Devol v. Logan
2021 Ohio 4164
Ohio Ct. App.2021Background
- ODOT initiated a 2004 appropriation of land along SR 664 that resulted in a Judgment Entry on Settlement splitting Parcel 8 into Parcel 8-WL (ODOT-owned, abutting SR 664) and Parcel 8-WD (Devol-owned) and conveying Parcel 9-EL to Devol; the settlement expressly reserved limitation of access in Parcel 8-WL and Devol waived abutter/access rights and received compensation.
- Devol repeatedly applied (2015, 2016, Feb. 2017, Dec. 2017) for a curb cut/driveway to SR 664; the City zoning inspector denied each application, citing ODOT’s reservation of access rights in the vesting deed.
- Devol appealed the permit denial to the City Zoning Board of Appeals; the Board unanimously denied relief after ODOT testified the project eliminated abutting access for safety and any conflicting deed language was a scrivener’s error.
- Devol sought judicial review in Hocking County Common Pleas Court; the court affirmed, finding ODOT retained limited-access rights in Parcel 8-WL, the deed to Parcel 9-EL did not restore access, and the zoning inspector properly considered deeds.
- On appeal, Devol raised eight assignments of error focused on (1) the zoning inspector’s authority to interpret deeds, (2) whether ODOT’s appropriation eliminated her access rights and whether they were restored, (3) alleged taking, and (4) treatment of Parcel 9-EL and corrective-deed arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zoning inspector's authority to interpret deeds when issuing/denying permits | Devol: inspector exceeded ministerial authority; only a court may interpret deeds | City/ODOT: inspector must ensure applicant complied with "all legal requirements" and may review deeds to determine compliance | Court: inspector may consider deeds as part of ministerial duty to verify legal compliance; no constitutional or statutory bar |
| Whether ODOT acquired and retained limitation-of-access rights (Kramer issue) | Devol: settlement/deeds (esp. Parcel 9-EL language) restored access rights | ODOT: settlement reserved limitation of access in Parcel 8-WL; Devol was compensated and waived access; Parcel 9-EL did not restore abutter access | Court: preponderance of evidence shows ODOT acquired and retained access rights; Parcel 9-EL did not restore access; even if it did, 8-WL still blocks access |
| Constitutional taking claim from permit denial | Devol: denial of driveway permit effected an unconstitutional taking | City/ODOT: Devol failed to show an existing legal right to build the driveway or satisfy partial-regulatory-taking elements | Court: no taking; Devol failed to establish required rights or taking elements |
| Effect/validity of Parcel 9-EL deed language and corrective deed | Devol: deed language (or corrective deed) restored access; trial court mischaracterized ‘‘boilerplate’’ language | ODOT: original settlement, deeds, surveys, and project intent show no restoration of access; any corrective deed would fix a scrivener's error but did not change substance | Court: relied on original deeds and evidence; Parcel 9-EL did not grant access; corrective-deed discussion by ODOT was not dispositive and court did not err |
| Need for local ordinance/classification declaring SR 664 limited access | Devol: no City ordinance declared limited access so restriction cannot be applied | ODOT/City: no statutory requirement that municipality pass such an ordinance for ODOT appropriation; defects in the 2004 appropriation were for direct appeal then, not collateral attack now | Court: rejected challenge; Devol's remedy would have been direct appeal of appropriation; no basis to invalidate current administrative action |
Key Cases Cited
- Willow Grove, Ltd. v. Olmsted Township, 38 N.E.3d 1133 (Ohio 2015) (describing the zoning inspector's ministerial duty to issue permits when owner meets all legal requirements and proposed use fits zoning)
- Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga County Executive, 28 N.E.3d 1182 (Ohio 2014) (standard for R.C. 2506.01 administrative appeals: common pleas reviews whole record; appellate review limited to questions of law)
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 735 N.E.2d 433 (Ohio 2000) (clarifies scope of judicial review in zoning appeals and limits on substituting court judgment for board)
- Director of Highways v. Kramer, 262 N.E.2d 332 (Ohio Ct. App. 1970) (owner abutting highway has ingress/egress rights unless appropriating body acquires fee with all rights and compensates owner)
- Grava v. Parkman Township, 653 N.E.2d 226 (Ohio 1995) (res judicata limits repetitive zoning applications based on same nucleus of facts)