State ex rel. Masiella v. Brimfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees
2017 Ohio 2934
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellants (neighbors/landowners) challenged Brimfield Township’s rezoning of a 93‑acre parcel from Open Space Conservation (O‑C) to Light Industrial (L‑1) that enabled construction of a large Rubbermaid facility.
- Rezoning was initially considered in June 2011; concerns about notice prompted the Zoning Commission to recommence the process with additional public hearings in Oct. and Nov. 2011.
- Notices of the Oct. and Nov. hearings were mailed and published; appellants (or counsel/spouses) attended hearings and presented objections.
- Board of Trustees adopted the rezoning resolution on Nov. 30, 2011 (effective Dec. 30, 2011); no referendum or injunction was filed and construction proceeded.
- Appellants sued (filed amended complaint) alleging declaratory relief and violations of the Ohio Open Meetings Act (R.C. 121.22) by the Zoning Commission; the Zoning Commission and Brimfield Township entity were not named as defendants.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Board of Trustees; on appeal the court affirmed, holding appellants presented no direct evidence of an Open Meetings Act violation and noting the Act contemplates naming the public body that allegedly violated it.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Zoning Commission was a proper suable public body under R.C. 121.22 | Appellants argued the Commission could and should be treated as the violator even though it was not named; trial court erred by not considering Commission conduct | Board argued appellants failed to name the proper public body (Zoning Commission) and therefore could not rely on alleged Commission violations | Court noted the OMA contemplates suing the specific public body but did not decide the novel sui juris question; affirmed judgment because appellants failed to raise genuine factual issue of violation |
| Whether there was an Open Meetings Act violation (special meeting notice; off‑record deliberations) | Appellants alleged inadequate notice of a Sept. 1, 2011 special meeting and that Commission members met/deliberated outside public view, producing the rezoning | Board/Commission produced evidence of mailing and publication of notices, no prearranged meeting or off‑record deliberations, and no vote/resulting action from any closed session | Court held appellants offered no direct evidence of a prearranged majority meeting or deliberation outside public view that produced public action; summary judgment for appellee affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment standard: whether evidence creates genuine issue for trial)
- Davis v. Loopco Indus., 66 Ohio St.3d 64 (Ohio 1993) (summary judgment is a final tool and to be used with caution)
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment)
- Danis Montco Landfill Co. v. Jefferson Twp. Zoning Comm., 85 Ohio App.3d 494 (Ohio Ct. App.) (zoning commission may be sued under Open Meetings Act)
- Holeski v. Lawrence, 85 Ohio App.3d 824 (Ohio Ct. App.) (plaintiff must show public action resulted from deliberations outside a public meeting)
- Quarto Mining Co. v. Foreman, 79 Ohio St.3d 78 (Ohio 1997) (appellate courts generally will not consider issues not raised below)