Conrad v. Oxford
2017 Ohio 9089
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Thomas and Sarah Conrad purchased a single-family house in Oxford, Ohio (316 E. Vine St.) and sought an area (lot width) variance to convert it to a two-family dwelling.
- Oxford zoning requires 75 feet lot width for two-family dwellings; the Conrads' lot is 53 feet wide (about 30% short) and ≈9,800 sq ft in area.
- The Oxford Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) denied the variance; the Conrads appealed to the Butler County Court of Common Pleas.
- The common pleas court initially remanded because the BZA had considered a prior variance denial for a different property (fraternity house) that was not in the record.
- After a remand hearing the BZA again denied the variance; the common pleas court concluded its first remand may have confused the BZA and ordered a second remand to consider all proper evidence under the “practical difficulties” test.
- The Conrads appealed the remand decision; the City cross-appealed. The appellate court affirmed the common pleas court’s judgment ordering another remand, declining to reweigh facts or grant the variance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Conrad) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BZA’s denial reflected arbitrary/capricious disparate enforcement of zoning | BZA disparately enforced the code and improperly denied the variance; court should reverse and grant variance | BZA properly applied Duncan factors and denial should be affirmed | Remand required; appellate court declined to reweigh evidence or grant variance and found no reversible error in remanding to BZA for proper consideration |
| Scope of evidence BZA may consider on remand (prior BZA decisions/similar variances) | Prior BZA rulings relevant to practical difficulties and disparate enforcement should be considered | BZA lawfully may consider prior similar variances/decisions when supported by evidence | Court clarified that prior properly supported decisions may be relevant; initial remand instruction may have led BZA astray, so another remand is appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Dsuban v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 140 Ohio App.3d 602 (12th Dist. 2000) (distinguishes practical difficulties vs. unnecessary hardship standards for variances)
- Duncan v. Middlefield, 23 Ohio St.3d 83 (Ohio 1986) (sets factors for practical difficulties test for area variances)
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (Ohio 1984) (courts may consider neighborhood context and recent nearby variances in practical difficulties analysis)