2020 Ohio 3209
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- On Feb. 19, 2019, Hamer applied to the Danbury Township Board of Zoning Appeals (Ottawa County) for a conditional-use permit to operate a bed-and-breakfast and for a variance excusing the owner-occupancy requirement.
- At the Mar. 20, 2019 BZA hearing Hamer and co-petitioner presented; a neighbor submitted a written statement opposing the requests; Hamer objected to written testimony and sought cross-examination but was overruled.
- The Board denied both requests and notified Hamer on Apr. 18, 2019.
- Hamer filed an administrative appeal under R.C. Chapter 2506 on May 20, 2019 in the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas (not Ottawa County).
- The Board moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; the trial court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, holding R.C. 2506.01 limits review to the common pleas court of the county where the political subdivision’s principal office is located (Ottawa County).
- Hamer appealed, arguing that the word “may” in R.C. 2506.01 is permissive and therefore permits filing an administrative appeal in any Ohio county.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 2506.01 allows filing an administrative appeal in any county or confines review to the county where the political subdivision’s principal office is located | "May" is permissive; statute allows filing in any common pleas court in Ohio | "May" refers to the option to appeal, not choice of forum; statute restricts review to the common pleas court of the county where the political subdivision’s principal office is located | "May" is permissive as to the decision to appeal, but the statute unambiguously confines jurisdiction to the county of the political subdivision’s principal office; Lucas County lacked subject-matter jurisdiction and dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Riedel v. Consol. Rail Corp., 928 N.E.2d 448 (Ohio 2010) (de novo review of statutory interpretation)
- State v. Consilio, 871 N.E.2d 1167 (Ohio 2007) (statutory-construction principles)
- State v. Hairston, 804 N.E.2d 471 (Ohio 2004) (legislative intent found in plain statutory language)
- Dorian v. Scioto Conservancy Dist., 271 N.E.2d 834 (Ohio 1971) (statutory "may" often construed as permissive)
- Davis v. State Personnel Bd. of Review, 413 N.E.2d 816 (Ohio 1980) ("may appeal" refers to option to appeal, not forum selection)