Litchfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Nimer
2012 Ohio 5431
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Nimers own property at 9696 and 9706 Crow Road and Medina Meats, Inc. operates meat processing on 9706 Crow Road for wholesale distribution.
- Beef jerky facility on 9706 Crow Road spills over onto adjacent 9696 Crow Road, which has mixed commercial and residential zoning.
- An 80x120 ft pole barn was built on the residential portion (9696 Crow) and a 30x60 ft cattle barn was added, with claimed agricultural exemptions.
- Nimers did not obtain permits and contended zoning compliance was not required because activities were agricultural.
- Litchfield Township filed a complaint for permanent injunction; trial court held any agricultural use was secondary to meat processing and granted broad injunction; appellate court partly affirmed and partly reversed.
- Ultimately, the court remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process rights were violated by the injunction | Nimers contended notice was inadequate and not all buildings were covered | Township provided adequate notice and opportunity to respond | First assignment of error overruled; due process satisfied |
| Whether the property use is agricultural under R.C. 519.01 and 519.21 | Beef jerky processing and related activities are agricultural and exempt | Beef jerky processing is not agricultural; exemptions do not apply to the challenged structures | Second assignment sustained in part; beef jerky not agricultural; some structures not exempt; remand to narrow injunction scope |
| Whether enforcement violated equal protection | Nimers were treated differently from similarly situated properties | Record shows no demonstrated similarly situated properties; no differential treatment proven | Third assignment overruled for lack of record evidence of similarly situated properties |
Key Cases Cited
- Bd. of Trustees of Columbia Twp. v. Albertson, 2001 WL 1240135 (Ninth Dist. 2001) (due process requires notice and opportunity, flexible in application)
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2012) (weight-of-evidence standard for reviewing injunctions; appellate review limited to manifest weight concerns)
- Terry v. Sperry, 130 Ohio St.3d 125 (Supreme Court of Ohio 2011) (agriculture exemption requires activity to be incidental and secondary to livestock care)
- Bd. of Tp. Trustees of Bainbridge Twp. v. Funtime, Inc., 55 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (townships’ zoning authority is limited; agricultural exemptions are tightly construed)
- State ex rel. Schramm v. Ayres, 158 Ohio St. 30 (Ohio 1940) (limitations on township authority; statutory framework for land-use restrictions)