McMillan v. Lakewood
2018 Ohio 94
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- John and Solvita McMillan own a Lakewood, Ohio home adjacent to Daniel Oldfield.
- Oldfield sought a 3-foot variance to a 10-foot side-yard setback to install an A/C condenser near the McMillans’ family room, claiming efficiency and future patio plans.
- Lakewood BZA granted the variance with conditions (noise limits, serviceability without trespass, and screening); the application referenced a sound level of 71 dB; Oldfield installed the unit immediately.
- McMillans sued, challenging the BZA decision; the trial court found the appeal moot (in part because the city amended its ordinance reducing the setback to 2 feet) and alternatively affirmed the BZA as neither unlawful nor unsupported by the evidence.
- On appeal, the Eighth District affirmed, holding the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence supported the trial court’s decision to affirm the BZA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness of appeal after ordinance change | McMillans argued the appeal was not moot despite ordinance amendment and raised notice concerns later | City argued the amendment (reducing setback to 2 ft) rendered the challenge moot and noted plaintiffs didn’t seek a stay | Court: Declined to address unpreserved notice claim; amendment undercuts mootness argument and trial court ruling stands |
| Validity of BZA variance decision | McMillans argued the BZA decision was arbitrary/unreasonable and would harm use/enjoyment of their property | City/BZA argued evidence supported practical difficulty factors and conditions were imposed to mitigate impact | Court: Affirmed — plaintiffs failed to show BZA’s decision was unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of evidence |
| Applicability of amended ordinance (sound level exception) | McMillans argued Oldfield’s unit (71 dB) fell outside the ordinance’s <70 dB exclusion | City argued the later-enacted ordinance governs and would allow the placement if compliant | Court: Noted potential substantial-compliance question but did not reverse; decision affirmed on administrative-review record |
| Standard of review on appeal | McMillans implicitly urged de novo reweighing of evidence | City urged deference to trial court and BZA under established administrative-review standards | Court: Applied deferential standard — appellate review limited to questions of law; affirmed that common pleas court’s factual weighing is favored and supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (2000) (sets standard for common pleas court review in R.C. 2506 administrative appeals)
- Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 141 Ohio St.3d 318 (2014) (explains appellate court’s deferential scope in reviewing common pleas’ administrative appeals)
- Duncan v. Middlefield, 23 Ohio St.3d 83 (1986) (articulates practical-difficulty standard and factors for area variances)
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (1984) (distinguishes area variances from use variances; lesser hardship standard for area variances)