Ohio Supreme Court Justices Question Kent's Law on Unrelated Residents

A Realtor and property owner is challenging Kent's law restricting the number of unrelated tenants in single-family homes.

Published on Feb. 10, 2026

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

The Ohio Supreme Court heard arguments on a case challenging Kent's zoning law that prohibits more than two unrelated individuals from living in a single-family dwelling in certain residential districts. The property owner, a Realtor, argues the law is unconstitutional and overly restrictive, while the city contends it is meant to address issues like parking and resources. The justices questioned the purpose and impact of the law during the hearing.

Why it matters

This case highlights the ongoing debate over local zoning laws that restrict occupancy based on familial relationships rather than traditional health, safety, or nuisance concerns. Such laws have faced legal challenges in other cities, with critics arguing they contribute to housing affordability issues by limiting options for unrelated individuals to live together.

The details

Realtor and property owner Reed Havel is challenging Kent's law that prohibits more than two unrelated individuals from living in a single-family home in R-3 high-density residential districts. Havel owns a six-bedroom home that he purchased from his mother in 2022 and intended to use to house individuals with disabilities. However, the city has threatened Havel with fines and evictions for violating the code. Havel's lawyer argued the law is arbitrary and unconstitutional, while the city defended it as a way to address issues like parking and resource usage.

  • On Sept. 2, 2022, Havel filed for a nonconforming use certificate, which was denied by Kent's Community Development Department.
  • In November 2022, Havel appealed the decision to the Kent Board of Zoning Appeals, which ruled he didn't prove the home had been used as a rooming house for the required length of time.
  • In July 2023, Havel took his case to the Portage County Common Pleas Court, which agreed the zoning restrictions were unconstitutional.
  • In September 2024, the Eleventh District Court of Appeals ruled the zoning restrictions in Kent's ordinances were constitutional.
  • On April 7, 2025, Havel filed an appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

The players

Reed Havel

A Realtor and real estate investor with offices in Ravenna, Ohio, who owns the six-bedroom home on Columbus Street that he purchased from his mother in 2022.

Maurice Thompson

Havel's lawyer, who argued the city's law is an unconstitutional and arbitrary regulation of familial relationships rather than traditional zoning concerns.

Mark Fusco

The lawyer for Kent's Board of Zoning Appeals, who defended the city's law as a way to address issues like parking and resource usage.

Justice Patrick F. Fischer

An Ohio Supreme Court justice who questioned the purpose and impact of the city's law during the hearing.

Kent's Community Development Department

The department that denied Havel's request for a nonconforming use certificate and issued multiple notices of violations against him.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“The city of Kent attempts to operate as an involuntary HOA, limiting six-bedroom homes to just two unrelated adults, without a single health, safety or nuisance-based justification.”

— Maurice Thompson, Havel's lawyer (beaconjournal.com)

“If you have nine renters, they likely all have automobiles they have to park somewhere. This, he added, could tax the city's resources.”

— Mark Fusco, Lawyer for Kent's Board of Zoning Appeals (beaconjournal.com)

“I had nine people in a three-bedroom house growing up.”

— Justice Patrick F. Fischer (beaconjournal.com)

What’s next

The Ohio Supreme Court will issue a ruling on whether Kent's law restricting the number of unrelated tenants in single-family homes is constitutional.

The takeaway

This case highlights the ongoing tension between local zoning laws that aim to regulate housing occupancy and the need for affordable and flexible living arrangements, especially in college towns and urban areas. The outcome could set a precedent for how cities can approach such regulations in the future.