Watson v. Cleveland
2017 Ohio 2982
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Developer Visconsi/owner East 123 St. Properties sought a permit to build a six-story, 204-unit apartment on a small lot in Cleveland’s B-2 district; the building department issued a notice of nonconformance.
- The developer appealed to the Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA); after two hearings with conflicting testimony and many exhibits, the BZA granted four area variances.
- Neighbor David Watson, who lives across the street, testified in opposition and appealed the BZA decision to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court under R.C. Chapters 2505/2506.
- The trial court initially issued a one-line affirmance; this court remanded and ordered the trial court to perform the evidentiary review required by R.C. 2506.04.
- On remand the trial court again affirmed, stating the BZA decision was not unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by a preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence, but provided no analysis of the record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court's entry was sufficient to permit appellate review of an administrative appeal under R.C. 2506.04 | Watson: the trial court failed to examine and analyze the whole record or identify evidence supporting the BZA, leaving nothing for appellate review | City/BZA: trial court's conclusory statement affirming the BZA was sufficient | Court: Trial court's conclusory entry was insufficient; remanded for the court to examine the whole record, analyze evidence, and issue an opinion capable of appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 141 Ohio St.3d 318, 2014-Ohio-4809 (Ohio 2014) (outlines trial court's R.C. 2506.04 duty to review the whole record and standards for appellate review)
- Dudokovich v. Hous. Auth., 58 Ohio St.2d 202 (Ohio 1979) (trial court must make factual and legal determinations and assess credibility when reviewing an administrative record)
- Andrews v. Bd. of Liquor Control, 164 Ohio St. 275 (Ohio 1956) (trial court must consider credibility, probative character, and weight of evidence in administrative appeals)
- Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30 (Ohio 1984) (appellate court’s review of a common pleas R.C. 2506.04 judgment is limited to questions of law)
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (Ohio 2000) (appellate review includes abuse-of-discretion review of trial court’s administrative-record determinations)
- Lorain City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 40 Ohio St.3d 257 (Ohio 1988) (appellate court must determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in administrative appeals)
- Warrensville Ctr., Inc. v. Warrensville Hts., 20 Ohio App.3d 220 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984) (trial court in administrative appeal need not issue Civ.R. 52 findings but must provide sufficient reasoning for appellate review)