Citizens Against Blasting on Our Miami v. Anderson Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
2012 Ohio 6145
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Martin Marietta sought conditional-use zoning permits for a limestone mine and processing plant on ~480 acres in Anderson Township, mostly in the ID District with a small portion in the B District.
- BZA granted a conditional-use certificate but conditioned approval on a Good Neighbor Fee of five cents per ton, indexed to 2010 USD, payable annually by any owner.
- Sixty-plus entities, including Indian Hill, Terrace Park, and Newtown, appealed to the Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. 2506.
- Common Pleas reversed on several grounds related to use in the B District, storage of explosives, vibration and nuisance standards, truck traffic, and the Good Neighbor Fee.
- Martin Marietta appealed to the First District, challenging standing rulings and the legality of conditioning the permit on the Good Neighbor Fee; the court remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the Good Neighbor Fee conditioning exceeded BZA authority but remanded rather than voiding the entire decision; standing for Newtown, Indian Hill, and Terrace Park was addressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of nearby municipalities to appeal | Newtown, Indian Hill, Terrace Park directly affected | Standing as political subdivisions may be limited | Newtown and Terrace Park have standing; Indian Hill standing rejected for this record. |
| Authority to condition permits on Good Neighbor Fee | BZA acted within its authority under the resolution to impose conditions | Good Neighbor Fee not authorized by zoning resolution | BZA exceeded authority by conditioning on the Good Neighbor Fee. |
| Remedy for unauthorized condition | Strike the Fee or void the decision entirely | Strike the fee and uphold remainder or remand to BZA | Strike the Good Neighbor Fee; remand to BZA for further proceedings; no complete voiding of the decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schomaeker v. First Natl. Bank of Ottawa, 66 Ohio St.2d 304 (Ohio 1981) (standing of directly affected landowners; direct appeal avenues under 2506)
- Willoughby Hills v. C. C. Bar’s Sahara, 64 Ohio St.3d 24 (Ohio 1992) (standing as private vs public concerns; proximity and direct effect)
- Jenkins v. Gallipolis, 128 Ohio App.3d 376 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2000) (value impact and standing to challenge zoning decisions)
- Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 110 Ohio App.3d 527 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 2006) (standing when a municipality’s duties/rights are affected by zoning)
- Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55 (Ohio 2012) (limits on standing; implications for municipal standing beyond local residents)
- Westgate Shopping Village v. Toledo, 93 Ohio App.3d 507 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1994) (standing based on potential impact to municipal interests)