JSS Props., II, LLC v. Liberty Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
2018 Ohio 1492
Oh. Ct. App. 5th Dist. Licking2018Background
- JSS Properties owns property zoned General Business where the zoning inspector discovered thirteen vehicles stored outdoors after a neighbor complaint.
- Inspector cited JSS for violating Article 8, §807 (uses in General Business) and related provisions; JSS appealed to the Liberty Township Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).
- At the BZA hearing, JSS’s principal Sadinsky testified the property operates primarily as a mini-storage facility, he performs only limited, private vehicle maintenance (inside the building), and the vehicles were operable; two alleged violations were remedied before the hearing.
- The BZA concluded the activity was not a permitted General Business use, determined JSS needed a conditional use permit for a general automotive garage, and ordered removal or covering of vehicles.
- JSS appealed to the Licking County Court of Common Pleas; the trial court reversed the BZA, finding no evidence JSS offered retail/services to the public or operated an auto sales/service business as defined in the resolution.
- The BZA appealed the trial-court reversal; the appellate court affirmed the trial court, holding the BZA’s decision unlawful and not supported by the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether JSS’s use violated Art. 8 §807 as an auto sales/service or general automotive garage requiring a conditional use permit | BZA: JSS was operating automotive sales/service or a general automotive garage; outdoor storing/repair of vehicles is not a permitted use under §807 | JSS: Use is mini-storage and private vehicle maintenance; not a public commercial auto service or sales operation | Held: No evidence JSS provided retail/services to the public; trial court correctly found BZA’s determination unlawful and reversed; appellate court affirmed |
| Whether BZA’s decision was supported by substantial, reliable, probative evidence and whether the trial court abused discretion in reversing | BZA: Trial court improperly substituted its view for BZA’s and erred to reverse | JSS: Record lacks evidence of public-facing commercial activity; restrictions must be strictly construed in favor of property owner | Held: Trial court had independent, proper grounds; no abuse of discretion by reversing BZA |
Key Cases Cited
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30, 465 N.E.2d 848 (appellate review scope in R.C. 2506.04 appeals)
- Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals, 141 Ohio St.3d 318, 23 N.E.3d 1161 (standard favors affirmance of administrative zoning decisions; reversal limited)
- Saunders v. Clark County Zoning Dept., 66 Ohio St.2d 259, 421 N.E.2d 152 (zoning restrictions are in derogation of common law and strictly construed in favor of property owner)