Hutchinson v. Wayne Twp. Bd. of Zoning AppealsHutchinson v. Wayne Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
Michael T. Gmoser, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, Roger S. Gates, P.O. Box 515, Hamilton, Ohio 45012-0515, for defendant-appellee
O P I N I O N
HENDRICKSON, J.
{¶1} Plaintiffs-appellants, Jana Hutchinson and Timothy Hutchinson, mother and son, appeal the decision of the Butler County Court of Common Pleas affirming the decision of appellee, the Wayne Townshiр Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA“), to deny appellants’ application for a conditional use permit. For the reasons discussed below, we reverse the decision of the lower court and remand for further proceedings.
{¶3} On March 31, 2010, the BZA issued a written decision denying apрellants’ request for a conditional use permit. Thereafter appellants filed a second appeal with the Butler County Court of Common Pleas. Hutchinson v. Wayne Tp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (Apr. 28, 2010), Butler C.P. No. CV 2010 04 1867. The parties filed a joint stipulation with the common pleas court to have the transcripts, filings, and merit briefs from the first appeal, Case No. CV2009 01 0040, incorpоrated into the second appeal. The parties waived briefing and oral argument and requested the common pleas court adjudicate the merits of the second appeal on the basis of the merit briefs previously filed in the first appeal. Accordingly, appellants sought to have the BZA‘s decision overruled on the basis that the board failed to properly apply the conditional use standards set forth in the Wayne Township Zoning Resolutions and on the basis that the BZA violated appellants’ due process rights by permitting Carleen Yeager, a board member, to impermissibly conduct an independеnt, extra-judicial investigation pertaining to the proposed use of the property while simultaneously participating as a voting member of the prеsiding quasi-judicial body.
{¶4} On January 10, 2011, the common pleas court issued a decision affirming the
{¶5} Appellants timely appeal the common pleas court‘s decision, raising a sole assignment of error.
{¶6} “THE TRIAL COURT ERRED TO THE PREJUDICE OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS BY AFFIRMING THE BZA‘S DECISION.”
{¶7} Within their sole assignment of error, aрpellants raise two issues. First, whether the common pleas court and the BZA failed to properly apply the standards for a conditional use permit in light of the evidence presented to the BZA. Second, whether the BZA violated appellants’ due process rights by conducting an impermissible, extra-judicial investigation into the proposed use of the property.
{¶8} “Appeals of administrative agency decisions are governed by
{¶9} “An appellate court‘s review of such an administrative appeal, however, is more limited in scope. * * * Unlike the сommon pleas court, the appellate court does not weigh the
{¶10} In the present case, the common pleas court upheld the BZA‘s decision to deny appellants’ application for a conditional use permit on the ground that the board‘s decision was supported by substantial, reliable and probative evidence. In reaching this decision, the common pleas court neglected to address appellants’ claim of a due process violation. We find such an omission to be an error.
{¶11} “The essence of due process dictates, at the very least, that an individual have an opportunity to be heard and to defend, enforce and protect his rights before an administrative body in an orderly proceeding.” Gibraltar Mausoleum Corp. v. Cincinnati (1981), 1 Ohio App.3d 107, 109-110. Accordingly, “due process includes the right to a hearing before an unbiased and fair and impartial tribunal.” Frost v. Wilmington (Jan. 31, 1986), Clinton App. No. CA85-08-014, at 7. “[T]here is a presumption of honesty and integrity on the part of аn administrative body unless there is a showing to the contrary.” Ohio State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Poppe (1988), 48 Ohio App.3d 222, 229. “[T]he party alleging a disqualifying interest bears the burden of demonstrating that interest to a reviewing court.” Id.
{¶12} Apрellants presented an argument and evidence to the common pleas court that their due process rights were violated by the BZA when a voting membеr of the board conducted an extra-judicial investigation into appellants’ proposed use of the property. Specifically, appellants presented evidence that board member Yeager had placed telephone calls to similar Halloween themed attractions as a means of investigating the volume of traffic
{¶13} Althоugh presumed to function honestly and objectively, there are instances where an administrative board does not function fairly when acting “in its quasi-judicial capacity as the trier of fact while simultaneously being prosecutor, investigator, witness and trier of fact.” Hiett v. Goshen Tp. Bd. of Trustees (July 30, 1984), Clermont App. No. CA83-04-033, at 8. Whether Yeager‘s dual roles as investigator and triеr of fact created a biased or prejudicial forum is a question that the common pleas court, as the initial reviewing court, should have determined. Its failure to do so results in reversible error.
{¶14} Appellants’ remaining issue, whether the common pleas court and BZA failed to properly apply the conditional use standards set forth in the Wayne Township Zoning Resolutions, is rendered moot.
{¶15} Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
POWELL, P.J., and RINGLAND, J., concur