{¶ 1} In а single assignment of error, appellants contend that the common pleas court erred by affirming the decision of the village of Fairfax’s zoning board of appeals (“ZBA”) that denied appellants’ application to operate a senior daycare center in an “E” retаil business zone. Because we conclude that the trial court erred as a matter of law, we reverse its judgment and order Fairfax to issue the neсessary permit allowing appellants’ proposed use.
{¶ 2} The facts in this case are undisputed. Appellants seek to renovate a fоrmer American Legion Hall for use as a senior daycare center to be known as “All About Seniors.” The proposed daycare centеr would be open five days a week during normal business hours and would include a fitness room and a hair salon. Appellants also intend to offer the on-site services of a podiatrist and an optometrist on a limited basis. Before beginning renovations on the building at issue, appellants applied to Fairfax for permission to use the property in this way. The village’s planning commission denied appellants’ application, as did the ZBA, which found that the proposed senior center was not a permitted use under the village’s zoning code. The common pleas court affirmed the decision of the ZBA. In so doing, the court ruled that appellants’ proposed use fit the zoning code’s definition of “daycare.” The term “daycare,” however, appears only in the code’s definition section and is not listed as a permitted use anywhere in the zoning regulations. Given this fact, the trial court elected to categorize appellants’ proposed use as a “convalescent care facility.” Convalescеnt-care facilities are permitted only within a “D” zone. Consequently, the trial court affirmed the decision of the ZBA that denied appellants permission to proceed with their plans.
{¶ 3} In appellants’ sole assignment of error, they assert that the trial court erred when it concluded that aрpellants’ proposed use was a convalescent-care facility and ruled accordingly, despite the fact that the court had first determined that the use best fit the code’s definition of “daycare.” For the reasons that follow, we sustain this assignment of error.
{¶ 4} The common pleas сourts and the courts of appeals review administrative appeals under differing standards of review. R.C. 2506.04;
Henley v. Youngs
*774
town Bd. of Zoning Appeals
(2000),
{¶ 5} In this case, we hold that the trial court actеd arbitrarily and unreasonably when it determined that appellants’ proposed use was a “convalescent care facility.” The trial cоurt initially found, in no uncertain terms, that the appellants’ proposed use was a daycare facility as that term was defined in the zoning regulations. Aрpellants argue that instead of resorting to a default definition, the trial court should have determined whether a daycare facility was sufficiently similаr to the uses permitted in an “E” zone so as to be a permitted use. We agree. See
Rotellini v. W. Carrollton Bd. of Zoning Appeals
(1989),
{¶ 6} Zоning regulations are in derogation of the common law and deprive a land owner of certain uses of his land to which he would otherwise be entitled.
Cash v. Cincinnati Bd. of Zoning Appeals
(1996),
{¶ 7} In the present case, we hold that the Fairfax zoning code does not clearly prohibit the operation of a daycare facility in an “E” zone and therefore that a daycare center is a permitted use. The code defines “daycare” as “a *775 building or structure where care, protection and supervision are provided on a regular schedule, for a fee, at least twice a wеek to at least five persons at one time, including any relation to the daycare provider.” Fairfax Zoning Code 2.034. We have already statеd that the zoning code does not list “daycare” as a permitted use within any zoning district. But we are persuaded that a daycare facility is similar to the uses permitted in an “E” zone. These uses' include (1) retail sales and service shops; (2) personal services; (3) building and related trades; (4) business services; (5) сommercial recreation establishments; (6) eating and drinking establishments; (7) entertainment establishments; (8) funeral homes; (9) garden centers, greenhouses and nurseries; (10) motels and hotels; and (11) printing and publishing establishments. Fairfax Zoning Code 11.1. All of these uses involve the provision of goods or services for a fee. Likewise, a daycare facility provides services for a fee. Under the particular facts of this case, “daycare” is sufficiently similar to the usеs permitted in an “E” zone to be a permitted use.
{¶ 8} Fairfax asserts that the zoning code precludes the operation of a daycare facility in an “E” zone because the purpose of an “E” zone is “to provide a full range of business, office, professional, and commercial uses and is intended for those areas located along primary roadways and at major intersections where they may take advantage of heavy traffic flow.” Fairfax Zoning Code 11.0. Fairfax argues that the proposed daycare facility does not rely on heavy traffic flow for its business because it caters to a limited and specific clientele and therefore should not be permitted in an “E” zone. But this same argument could be convincingly made concerning a number of the permitted uses, and we therefore find it unpersuasive. In addition, “while a statement of intent is a useful guide, it does not constitute a prohibition or proscription.”
Rotellini,
{¶ 9} The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and the case is remanded with instructions that the village of Fairfax issue appellants the necessary permit allowing them to use the building at issue for a senior daycare center.
Judgment reversed and cause remanded.