Miller v. Canton, 2011 Ohio 6783

Miller challenged Canton’s fence-height ordinance after installing a vinyl fence atop a brick retaining wall, resulting in a combined height of 4'9".
The 1999 permit allowed a nine-foot fence, but later the city required a new permit to install the replacement fence.
The Canton Board of Zoning Appeals denied Miller’s request to keep the fence, leading to a common pleas court action.
The trial court held the ordinance ambiguous on how to measure height but concluded Miller did not need a variance; the appellate court previously remanded for ambiguity determination.
The appellate court ultimately held the ordinance’s plain meaning controls and Miller does not need a variance because height, measured from ground to top, is within four feet.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ordinance is ambiguous as to measurement.	Miller argued the height measurement is ambiguous due to including or excluding the wall or posts.	City argued the ordinance’s language is not ambiguous and governs height without mounds.	Not ambiguous; plain meaning applies.

Banks v. City of Upper Arlington, 2004-Ohio-3307 (10th Dist. 2004) (ordinance failed to account for mounds; height must be reduced by mound height)
Porter v. Green Board of Zoning Appeals, 2007-Ohio-510 (9th Dist. 2007) (addressed whether landscaping mound is included in fence height)
Layman v. Woo, 78 Ohio St.3d 485 (1997-Ohio-195) (plain meaning governs if no ambiguity)
Family Medicine Foundation, Inc. v. Bright, 96 Ohio St.3d 183 (2002-Ohio-4034) (ambiguity defined by reasonable interpretations)
Key Service Corp. v. Zaino, 95 Ohio St.3d 11 (2002-Ohio-1488) (apply language as written when clear)
Henley v. City of Youngstown Board of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (2002-Ohio-493) (standard for reviewing administrative decisions)