COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO, EIGHTH DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA NO. 72754 HENRY MEYER ASSOCIATES, INC. : : JOURNAL ENTRY Plaintiff-Appellee : : and -vs- : : OPINION VILLAGE OF MORELAND HILLS, et al.: : Defendants-Appellants : : DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT AUGUST 20, 1998 OF DECISION: CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Civil appeal from Common Pleas Court Case No. 229139 JUDGMENT: Judgment Vacated and Cause Remanded. DATE OF JOURNALIZATION: APPEARANCE: For Plaintiff-Appellee: TIMOTHY J. GRENDELL, ESQ. JOHN W. MONROE, ESQ. Grendell & Targove 6060 Rockside Woods Blvd. Suite 250 Independence, Ohio 44131 For Defendant-Appellant: CHRISTOPHER L. GIBBON, ESQ. Walter & Haverfield 1300 Terminal Tower Cleveland, Ohio 44113 PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON, A.J.: Appellant Village of Moreland Hills ( Moreland Hills ) appeals a decision by the trial court in favor of appellee Henry Meyer -2- Associates, Inc., ( Meyer ) in Meyer's declaratory judgment action. Moreland Hills assigns the following two errors for our review: I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING CLASSIFICA- TION OF PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY WAS UNCONSTITU- TIONAL SINCE PLAINTIFF FAILED TO PROVE BEYOND FAIR DEBATE THAT: (A) THE ZONING DOES NOT SUBSTANTIALLYADVANCE A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT- AL INTEREST AND THAT: (B) THE PROPERTY HAS NO ECONOMICALLY VIABLE USE AS ZONED. (March 11, 1997 and March 14, 1997 Orders) II. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ORDERING THAT THE PLAINTIFF'S PROPERTY BE REZONED TO PERMIT 19 UNITS TO BE DEVELOPED WHERE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ZONING SUBSTANTIALLY ADVANCED A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENTAL INTEREST OR THAT THE PROPERTY COULD BE ECONOMICALLY DEVELOPED AS REZONED. (June 17, 1997 Order) Having reviewed the record and the legal arguments of the parties, we vacate the decision of the trial court. The apposite facts follow. Because of the recent Ohio Supreme Court decision in Goldberg Cos., Inc. v. Richmond Hts. City Council (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 207, we believe it necessary to return this case to the trial court for proceedings consistent with that ruling. In Goldberg, the Ohio Supreme Court held a zoning ordinance is presumed constitutional unless determined by the court to be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable and without substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. This ruling modified Gerijo, Inc. v. Fairfield (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 223. In essence, the Goldberg court has made the economic viability prong of Gerijoirrelevant when the opponent of the zoning ordinance has not alleged a compensable taking, i.e., when the landowner has -3- alleged that he has lost all economically viable use of his land. A taking or loss of all economically viable use by its nature raises the due process standard of review to a stricter scrutiny. However, when no taking is alleged, the due process minimal rational basis standard of review is applied. The Goldberg minimal standard of review requires that the zoning ordinance be reasonable and not arbitrary and that the ordinance have a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the community. We conclude that substantial relation is synonymous with rational relation, which the U.S. Supreme Court has defined as the minimal scrutiny standard. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc. (1978), 438 U.S. 59. This means that the ordinance falls within the city's police power, i.e., health, safety, or general welfare aspirations. Consequently, the ordinance is presumed constitutional unless the legislature has acted arbitrarily and irrationally. If a minimal rational-reasonable relationship exists between the regulation and the goal of health, safety, or general welfare, then the presumption of validity stands against challenge. If the City fails to show a health, safety or general welfare basis for the regulation and a substantial relationship between the regulation and the goal of the City, then the regulation fails. The Goldberg court appears to have locked step with the U.S. Supreme Court's approach. Consequently, we remand this case to trial for a determination of the case consistent with Goldberg. We equally adopt the -4- reasoning set forth in our decision released today in Michael A. Shemo, Co-Trustee, et al. v. City of Mayfield Heights, Ohio, et al., (August 20, 1998), Cuyahoga App. No. 73241, unreported. Judgment vacated and cause remanded. -5- Judgment vacated and cause is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs to be divided equally between appellee and appellants. It is ordered that a special mandate be sent to said court to carry this judgment into execution. A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to Rule 27 of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. PORTER, J., and O'DONNELL, J., CONCUR. PATRICIA ANN BLACKMON ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE N.B. This entry is an announcement of the court's decision. See App.R. 22(B), 22(D) and 26(A); Loc.App.R. 27. This decision will be journalized and will become the judgment and order of the court pursuant to App.R. 22(E) unless a motion for reconsideration with supporting brief, per App.R. 26(A), is filed within ten (10) days of the announcement of the court's decision. The time period for review by the Supreme Court of Ohio shall begin to run upon the .