Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (In re Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp.)
2018 Ohio 2706
Oh. Ct. App. 4th Dist. Pickawa...2018Background
- Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp. (CBCC) sought a conditional-use zoning certificate to operate a sand-and-gravel quarry on 178.9 acres in Harrison Township; quarrying is listed as a conditional use in the township's General Business District.
- The Harrison Township Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) held a hearing, heard testimony from CBCC and opponents (including Berger Health), and denied the application in writing, stating CBCC failed to prove all requirements of Section 9.03 of the zoning resolution.
- CBCC appealed the BZA denial to the Pickaway County Court of Common Pleas under R.C. Chapter 2506; the trial court affirmed and granted CBCC’s motion to strike a binder submitted by Berger Health.
- Trial court found the BZA permissibly relied on Sections 9.03(B), (E), and (F) (general standards applicable to all conditional uses) and that the administrative record contained substantial, reliable, probative evidence those provisions were not met.
- On appeal, CBCC argued the BZA was limited by R.C. 519.02 and 519.141(A) to consider only public-health-or-safety criteria and must ignore matters regulated by federal/state/local agencies; CBCC also challenged the sufficiency of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 519.141(A) allows a township BZA to deny a conditional zoning certificate for surface mining based on general zoning standards that apply to all conditional uses | CBCC: R.C. 519.02 and 519.141(A) limit township regulation of activities governed by Ch. 1514 to matters only in the interest of public health or safety and prohibit relying on matters regulated by other agencies | BZA/Berger/Trial court: The plain language of R.C. 519.141(A) permits conditioning approval on compliance with general standards in the zoning resolution even where other agencies regulate aspects of the activity | Court affirmed: R.C. 519.141(A) authorizes requiring compliance with general zoning standards as a condition precedent to approval; BZA could consider Sections 9.03(B),(E),(F) |
| Whether the common pleas court’s affirmance was unsupported by a preponderance of substantial, reliable, probative evidence | CBCC: Record lacks sufficient admissible evidence to support findings that CBCC failed Sections 9.03(B),(E),(F) | BZA/Berger/Trial court: Record contains testimony and exhibits showing increased heavy-truck traffic, lack of berm on south side, dust mitigation limits, need for hydrologic study, and conflict with the North Gate plan | Court affirmed: On review, the trial court’s decision was supported by a preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence |
| Whether the trial court erred by striking Berger Health’s binder from the administrative record | Berger: If reversal is required, the binder should be included on remand | CBCC/Trial court: The binder was not part of the administrative record considered by the BZA and was properly excluded | Not reached on merits: Court affirmed on merits, rendering Berger’s cross-appeal moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga Cty. Executive, 142 Ohio St.3d 125 (standard of review and trial-court weighing of administrative record)
- Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Cleveland, 141 Ohio St.3d 318 (appellate review of administrative appeals is limited; affirms deference to trial-court weighing)
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (procedural standards for administrative appeals)
- Set Prods., Inc. v. Bainbridge Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 31 Ohio St.3d 260 (township power to regulate surface mining under Ch. 519 not preempted by Ch. 1514)
- Terry v. Sperry, 130 Ohio St.3d 125 (townships have only statutory zoning authority)