State ex rel. Waterbury Development Co. v. Witten
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
The two propositions of law propounded by appellant in this cause are that: (1) municipalities may adopt ordinances providing for tap-in charges for water services subject only to the qualification that such fees “must be fair and reasonable and bear a substantial relationship to the cost involved in providing service to the landowners”; (2) a municipality is not prohibited from levying a charge on new single family dwellings to provide funds for expanded recreational facilities made necessary by population growth.
Appellant indicates in her brief that the rationale for the water tap fee…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Towne Properties, Inc. v. City of FairfieldOhio Supreme Court · 1977
3Cited by8 opinions
- Home Builders Ass'n v. City of BeavercreekOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Granzow v. Bureau of SupportOhio Supreme Court · 1990
- Amherst Builders Ass'n v. City of AmherstOhio Supreme Court · 1980
- Home Builders Assn. of Dayton & the Miami Valley v. BeavercreekOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Building Industry Ass'n of Cleveland & Suburban Counties v. City of WestlakeOhio Court of Appeals · 1995
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.