Hyde Park Neighborhood Council, Inc. v. Cincinnati, 2012 Ohio 3331

Karl Gieseke filed a 2008 development application for a mixed-use building on property in a commercial neighborhood-pedestrian district and an urban design overlay in Cincinnati.
The zoning hearing examiner conditionally approved the proposal, limiting first-floor parking but allowing relocation of the building to create parking behind it.
The Cincinnati Zoning Board of Appeals reversed part of the conditional approval, remanding for notice on remand with three specified conditions.
On remand in 2009, the examiner held two public hearings, but no transcript was produced for those hearings; the board later found the examiner had intermittently recorded the first hearing and refused the second hearing recording.
A subsequent public hearing in June 2009 on a revised proposal was recorded and a transcript exists, leading to conditional approval remains.
The zoning board of appeals and the common pleas court upheld the examiner’s judgment, while HP C and others appealed to the First District, which reversed on the grounds that the examiner failed to prepare a transcribable record and remanded for cure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether 113-1 requires a transcribable record of hearings	HPNC argues 113-1 imposes a duty to prepare a transcript.	City contends the code is ambiguous and does not create a transcript duty.	Yes, examiner must prepare a transcribable record.
Appropriate remedy for a missing record	Record deficiency warrants remand to cure the record.	Existing procedures suffice to address gaps without new testimony.	Remand to cure the record under 1449-15(d) is appropriate.

Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (1984) (liberal evidence introduction in administrative appeals)
Smith v. Chester Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 60 Ohio St.2d 13 (1979) (agency to produce transcript for appeal)
Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (2000) (standard of review in administrative appeals)