State ex rel. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. v. Trenton
2024 Ohio 6054
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2024Background
- Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. applied to the City of Trenton for site plan approval to build a limestone processing facility on property within the city's General Industrial District (I-G), where such a use was permitted as of June 16, 2021.
- After the application, the City requested additional information and Marietta submitted a supplemental packet, but the City did not respond further or advise Marietta of any further deficiencies.
- The City subsequently amended its zoning code to require a conditional use permit, and later to prohibit mineral processing in the I-G district. The application remained pending with no approval, denial, or placement on the planning commission agenda.
- Marietta filed a mandamus action to compel the City to approve, or at least act upon, its application.
- The City argued the application was incomplete for lack of construction drawings and other information, and claimed the intended use had changed to include mining, which was not permitted.
- The trial court reviewed the record and code to determine whether Marietta was entitled to a writ of mandamus.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compel City to approve the application | City is required to approve site plan | Approval is discretionary; application incomplete | DENIED – Court will not control discretion to approve |
| Compel City to act on the application | City must act (approve or deny) under Code | City can wait for complete/more info; no duty yet | GRANTED – City must act reasonably and not indefinitely |
| Duty to notify applicant of deficiencies | City failed to advise of further needs | Marietta failed to submit required info on its own | Marietta had right to notice before indefinite delay |
| Effect of subsequent zoning changes | Application must be evaluated under earlier Code | Application changed to mining, now no longer allowed | Must use Code in place at time of application |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Solid Rock Ministries Internatl. v. Monroe, 2022-Ohio-431 (12th Dist.) (clarifies standard for entitlement to mandamus relief and the need for a clear legal right and duty)
- State ex rel. Chappell v. Mahoning Cty. Coroner Office, 2017-Ohio-881 (7th Dist.) (mandamus cannot control discretion on discretionary matters)
- State ex rel. Pressley v. Indus. Comm., 11 Ohio St.2d 141 (1967) (mandamus requires proof by clear and convincing evidence)