2018 Ohio 2549
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Cheryl and Dale Dixon own a 25‑acre farm in Caesarscreek Township and applied for an Agritourism Activity permit covering four categories of uses (pavilion events, themed weddings/receptions with farm‑style attractions, themed birthdays/celebrations/reunions, and agricultural workshops).
- The Caesarscreek Township Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) held a public hearing and approved pavilion events and workshops but denied the application as to weddings, birthdays, celebrations, and reunions, concluding those were not "agriculturally related" under the township zoning resolution and Ohio law.
- The Dixons administratively appealed to the Greene County Court of Common Pleas. The BZA filed a transcript but noted there was no audio recording for transcription; the transcript lacked express findings of fact supporting the BZA’s final decision.
- The common pleas court decided the appeal on briefs (no evidentiary hearing) and reversed the BZA in part, reinstating approval for the theme‑based weddings/receptions/birthdays/celebrations/reunions.
- Caesarscreek Township appealed, arguing the trial court abused its discretion by failing to hold a hearing under R.C. 2506.03 because the administrative record/transcript did not contain conclusions of fact.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding the township waived any claim the record was incomplete and that the BZA’s decision was based on statutory interpretation (not disputed facts), so lack of findings did not mandate a hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the common pleas court abused its discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing under R.C. 2506.03 because the transcript lacked conclusions of fact | Dixon: no hearing required because facts were undisputed and BZA’s decision involved statutory interpretation; record was adequate | Township: transcript lacked factual conclusions supporting the BZA’s decision, so R.C. 2506.03 required a hearing and additional evidence | Held: No abuse. Township waived objection to the record; absent disputed facts, lack of findings did not require a hearing |
| Whether the trial court properly reversed the BZA’s denial of themed weddings/celebrations as non‑agritourism | Dixon: the activities fall within agritourism as interpreted under R.C. 901.80 and the zoning resolution | Township: those activities are not "agriculturally related" and thus properly excluded from agritourism approval | Held: Common pleas court did not abuse its discretion in reversing the BZA in part; decision affirmed on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dudukovich v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 58 Ohio St.2d 202, 389 N.E.2d 1113 (Ohio 1979) (common pleas court must determine whether preponderance of reliable, probative, and substantial evidence supports agency decision)
- Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 66 Ohio St.3d 452, 613 N.E.2d 580 (Ohio 1993) (agency decision is presumed reasonable and valid)
- Ohio Dept. of Commerce, Div. of Real Estate v. DePugh, 129 Ohio App.3d 255, 717 N.E.2d 763 (4th Dist.) (appellate review of common pleas court involves abuse of discretion for factual issues and de novo for legal issues)