State ex rel. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Trenton
2024 Ohio 6054
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2024Background
- Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. ("Marietta") applied to the City of Trenton, Ohio for site plan approval to build a limestone processing facility on industrially-zoned property on June 16, 2021.
- At the time of the application, this use was permitted under the existing zoning ordinance. The following day, the City amended the zoning code, first making such facilities conditional, and later (in 2024) prohibiting them.
- Marietta’s application was followed by city staff requests for additional information, which Marietta provided in June 2022.
- The City did not respond to the supplemented application, nor did it act to approve, deny, or schedule it for commission consideration.
- Marietta filed for a writ of mandamus, seeking a court order compelling the City to approve, or at least act on, its application.
- The City argued site plan deficiencies and the addition of a mining component as reasons for inaction, and claimed it was taking appropriate action once an engineering review could be completed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compel site plan approval via mandamus | Approval is ministerial; Marietta has right | Approval is discretionary; deficiencies exist | Denied: Court cannot order how to exercise |
| under law | discretion on a discretionary act | ||
| Compel City to act upon zoning application | City has clear legal duty; lack of remedy | Application incomplete; new (mining) use added | Granted: City must act within 120 days |
| at law due to City inaction | (approve, approve with conditions, or deny) | ||
| Adequacy of application & right to supplement | Application satisfied Code or City failed to | Construction drawings, environmental impact info | Application incomplete, but City erred by |
| specify remaining requirements | not provided; mining not permitted use | not advising Marietta; must act, not delay | |
| Effect of post-application code amendments | Application should be reviewed under 2021 | Application changed, so new requirements apply | Application governed by code at filing date |
| code as initially filed |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Solid Rock Ministries Internatl. v. Monroe, 2022-Ohio-431 (clear legal duties and adequacy of remedy preclude mandamus where an administrative remedy is available)
- State ex rel. Doner v. Zody, 2011-Ohio-6117 (outlines the quantum of proof for mandamus—clear and convincing evidence)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (requirements for mandamus and when it issues against public officials)
- State ex rel. Husted v. Brunner, 2009-Ohio-4805 (mandamus does not lie to control discretion in a discretionary act)
- Cleveland ex rel. Neelon v. Locher, 25 Ohio St.2d 49 (distinguishing between compelling performance of a duty versus particular outcomes in mandamus)