Alexis Entertainment, L.L.C. v. ToledoAlexis Entertainment, L.L.C. v. Toledo
* * * * *
Bradley R. Waugh, for appellant.
Adam W. Loukx, Director of Law, and John T. Madigan, Senior Attorney, for appellee.
* * * * *
SINGER, P.J.
{¶ 1} Appellant, Alexis Entertainment, LLC, appeals from the February 6, 2013 judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas dismissing the administrative appeal of appellant from the decision of the Toledo Board оf Zoning Appeals. Because we find the trial court properly dismissed the appeal, we affirm.
{¶ 3} After the enactment of a comprehensive zoning cоde in 2004, the sexually-oriented establishments which were already operating became legal non-conforming uses. Appellant appеaled the decision of the director to the Toledo Board of Zoning Appeals asserting that Hasan‘s proposed sexually-oriented business establishment should not have been deemed a prior non-conforming use under Toledo Municipal Code 1114.0201. The Toledo Board of Zoning Aрpeals determined that appellant had standing to file the appeal but affirmed the decision of the director.
{¶ 4} Appellant filed а timely notice of appeal from that decision to the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas. The trial court dismissed the appeal on thе ground that appellant lacked standing to appeal the decision of the board.
{¶ 5} On appeal to this court, appellant аsserts the following single assignment of error:
THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, LUCAS COUNTY, OHIO, ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN DETERMINING THAT
APPELLANT, ALEXIS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, HAD NO STANDING TO APPEAL THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE CITY OF TOLEDO, BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS.
{¶ 6} Appellant argues first that the issue of its standing was already raised by the city of Toledo at the board hearing. Because the board concluded that appellant had standing, appellant argues the trial court cannot reach a differеnt conclusion. We disagree. The issue of standing raised by appellee relates to appellant‘s standing to seek an appeаl to the court of common pleas, not appellant‘s standing to appeal the decision of the director to the board.
{¶ 7} Normally, “standing” is “the capacity of a party to bring an action, not the subject matter jurisdiction of the court.” State ex rel. Jones v. Suster, 84 Ohio St.3d 70, 77, 701 N.E.2d 1002 (1998). However, standing is a jurisdictional issue in administrative appeals where the “parties must meet strict standing requirements in order to satisfy the threshold requirement for the administrative tribunal to obtain jurisdiction.” Id. at fn. 4. Accord Midwest Fireworks Mfg. Co. v. Deerfield Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 91 Ohio St.3d 174, 177, 743 N.E.2d 894 (2001) (the right to appeal an administrative decision must be conferred by statute). Furthermore, standing is a question of law. Moore v. Middletown, 133 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-3897, 975 N.E.2d 977, ¶ 20. Therefore, the appellate court reviews the issue under a de novo standard of review. Id.
{¶ 8} Second, apрellant argues that it has standing because it sought the appeal to the board and was not just an interested party. Third, appellant argues it wаs a party
{¶ 9} The party seeking to аppeal has the burden of establishing its standing from the record. Kraus v. Put-In-Bay Twp. Bd. of Zoning & Appeals, 6th Dist. Ottawa No. OT-04-011, 2004-Ohio-4678, ¶ 12.
{¶ 10} While
{¶ 11} A person has been directly affected by a decisiоn of the board and asserted those rights if he: (1) was a resident, elector, and property owner of the township whose legal rights and privileges were uniquely affected by the decision of the board, (2) appeared before a township board to protest the board‘s action, аnd (3) stated his intention on the record to appeal the board‘s decision to the common pleas court. Schomaeker v. First Natl. Bank of Ottawa, 66 Ohio St. 2d 304, 312, 421 N.E.2d 530 (1981); Willoughby at 27; and Roper at 173-174.
{¶ 12} The trial court reasonеd that appellant was not directly affected by the board‘s decision because it only asserted the potential loss of profit as a basis for challenging the board‘s decision. We agree. Competition and a loss of profit share are business interests, not legal rights and privileges affected by the board‘s decision, and therefore do not provide a basis for standing to appeal an administrative decision.
{¶ 13} On aрpeal, appellant also asserts standing on the basis that it filed an appeal opposing the decision of the director. Filing an appeal establishes only the fact that appellant attempted to assert its rights. Appellant must also identify some legal right or privilegе that was affected by the board‘s decision to have standing to seek an appeal from the decision and appellant did not do sо in this case. Therefore, we find appellant‘s sole assignment of error not well-taken.
{¶ 14} Having found that the trial court did not commit error prejudiсial to appellant, the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed. Appellant is ordered to pay the court costs of this аppeal pursuant to
Judgment affirmed.
A certified copy of this entry shall constitute the mandate pursuant to
Mark L. Pietrykowski, J.
JUDGE
Arlene Singer, P.J.
JUDGE
James D. Jensen, J.
JUDGE
CONCUR.
This decision is subject to further editing by the Supreme Court of Ohio‘s Reporter of Decisions. Parties interested in viewing the final reported version are advised to visit the Ohio Supreme Court‘s web site at: httр://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/?source=6.