Smith v. Richfield Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
2012 Ohio 1175
Ohio Ct. App.2012Background
- Smith owns 2788 Boston Mills Road in Richfield Township, Ohio, located in the R-1 Rural Residential district under Richfield Township Zoning Resolution.
- Neighbors complained of commercial activity on Smith’s property due to increased traffic, employee vehicles, and deliveries from carriers.
- Zoning inspector investigated, photographed vehicles, and Smith admitted the vehicles belonged to people assisting his business on the property.
- A February 3, 2009 notice informed Smith that the accessory building violated the setback and that the Home Occupation restrictions were violated; Smith was told to cease the commercial activity.
- Smith filed two appeals on February 23, 2009: one for Home Occupation violations and one for a rear setback variance; BZA hearings occurred June 30, 2009, July 20, 2009, and August 19, 2009.
- The BZA found a Home Occupation violation and granted a rear setback variance with multiple conditions; Smith appealed under R.C. 2506, and the trial court affirmed the BZA.”],
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the BZA exceeded authority by imposing conditions on the variance | Smith argues the variance conditions exceed statutory authority | Richfield Twp. BZA contends conditions are provided for by the zoning resolution | Yes, the BZA impermissibly created new law |
| Whether the Home Occupation zoning resolution, as applied, is constitutionally vague | Smith claims vagueness/notice deficiencies in the ordinance | Trial court properly ruled facial challenges not severable in this appeal | Forfeited as to as-applied challenge; only facial challenges remain and are improper to raise here |
| Whether the BZA’s finding of Home Occupation violation was supported by a preponderance of the evidence | Smith contends evidence was insufficient or based on hearsay | BZA's findings supported by inspector testimony, photos, and neighbor observations | Unpersuasive; the evidence supports the BZA's decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (2000) (limited appellate review in RC 2506 appeals; deference to agency findings)
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (1984) (limits appellate reconsideration to questions of law)
- Grossman v. City of Cleveland Heights, 120 Ohio App.3d 435 (1997) (facial challenges to zoning ordinances in 2506 appeals improper; should be declaratory judgment)
- Boice v. Ottawa Hills, 2007-Ohio-4471 (2007) (improper to facially challenge ordinance in 2506 appeal; use declaratory action)
- Wilt v. Turner, 2009-Ohio-3904 (2009) (same principle regarding facial challenges in 2506 context)
- Waliga v. Coventry Twp., 2004-Ohio-5683 (2004) (affirming deference to administrative findings; limits on challenges)