2018 Ohio 3717
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- Homan has operated a nursery on A-2 (Prime Agriculture) zoned property for 30+ years and renovated a barn; his son moved machining equipment (CNC machines) into the barn and operated a machine shop making metal/firearm parts.
- The township zoning inspector told Homan a conditional‑use permit was required to house a machine shop; Homan applied and the Franklin Township BZA denied the application after hearings (March 7 and reconvened Sept. 19, 2016).
- The Mercer County Common Pleas Court remanded for supplementation and a second BZA hearing; after the BZA again denied the permit the trial court ultimately affirmed the denial on Jan. 18, 2018.
- Trial court found the barn use fit the Code’s definition of “manufacturing,” and the A-2 Conditional Uses list does not include manufacturing, so the BZA lacked authority to grant the permit.
- Homan appealed, arguing (1) the Code is ambiguous and should be construed in his favor such that his use is a conditional use, and (2) the BZA arbitrarily denied his application while permitting similar uses elsewhere.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Homan’s barn use is a conditional use in the A‑2 district | Homan: Code ambiguous; prior BZA treatment and inspector’s direction show it should be treated as a conditional use | BZA: The Code’s Conditional Uses list for A‑2 does not include manufacturing, so it is not a conditional use | Held: Use is "manufacturing" under Code and manufacturing is not a listed conditional use in A‑2; not conditionally permitted |
| Whether the BZA arbitrarily or discriminatorily denied the permit compared to similar uses | Homan: BZA previously granted permits or tolerated similar operations, so denial was arbitrary/unequal treatment | BZA: Even if similar uses exist, the Code controls; BZA cannot grant a conditional use not listed in the zoning resolution | Held: No arbitrary treatment shown; even if other permits were granted, the Code does not authorize conditional permits for manufacturing in A‑2, so denial was lawful |
Key Cases Cited
- Henley v. Youngstown, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (explains limited appellate review in R.C. 2506 appeals)
- Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 141 Ohio St.3d 318 (clarifies appellate review scope and law/fact distinctions in administrative appeals)
- Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga Cty. Executive, 142 Ohio St.3d 125 (discusses trial‑court weighing of administrative records under R.C. 2506)
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (standards for appellate review of common pleas decisions in administrative appeals)
- Gerzeny v. Richfield Twp., 62 Ohio St.2d 339 (board’s authority limited to uses provided in zoning resolution)
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (definition of abuse of discretion)
- Mobil Oil Corp. v. Rocky River, 38 Ohio St.2d 23 (inclusion of specified uses excludes others)
- Stewart v. Vivian, 151 Ohio St.3d 574 (statutory/ordinance definitions control interpretation)