Brenneman v. Allen County Board of Commissioners, 962 N.E.2d 342

Brennemans appeal the Allen County Board of Commissioners' approval of the Wrasman drainage project in Marion Township and the related assessments.
The Allen Soil and Water Conservation District held a March 18, 2009 meeting, determined the project was necessary, and the Board approved it on April 22, 2009.
Notice of estimated assessments was provided to landowners, with Brennemans and others filing objections focusing on costs and assessments.
A final hearing on objections occurred June 25, 2009, after which the Board again approved the project and set an assessment schedule; on July 1, 2009, four parcels were improperly assessed and adjustments increased others' assessments.
Brennemans, pro se, filed a notice of appeal on July 16, 2009; counsel later amended the appeal to challenge both project acceptance and the assessments.
The Board moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to post an appeal bond; the trial court initially overruled the motion, but later decisions tied to a separate related case (CV 2010 0164) influenced the disposition.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court should have held a hearing under R.C. 2506.03 on the administrative appeal	Brennemans argue for a full hearing pursuant to 2506.03.	Board contends the applicable standard and procedure do not require a new hearing.	The trial court abused its discretion by not conducting an appropriate hearing.
Whether the court properly used the record from an unrelated case to decide this appeal	Brennemans contend the unrelated case record was improperly used.	Board argues the record is appropriately considered.	Abuse of discretion in using the unrelated case record to decide this appeal.
Whether the administrative order was supported by substantial, reliable, and probative evidence after review of the full record	Brennemans contend the order lacks substantial evidence.	Board asserts the order is supported by the evidence.	The court sustained the assignments, finding error in the evaluation of the record and the dismissal rationale.

Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for reviewing administrative orders)
Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (1984) (limited appellate review in RC 2506.04 appeals)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (1983) (abuse of discretion requires unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable actions)
Lorain City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 40 Ohio St.3d 257 (1988) (limits on appellate weighing of administrative evidence)
Briggs v. Dinsmore Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 161 Ohio App.3d 704 (2005) (abuse-of-discretion standard in zoning appeals)