2014 Ohio 854
Ohio Ct. App.2014Background
- Artz appeal from September 19, 2013 amended dismissal of count one claiming entitlement to erect and operate an animal crematorium.
- Artz own 3.5 acres in Elizabeth Township and 11 acres across the street; kennel operates on the 11-acre tract in A-1 Agricultural District.
- Artz sought declaratory judgment on requirement of a conditional use permit or zoning certificate for a crematorium, arguing animal crematorium is agricultural/animal husbandry.
- Trial evidence included a conditional-use permit for a kennel (2006-2007) and a notarized statement by Artz not to install a crematory, plus communications showing Township opposition.
- The Township argued crematorium is not an agricultural use and not a permitted principal/conditional/accessory use; Angels for Animals is distinguishable because it concerned an industrial district and a rescue operation.
- The trial court found under R.C. 519.21 and zoning resolution provisions that the crematorium falls outside the agricultural exemption and dismissed count one with prejudice, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Artz is entitled to declaratory relief to erect a crematorium without Township permission | Artz contends crematorium is part of animal husbandry and agricultural use | Township asserts crematorium is not an agricultural use nor a permitted principal/conditional/acces sory use | Count dismissed; not entitled to declaratory relief |
| Whether the crematorium falls within cemetery/conditional-use framework to require Board approval | Crematorium not expressly prohibited; should be treated as agricultural activity | Crematorium not within permitted uses; not a cemetery/conditional use | Not a permitted principal/conditional/accessory use; not required to issue permit; affirmed dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Rootstown Twp. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 44 Ohio St.2d 144 (1975) (defines animal husbandry and agricultural exemptions)
- Angels for Animals, Inc. v. Beaver Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2004-Ohio-7209 (7th Dist. Mahoning No. 04 MA 80) (crematories in industrial district context; distinguishable from agricultural use)
- Terry v. Sperry, 130 Ohio St.3d 125 (2011-Ohio-3364) (zones exemptions; agricultural use interpretations)
- Saunders v. Clark Cty. Zoning Dept., 66 Ohio St.2d 259 (1981) (zoning restrictions construed in favor of property owner; exemptions liberally construed)
- State ex rel Moore Oil Co. v. Dauben, 99 Ohio St. 406 (1919) (exemptions from zoning provisions liberally construed)
- Arnott v. Arnott, 2012-Ohio-3208 (132 Ohio St.3d 401) (de novo review of declaratory judgment questions)
- Yorkavitz v. Bd. of Columbia Twp. Trustees, 166 Ohio St. 349 (1957) (limited township zoning authority; needs statutory grant)
- Bd. of Bainbridge Twp. Trustees v. Funtime, Inc., 55 Ohio St.3d 106 (1990) (zoning authority boundaries and agricultural exemptions)