Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 845

Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp. (CBCC) owns 178.9 acres in Harrison Township and applied for a conditional-use permit to conduct sand-and-gravel mining.
Harrison Township zoning resolution treats quarrying/mining as a conditional use and contains six General Standards that the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) must consider for all conditional uses.
R.C. 519.02(A) authorizes townships to regulate activities governed by R.C. Chapters 1513–1514 (surface mining) only in the interest of public health or safety.
R.C. 519.141(A) bars the BZA from considering matters regulated by other agencies but permits the BZA to require compliance with any general standards in the zoning resolution "as a condition of the approval" of a conditional zoning certificate.
The BZA denied CBCC’s application after three hearings, stating only that CBCC failed to prove compliance with the General Standards; the trial court and Fourth District affirmed without limiting application of the General Standards to health-and-safety concerns.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed, holding that (1) General Standards apply to mining only insofar as they protect public health or safety, and (2) R.C. 519.141(A) allows imposing conditions but does not authorize denial based on noncompliance with general standards unrelated to health/safety.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May a township apply general zoning standards unrelated to health or safety to deny a conditional-use mining application?	R.C. 519.02(A) limits township regulation of mining to public health/safety, so non-health/safety standards cannot justify denial.	R.C. 519.141(A) allows the BZA to require compliance with any general standards for conditional uses, so those standards can apply to mining.	R.C. 519.02(A) controls: general standards may be applied to mining only to the extent they relate to public health or safety.
Does R.C. 519.141(A) give the BZA a basis to deny a mining application that fails to meet the township’s general conditions?	No—519.141(A) permits requiring compliance as a condition of approval, not denial.	Yes—519.141(A) expressly permits requiring compliance with any general standards and therefore supports denial for noncompliance.	No—519.141(A) allows conditions to approval; it does not authorize denial based on failure to meet general standards.
What relief/remand is appropriate?	Reverse and remand for the BZA to reconsider under the correct standard (health/safety only); conditions, not denial, if concerns arise.	BZA should be permitted to reapply its General Standards broadly.	Reverse and remand: BZA must limit application of General Standards to health/safety concerns and may address those concerns only by imposing conditions on an approved permit, not by denying the permit on that basis.

Bainbridge Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Funtime, Inc., 55 Ohio St.3d 106 (township zoning power is statutory and limited)
Yorkavitz v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 166 Ohio St. 349 (delegated zoning power is limited to statute)
Apple Group, Ltd. v. Granger Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 144 Ohio St.3d 188 (township zoning authority derives from the General Assembly)
Turner v. CertainTeed Corp., 155 Ohio St.3d 149 (statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)