Shelly Materials, Inc v. Streetsboro Planning & Zoning Comm. (Slip Opinion), 145 N.E.3d 246

Shelly Materials leased mineral rights to a 225-acre Rural-Residential (R-R) property in Streetsboro and applied for a conditional-use permit to conduct surface mining.
The city amended its zoning code to remove surface mining as a conditional use, but Shelly’s permit application was filed before the amendment took effect and thus the amendment was not applied retroactively.
The Streetsboro Planning & Zoning Commission held hearings and denied the permit under Streetsboro Codified Ordinance 1153.03, concluding Shelly failed to meet the ordinance’s clear-and-convincing-evidence standard—particularly criterion (c)(4) (detrimental effect on nearby property values)—and discredited Shelly’s appraiser.
The Portage County Court of Common Pleas (adopting a magistrate’s decision) reversed the commission, finding the commission’s denial arbitrary and that Shelly had satisfied the ordinance standards by the required proof.
A divided Eleventh District Court of Appeals reinstated the commission’s denial, holding the commission could reasonably reject Shelly’s expert comparables and that Shelly therefore failed to carry its burden.
The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals, holding the court of appeals exceeded its statutory scope by reweighing evidence in an R.C. Chapter 2506 appeal and remanded for further consideration consistent with its opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Scope of review on R.C. Chapter 2506 appeal	Court of appeals may not reweigh evidence; its review is limited to questions of law.	Court of appeals argued it could review whether common pleas abused its discretion.	Supreme Court: Court of appeals exceeded its R.C. 2506.04 scope by reweighing credibility; it may not substitute its judgment on factual weight.
Whether commission reasonably rejected Shelly’s appraiser (credibility of comparables)	Shelly: appraiser’s methodology supported no adverse community-wide effect; commission misapplied ordinance and improperly discounted expert.	City: comparables were too distant/insulated; commission could reject the appraiser.	Supreme Court: credibility/weight is for factfinder (commission and trial court); court of appeals erred in reassessing weight.
Standard of proof required by local ordinance (clear and convincing)	Shelly: trial court found Shelly met the ordinance’s burden.	City: trial court/magistrate misapplied burden; Shelly bore the burden and expert testimony lacked credibility.	Supreme Court did not resolve the merits on clear-and-convincing proof; remanded to court of appeals to consider unresolved issues consistent with proper scope.

Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (establishes scope of common pleas review in R.C. Chapter 2506 appeals)
Dudukovich v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth., 58 Ohio St.2d 202 (limits common pleas from substituting judgment for agency in areas of expertise)
Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 141 Ohio St.3d 318 (common pleas may reverse if administrative decision is unsupported by preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence)
Independence v. Office of the Cuyahoga Cty. Executive, 142 Ohio St.3d 125 (common pleas may not substitute its judgment when administrative decision is supported by evidence)
Boice v. Ottawa Hills, 137 Ohio St.3d 412 (court of appeals’ review in R.C. 2506.04 limited to questions of law and abuse-of-discretion review)
Kokitka v. Ford Motor Co., 73 Ohio St.3d 89 (credibility determinations are for the factfinder)
State v. Beasley, 153 Ohio St.3d 497 (expert opinion need not be absolutely precise but must be to reasonable degree within field)
Cross v. Ledford, 161 Ohio St. 469 (defines clear-and-convincing-evidence standard)