Barry v. Bay Village Bd. of Zoning Appeals
2017 Ohio 7244
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Barry sought a front-yard setback variance from 50 feet to accommodate a storage/utility room for equipment, noting the lot backs Lake Erie and the back end is at the property line.
- Barry previously obtained a 25-foot variance for a front garage; the new proposal would add a storage room on the opposite end, creating a more expansive variance footprint.
- The BZA found the lot already overbuilt and raised concerns about density and the absence of a grassy front yard, ultimately denying the variance in July 2015.
- Barry submitted a reduced third application in November 2015 (20-foot variance, six-foot addition) after the prior attempts were tabled; the BZA again opposed the variance as contrary to the spirit of the setback rules.
- Barry pursued an administrative appeal under R.C. 2506, challenging the BZA’s denial; the trial court affirmed the BZA, applying Kisil and Duncan standards and finding substantial evidence to support the decision.
- Barry appeals to the Ohio Court of Appeals, challenging (1) the propriety of the trial court’s standard of review and (2) whether the denial was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard of review in administrative appeals | Barry argues for de novo review with findings. | City contends the court reviews the record for unlawful, arbitrary, or capricious action without de novo fact-finding. | Trial court used proper administrative-review standard. |
| Whether denial of the variance is against the manifest weight | Barry claims the evidence supports a variance due to practical difficulties. | City contends the evidence shows the lot is overbuilt and the variance is substantial and contrary to the ordinance. | Appellate review affirmed the trial court; BZA decision supported by substantial, reliable, probative evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (Ohio Supreme Court 1984) (establishes substantial-evidence standard for administrative review and practical difficulties factors)
- Duncan v. Middlefield, 23 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio Supreme Court 1986) (articulates Duncan factors for variances and practical difficulties)
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio Supreme Court 2000) (standard for reviewing administrative decisions under R.C. 2506)
- Stickelman v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 772 N.E.2d 683 (Ohio App.2d Dist. 2002) (no single factor controls; focus on spirit and substantial justice)
- Phillips v. Westlake Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2009-Ohio-2489 (8th Dist. Cuyahoga 2009) (applies Duncan factors with local ordinances in administrative review)