2017 Ohio 2645
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Relator Stephen A. Armatas lives in Plain Township, Ohio and sought enforcement of the township zoning resolution (PTZR) governing fences, walls, and hedges (PTZR §602.10).
- A neighbor’s row of evergreen trees behind Armatas’s house exceed eight feet in height; Armatas contends the trees qualify as a “hedge” and thus violate the PTZR height limit.
- Armatas complained to the township zoning director, who told him he would not take action and expressed the view that “trees and hedges” are different.
- Armatas filed a mandamus complaint asking the court to order the Plain Township Board of Trustees to enforce PTZR §602.10; he attached the township appeal form to his complaint.
- The zoning director’s refusal to act was a “determination” and, because an administrative appeal procedure existed (as shown by the appeal form), Armatas had an adequate remedy at law by the township’s appellate process.
- The Court held Armatas failed to satisfy the elements for mandamus and granted the respondents’ motion to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether relator is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling enforcement of the zoning resolution | Armatas: neighbor trees are a “hedge” exceeding the 8-foot limit; zoning director’s refusal to act warrants mandamus | Respondents: zoning director made a determination but an administrative appeal process is available, so mandamus is inappropriate | Court: mandamus denied — relator has an adequate remedy via the township’s appellate process; dismissal granted |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Berger v. McMonagle, 6 Ohio St.3d 28 (Ohio 1983) (sets elements for mandamus and discusses adequacy of alternative remedies)