When a person wants to exercise the deeply and objectively rooted right to use liberty and property for the non-economic purpose of saving lives, does the standard of review amount to 'not utterly arbitrary'?

QUESTION PRESENTED Sage Lewis wants to use the backlot of his commercial building in Akron, Ohio, to provide temporary tent-shelter to homeless, street-dwelling Akronites during a life-threatening emergency such as a sub-zero blizzard. Akron denied Petitioners’ variance request under the local zoning code, and the state courts upheld that denial because the zoning code does not provide for emergency tent shelter. The courts then rejected Petitioners’ constitutional claim on the ground that Akron’s actions, being in conformity with the zoning code, were not “arbitrary.” The Question Presented is: When a person wants to exercise the deeply and objectively rooted right to use liberty and property for the non-economic purpose of saving lives, does the standard of review amount to “not utterly arbitrary”?