BZA hearing in Ohio

2019This current version is attached to Coppess’ appellate brief at Exhibit A. -6- {¶ 9} In response, appellee BZA argues that “[t]he trial court gave deference to the BZA’s resolution of evidentiary conflicts and credibility determinations” and did not abuse its discretion in upholding the BZA’s decision.2 (Appellee BZA’s brief at 4.) The BZA then argues that the standard applicable to an “area variance” such as the one Middendorf requested is the “practical difficulties” test found in Duncan v. Middlefield, 23 Ohio St.3d 83 , 491 N.E.2d 692 (1986).

2019This current version is attached to Coppess’ appellate brief at Exhibit A. -6- {¶ 9} In response, appellee BZA argues that “[t]he trial court gave deference to the BZA’s resolution of evidentiary conflicts and credibility determinations” and did not abuse its discretion in upholding the BZA’s decision.2 (Appellee BZA’s brief at 4.) The BZA then argues that the standard applicable to an “area variance” such as the one Middendorf requested is the “practical difficulties” test found in Duncan v. Middlefield, 23 Ohio St.3d 83 , 491 N.E.2d 692 (1986).

2025Criterions B, C, D, and F {¶ 44} The BZA found that Criterion B (whether the variance was substantial), Criterion C (whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance), Criterion D (whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services i.e., water, sewer, garbage), and Criterion F (whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance) all supported approving the variance. {¶ 45} "R.C.

2025Criterions B, C, D, and F {¶ 44} The BZA found that Criterion B (whether the variance was substantial), Criterion C (whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance), Criterion D (whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services i.e., water, sewer, garbage), and Criterion F (whether the property owner's predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance) all supported approving the variance. {¶ 45} "R.C.

2025However, the Supreme Court has specifically held that “R.C. 519.141(A) does not provide a board of zoning appeals with a basis for denying an application to engage in mining when the application fails to meet a township's general conditions.” (Emphasis in original) Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp., 2020-Ohio-845, at ¶ 27 . {¶ 25} The BZA appears to argue that R.C. 519.141(A) allows it to require certain conditions for approval, such as (1) inspections of nearby structures and water wells to determine structural integrity and water levels; (2) compliance with applicable federal, state, and lo

2023Mootness {¶ 7} At the outset, we must address the BZA’s claim that this appeal has been rendered moot because the subject property has been demolished. {¶ 8} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cryan v. Cryan, 152 Ohio App.3d 484 , 2018- Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9 , citing Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14 , 257 N.E.2d 371 (1970).

2023Mootness {¶ 7} At the outset, we must address the BZA’s claim that this appeal has been rendered moot because the subject property has been demolished. {¶ 8} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cryan v. Cryan, 152 Ohio App.3d 484 , 2018- Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9 , citing Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14 , 257 N.E.2d 371 (1970).

2023Mootness {¶ 7} At the outset, we must address the BZA’s claim that this appeal has been rendered moot because the subject property has been demolished. {¶ 8} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cryan v. Cryan, 152 Ohio App.3d 484 , 2018- Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9 , citing Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14 , 257 N.E.2d 371 (1970).

2023Accordingly, the “mootness doctrine” prevents courts from deciding “cases in which there is no longer an actual legal controversy between the parties.” Id., citing In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d 572 , 2014-Ohio-2597 , 13 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 37 .

2023Accordingly, the “mootness doctrine” prevents courts from deciding “cases in which there is no longer an actual legal controversy between the parties.” Id., citing In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d 572 , 2014-Ohio-2597 , 13 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 37 .

2023Mootness {¶ 7} At the outset, we must address the BZA’s claim that this appeal has been rendered moot because the subject property has been demolished. {¶ 8} “The role of courts is to decide adversarial legal cases and to issue judgments that can be carried into effect.” Cryan v. Cryan, 152 Ohio App.3d 484 , 2018- Ohio-24, 97 N.E.3d 487, ¶ 9 , citing Fortner v. Thomas, 22 Ohio St.2d 13, 14 , 257 N.E.2d 371 (1970).

2021Lake No. 2004-L-053, 2005-Ohio-3778, ¶ 28 . {¶12} Here, the BZA maintains that the trial court erred by failing to afford the BZA the presumption that its decision was valid and by failing to defer to the BZA’s conclusions that were within its expertise.

2013Under the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in Roper v. Bd of Zoning Appeals, Township of Richfield, 173 Ohio St. 168 , 180 N.E.2d 59 (1962), the failure to comply with these requirements fails to confer standing upon Groffre Investments to appeal the decision of the BZA to allow the nonconforming use of the property. {¶41} Upon review of the record, the trial court did not err in finding Appellant Groffre Investments did not meet its burden to establish standing pursuant to the elements of the Roper standing doctrine. ______________________________ JUDGE PATRICIA A. DELANEY [Cite as Groffre Invest

2013Under the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in Roper v. Bd of Zoning Appeals, Township of Richfield, 173 Ohio St. 168 , 180 N.E.2d 59 (1962), the failure to comply with these requirements fails to confer standing upon Groffre Investments to appeal the decision of the BZA to allow the nonconforming use of the property. {¶41} Upon review of the record, the trial court did not err in finding Appellant Groffre Investments did not meet its burden to establish standing pursuant to the elements of the Roper standing doctrine. ______________________________ JUDGE PATRICIA A. DELANEY [Cite as Groffre Invest

2013Under the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in Roper v. Bd of Zoning Appeals, Township of Richfield, 173 Ohio St. 168 , 180 N.E.2d 59 (1962), the failure to comply with these requirements fails to confer standing upon Groffre Investments to appeal the decision of the BZA to allow the nonconforming use of the property. {¶41} Upon review of the record, the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding Appellee Groffre Investments had met its burden to establish standing pursuant to the elements of the Roper standing doctrine. ______________________________ JUDGE PATRICIA A. DELANEY [Cite as Groffre

2013Under the Ohio Supreme Court’s holding in Roper v. Bd of Zoning Appeals, Township of Richfield, 173 Ohio St. 168 , 180 N.E.2d 59 (1962), the failure to comply with these requirements fails to confer standing upon Groffre Investments to appeal the decision of the BZA to allow the nonconforming use of the property. {¶41} Upon review of the record, the trial court erred as a matter of law in finding Appellee Groffre Investments had met its burden to establish standing pursuant to the elements of the Roper standing doctrine. ______________________________ JUDGE PATRICIA A. DELANEY [Cite as Groffre

2007In Stores Realty Co. v. Cleveland (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 41 , the Supreme Court held: "the omission of administration of the oath to a witness in a trial or administrative hearing is waivable error." Id. at syllabus; see, also, Roop v. Floodplain Regulations Variance Board of Ross County , 4th Dist.

2007In Stores Realty Co. v. Cleveland (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 41 , the Supreme Court held: "the omission of administration of the oath to a witness in a trial or administrative hearing is waivable error." Id. at syllabus; see, also, Roop v. Floodplain Regulations Variance Board of Ross County , 4th Dist.

2007No. 2003-T-0069, 2004-Ohio-6946 , at ¶ 17 . {¶ 60} Next, appellants argue that all lay witnesses who opposed their position in the BZA hearing presented only opinion testimony which should not be considered.

2007No. 2003-T-0069, 2004-Ohio-6946 , at ¶ 17 . {¶ 60} Next, appellants argue that all lay witnesses who opposed their position in the BZA hearing presented only opinion testimony which should not be considered.

2006Id. {¶ 31} Thus, we must consider whether the evidence from the BZA hearing supports the trial court’s judgment. {¶ 32} Zoning Ordinance 1121.04 defines the various business districts in the city.