State Ex Rel. Waterbury Development Co. v. Witten

387 N.E.2d 1380, 58 Ohio App. 2d 17, 12 Ohio Op. 3d 29, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 7101
Ohio Court of Appeals·Decided September 16, 1977·No. L-76-253·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

. POTTER; P. J.

This cause came on to be beard upon the pleadings, evidence, briefs, and arguments of counsel.

This is an original mandamus action, in, the Court of Appeals filed by the Waterbury Development Co. against Sally Witten, the Village Administrator for the Village 1 of Waterville. The plaintiff-relator’s application for a zoning permit 2 was denied since the plaintifi'-relatop refused to pay the following fees to the Village of 'Waterville: a water tap charge pursuant to Waterville Ordinance No. 21-76; a sanitary sewer tap charge pursuant to Water-ville Ordinance No. 22-76 3 ; and a park fbé. pursuant -to Section 1313.19 of the Waterville Code.

The ordinance 21-76 and code provision 1313.19 are set forth'below: '

“Ordinance No. 21-76 :
“An ordinance fixing water tap charges for connection to the public water distribution system of the village, and declaring an emergency.
“Be it ordinaed' 'by the Council of ''the ’Village' of Waterville, Lucas Comity, Ohio (five members elected thereto concurring) that:
“Section 1. There be and hereby is "adopted in accordance with, Chapter 931.06(a) a water tap-in charge according to the following' schedule: ■. " ':
*19

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State Ex Rel. Waterbury Development Co. v. Witten, 387 N.E.2d 1380, 58 Ohio App. 2d 17, 12 Ohio Op. 3d 29, 1977 Ohio App. LEXIS 7101 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977).

387 N.E.2d 1380 (State Ex Rel. Waterbury Development Co. v. Witten) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

City of Marion v. Baioni
850 S.W.2d 1 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1993)
Fairway Manor, Inc. v. City of Akron
468 N.E.2d 927 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1983)