Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals (Slip Opinion)
141 Ohio St. 3d 318
| Ohio | 2014Background
- Hospital is Cleveland Clinic Foundation and Fairview Hospital; seeks helipad atop a new two-story addition.
- Zoning in Local Retail Business District; helipads not listed as standard accessory uses under C.C.O. 343.01(b)(8).
- Common Pleas Court ruled helipad is an accessory use because hospitals are allowed in MF District and thus in Local Retail by extension.
- Court of Appeals reversed, relying on ambiguity and deference to BZA's interpretation.
- Ohio Supreme Court granted discretionary review and reversed the appellate court.
- Helipad is a permitted accessory use for a hospital in Local Retail Business District under the current code.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for RC 2506.04 appeals | Appellate review should defer to trial court findings if supported by evidence | Appellate court should defer to BZA when ordinance is ambiguous or reasonable interpretation used | Appellate court applied incorrect standard; must affirm unless trial court decision is not supported by preponderance of evidence |
| Whether a helipad is an accessory use to a hospital in Local Retail District | A hospital is permitted in MF District and helipad is customarily incidental to hospital use | Helipad not normally required for daily local retail needs; not an accessory use by ordinance | Helipad is a permitted accessory use; must remand to reinstate trial court's decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Univ. Circle, Inc. v. Cleveland, 56 Ohio St.2d 180 (1978) (zoning must be construed in favor of property owner; avoid implicit limitations)
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (1984) (standard of review; appellate review limited to questions of law)
- Dudukovich v. Housing Authority, 58 Ohio St.2d 202 (1979) (preponderance of reliable, probative, substantial evidence required)
- Cincinnati Bell v. Glendale, 42 Ohio St.2d 368 (1975) (R.C. 2506.04 review resembles de novo; but limits on appellate review exist)
- Lang v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 134 Ohio St.3d 296 (2012) (statutory interpretation as a question of law; de novo on appeal)
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (2000) (contextual, not isolated; deference rules limited in zoning appeals)
- Saunders v. Clark Cty. Zoning Dept., 66 Ohio St.2d 259 (1981) (zoning restrictions must be construed strictly; no implied extensions)