Platt v. Cincinnati Bd. of Bldg. Appeals, 2011 Ohio 2776

Platt appeals a common pleas court decision affirming a Cincinnati Board of Building Appeals ruling upholding building-code violations at Platt’s property.
The city notified Platt of three violations: repair a soffit, replace a cornicelike front-face element, and paint/protect peeling surfaces.
Platt challenged the code as applied, arguing constitutional defects and improper police-power application.
The Building Appeals Board upheld the city’s orders; the common pleas court adopted a magistrate’s recommendation affirming the board.
The issues center on as-applied constitutionality and whether the board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
The appellate court reviews for unconstitutionality, arbitrariness, and evidentiary support, with limited deference to the trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the challenged codes are unconstitutional as applied	Platt argues the codes, as applied, violate rights and improperly use police power.	City contends the codes are valid police-power provisions applied to maintain safety and aesthetics.	As applied, not unconstitutional; upheld.
Whether the board’s decision is supported by substantial evidence	Platt asserts lack of substantial evidence supporting the board’s ruling.	City/board maintain record shows a preponderance of reliable, probative evidence.	Not well taken; evidence supports the board; court affirmed.

Hudson v. Albrecht, 9 Ohio St.3d 69 (Ohio 1984) (police power limits and standards for arbitrariness)
Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (appellate review and discretion standards)
Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 2000) (standard of review for zoning/administrative decisions)
State v. Dario, 106 Ohio App.3d 232 (Ohio App.3d 1995) (as-applied challenges; burden to show constitutional state of facts)