Powlette v. Dayton Bd. of Bldg. Appeals, 2020 Ohio 5357

Darren Powlette built a large barn on 26 acres he owned and used it as a commercial wedding venue (marketed as “Stoney Hill Bed and Breakfast”).
Montgomery County Building Regulation Division (MCBRD) issued a stop-work/adjudication order citing use as a public assembly (assembly occupancy) without permits, inspections, or a certificate of occupancy and citing life‑safety and fire hazards.
Powlette had filed Miami Township "Declaration of Intent – Agricultural Exemption" forms and held a CAUV; he contended the barn was agriculturally exempt and therefore not subject to the Ohio Building Code.
Miami Township Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) found Powlette’s use was not agritourism; the Miami Valley Fire District cited multiple fire‑code violations (upheld by the State Board of Building Appeals); MCBRD and the Board of Building Appeals (BBA) upheld the stop‑work order.
Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the BBA/MCBRD decision; Powlette appealed asserting (1) the agricultural exemption barred enforcement of the building code and (2) estoppel/waiver because county officials refused to inspect and allegedly told him the barn was exempt.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the barn retained an agricultural exemption from the Ohio Building Code	Powlette: barn is incident to agricultural use (hay, animals, CAUV, Township exemption/declaration) and thus exempt from R.C. 3781.06/BBA enforcement	MCBRD: barn was used as an assembly occupancy (weddings) and agritourism exemption did not apply to that primary commercial assembly use; life‑safety concerns require building‑code regulation	Court: Exemption does not apply when structure is used as an assembly occupancy; reliable evidence shows barn promoted/used as wedding venue, so stop‑work order and code enforcement were lawful
Whether MCBRD is estopped from enforcing the building code because officials allegedly refused to inspect or led Powlette to rely on exemption	Powlette: county employees repeatedly refused inspections and told him the barn was exempt; he reasonably relied and spent substantial funds (promissory estoppel/waiver)	MCBRD: it had no duty to inspect an assertedly exempt agricultural structure and lacked full knowledge of the barn’s actual use; owner failed to disclose primary assembly use and did not follow permit procedure	Court: No estoppel — Powlette did not disclose the true primary use; officials were not fully informed and the county’s refusal to inspect did not bar later enforcement once code‑applicable use was discovered

Dudukovich v. Lorain Metro Hous. Auth., 389 N.E.2d 1113 (Ohio 1979) (standard for common‑pleas review of administrative agency decisions)
Community Concerned Citizens, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 613 N.E.2d 580 (Ohio 1993) (presumption that an agency decision is reasonable and valid in administrative appeals)
Griffith v. Rielage, 806 N.E.2d 621 (Ohio Ct. C.P. 2004) (agricultural certification can limit application of building‑code remediation when property is properly designated agricultural)
Pilot Oil Corp. v. Ohio Dept. of Transportation, 656 N.E.2d 1379 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995) (municipal/state representations can give rise to estoppel when authorized and relied upon)
Key Ads v. Dayton Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 23 N.E.3d 266 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014) (distinguishes standards of review for factual findings and legal questions on appellate review)