2024 Ohio 95
Ohio Ct. App.2024Background
- Geoffrey Surber built three buildings on his property with zoning permits but later received zoning violation notices from Greenville Township.
- Surber appealed these violations to the Greenville Township Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).
- Surber alleged the BZA members met privately prior to his appeal hearing to discuss and decide the case, and also went into executive session during the hearing.
- Surber sued for public record violations and asserted that these private meetings violated Ohio’s Open Meetings Act (OMA), seeking injunctive relief, statutory damages, and attorney fees.
- The trial court dismissed the public records claims after records were provided, and granted summary judgment to the BZA, holding that the OMA did not apply because the board was acting in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the OMA apply to BZA private, pre-hearing discussions in a quasi-judicial proceeding? | Surber: Private pre-hearing meeting was outside a quasi-judicial function and thus subject to OMA. | BZA: Entire proceeding, including pre-hearing deliberations, is quasi-judicial and OMA-exempt. | OMA does not apply; entire proceeding is quasi-judicial and exempt from OMA. |
| Does entry into executive session during hearing violate OMA? | Surber: Executive session during hearing violated OMA. | BZA: Executive session part of deliberative process in a quasi-judicial proceeding, exempt from OMA. | No OMA violation; deliberations in quasi-judicial proceedings are not covered by OMA. |
Key Cases Cited
- TBC Westlake, Inc. v. Hamilton Cty. Bd. of Revision, 81 Ohio St.3d 58 (scope of quasi-judicial deliberations; OMA does not apply)
- State ex rel. Ross v. Crawford Cty. Bd. of Elections, 125 Ohio St. 3d 438 (quasi-judicial proceedings are not considered meetings under OMA)
- Pennell v. Brown Twp., 2016-Ohio-2652 (quasi-judicial nature exempts deliberations from OMA)