgment for the Board.
- The ordinance was held constitutional as a police-power measure aimed at protecting property and preventing impairment of real estate values by maintaining a high character of community development.
- The Board had authority to evaluate proposed construction by architectural standards tied to those stated purposes.
- The Board did not abuse its discretion by finding the proposed structure incompatible with the neighborhood’s character.
- The applicant was afforded due process through submission of plans, stated reasons for denial, and judicial review.

## Legal Principles

- A municipality may regulate new construction through architectural review when the regulation is tied to public-welfare objectives such as protecting property and preventing destruction of real estate value.
- Considerations commonly described as “aesthetic” may be treated as part of the general welfare when linked to articulated public interests like neighborhood character and property values.
- Courts generally defer to a legislative body’s police-power judgment unless the determination is clearly erroneous or the regulation is arbitrary.
- An architectural review board acts within its discretion when it applies stated ordinance purposes and provides reasons grounded in those purposes.
- Procedural due process in land-use permitting may be satisfied by notice of the decision and reasons, plus meaningful administrative and judicial review.

## Conclusion

The court upheld Cleveland Heights’ architectural review scheme as a valid exercise of police power and affirmed the permit denial because the Board acted within its delegated authority, made a non-arbitrary neighborhood-character determination tied to property-value protection, and provided adequate procedural protections.


Reid v. Architectural Bd. of Review of Cleveland Heights, 119 Ohio App. 67, 192 N.E.2d 74 (Ohio Ct. App. 1963)