Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 3745
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 3745.05 (2026)

Hearings

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 10, 2012
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 487 - 129th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) In hearing the appeal, if an adjudication hearing was conducted by the director of environmental protection in accordance with sections 119.09 and 119.10 of the Revised Code or conducted by a board of health, the environmental review appeals commission is confined to the record as certified to it by the director or the board of health, as applicable. The commission may grant a request for the admission of additional evidence when satisfied that such additional evidence is newly discovered and could not with reasonable diligence have been ascertained prior to the hearing before the director or the board, as applicable. If no adjudication hearing was conducted in accordance with sections 119.09 and 119.10 of the Revised Code or conducted by a board of health, the commission shall conduct a hearing de novo on the appeal.

For the purpose of conducting a de novo hearing, or where the commission has granted a request for the admission of additional evidence, the commission may require the attendance of witnesses and the production of written or printed materials.

When conducting a de novo hearing, or when a request for the admission of additional evidence has been granted, the commission may, and at the request of any party it shall, issue subpoenas for witnesses or for books, papers, correspondence, memoranda, agreements, or other documents or records relevant or material to the inquiry directed to the sheriff of the counties where the witnesses or documents or records are found, which subpoenas shall be served and returned in the same manner as those allowed by the court of common pleas in criminal cases.

(B) The fees of sheriffs shall be the same as those allowed by the court of common pleas in criminal cases. Witnesses shall be paid the fees and mileage provided for under section 119.094 of the Revised Code. The fee and mileage expenses incurred at the request of the appellant shall be paid in advance by the appellant, and the remainder of the expenses shall be paid out of funds appropriated for the expenses of the commission.

(C) In case of disobedience or neglect of any subpoena served on any person, or the refusal of any witness to testify to any matter regarding which the witness may be lawfully interrogated, the court of common pleas of the county in which the disobedience, neglect, or refusal occurs, or any judge thereof, on application of the commission or any member thereof, may compel obedience by attachment proceedings for contempt as in the case of disobedience of the requirements of a subpoena issued from the court or a refusal to testify therein.

(D) A witness at any hearing shall testify under oath or affirmation, which any member of the commission may administer. A witness, if the witness requests, shall be permitted to be accompanied, represented, and advised by an attorney, whose participation in the hearing shall be limited to the protection of the rights of the witness, and who may not examine or cross-examine witnesses. A witness shall be advised of the right to counsel before the witness is interrogated.

(E) A record of the testimony and other evidence submitted shall be taken by an official court reporter. The record shall include all of the testimony and other evidence and the rulings on the admissibility thereof presented at the hearing. The commission shall pass upon the admissibility of evidence, but any party may at the time object to the admission of any evidence and except to the rulings of the commission thereon, and if the commission refuses to admit evidence the party offering same may make a proffer thereof, and such proffer shall be made a part of the record of such hearing.

Any party may request the record of the hearing. Promptly after receiving such a request, the commission shall prepare and provide the record of the hearing to the party who requested it. The commission may charge a fee to the party who requested the record that does not exceed the cost to the commission for preparing and transcribing or transmitting it.

(F) If, upon completion of the hearing, the commission finds that the action appealed from was lawful and reasonable, it shall make a written order affirming the action, or if the commission finds that the action was unreasonable or unlawful, it shall make a written order vacating or modifying the action appealed from.

The commission shall issue a written order affirming, vacating, or modifying an action pursuant to the following schedule:

(1) For an appeal that was filed with the commission before April 15, 2008, the commission shall issue a written order not later than December 15, 2009.

(2) For all other appeals that have been filed with the commission as of October 15, 2009, the commission shall issue a written order not later than July 15, 2010.

(3) For an appeal that is filed with the commission after October 15, 2009, the commission shall issue a written order not later than twelve months after the filing of the appeal with the commission.

(G) Every order made by the commission shall contain a written finding by the commission of the facts upon which the order is based. Notice of the making of the order shall be given forthwith to each party to the appeal by mailing a certified copy thereof to each party by certified mail, with a statement of the time and method by which an appeal may be perfected.

(H) The order of the commission is final unless vacated or modified upon judicial review.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 38 cases, 1977–2017 · leading case: Cecos Int'l Inc. v. Shank, 606 N.E.2d 973 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cecos Int'l Inc. v. Shank, 606 N.E.2d 973 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 9× ““The Environmental Board of Review erred in failing to make written findings of fact, as required by R.C. 3745.05, upon which the board based its conclusion that the director acted lawfully and reasonably in issuing a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit…”
Ne. Ohio Reg'l Sewer Dist. v. Shank, 567 N.E.2d 993 (Ohio 1991). · cites it 6× “R.C. 3745.05, which provides for appeals of matters determined by the Director of the EPA to the EBR, reads in part: “In hearing the appeal, if an adjudication hearing was conducted by the director of environmental protection in accordance with sections 119.”
Waste Mgmt. of Ohio, Inc. v. Bd. of Health, 825 N.E.2d 660 (Ohio Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “R.C. 3745.05 provides: “If, upon completion of the hearing, the commission finds that the action appealed from was lawful and reasonable, it shall make a written order affirming the action, if the commission finds that the action was unreasonable or unlawful, it shall make a…”
Citizens Comm. to Preserve Lake Logan v. Williams, 381 N.E.2d 661 (Ohio Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× ““The Environmental Board of Review erred in issuing the instant order in that it failed to make written -findings of the facts upon which such order is based as required by Section 3745.05 of the Revised Code.” 7. “The Environmental Board of Review erred in basing its decision…”
Trans Rail Am., Inc. v. Enyeart, 2009 Ohio 3624 (Ohio 2009). · cites it 2× “07 (the director of environmental protection may issue a proposed order to grant or deny a license, and if the director denies or issues a license not preceded by a proposed order, a person who is adversely affected may appeal to ERAC); R.C. 3745.05 (if no adjudication hearing…”
Conley v. Shank, 561 N.E.2d 1020 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 5× “The application of this statutory section is clear: “On its face, R.C. 3745.05 requires the Environmental Board of Review to conduct a hearing de novo in an appeal from an order of the Director of Environmental Protection, except where such order results from an adjudication…”
Rings v. Nichols, 468 N.E.2d 1123 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 2× “They cite R.C. 3745.05, which states that, if the board finds that the action of the director from which the appeal is taken to the board was lawful and reasonable, it must affirm the action and that, if it finds the action of the director was unreasonable or unlawful, it must…”
City of Middletown v. Nichols, 458 N.E.2d 886 (Ohio Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 5× “R.C. 3745.05. The procedure for state agencies in Ohio to follow in adopting, amending or rescinding rules is set forth in R.”
Licking Cnty. Citizens for a Safe Env't v. Schregardus, 737 N.E.2d 583 (Ohio Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 3× “” In its assignment of error, Buckeye Egg asserts that we should reverse ERAC’s decision remanding the permit to the director because ERAC did not hold a de novo hearing, which would have allowed the company to demonstrate that a remand was unnecessary because it is exempt from…”
Schrenk v. Butler, 2017 Ohio 8745 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “{¶ 24} Thus the question on review must be analyzed according to whether it was "reasonable" under R.C. 3745.05 for the director and hearing officer to have concluded that OEPA had met its burden to prove Schrenk violated the minimum staffing rules, and based on this, whether…”
Fairfield Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners v. Nally, 34 N.E.3d 873 (Ohio 2015). “04, and if such an appeal is taken, R.C. 3745.05 governs the hearing on appeal.”
Cecos Int'l, Inc. v. Shank, 598 N.E.2d 40 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 2× “Initially, this court observes that two different standards of review govern appeals taken pursuant to R.”
Show all 38 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3745.05(A) — 2 cases
Schrenk v. Butler, 2017 Ohio 8745 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 24} Thus the question on review must be analyzed according to whether it was "reasonable" under R.C. 3745.05 for the director and hearing officer to have concluded that OEPA had met its burden to prove Schrenk violated the minimum staffing rules, and based on this, whether…”
Wallace v. Nally, 2015 Ohio 4146 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3745.05(C)(6) — 1 case
N. Ohioans Protecting the Env't v. Shank, 557 N.E.2d 126 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3745.05(D)(3) — 1 case
Ohio Mfrs.' Ass'n v. City of Akron, 628 F. Supp. 623 (N.D. Ohio 1986).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3745.05(F) — 3 cases
Schrenk v. Butler, 2017 Ohio 8745 (Ohio Ct. App. 2017). “{¶ 24} Thus the question on review must be analyzed according to whether it was "reasonable" under R.C. 3745.05 for the director and hearing officer to have concluded that OEPA had met its burden to prove Schrenk violated the minimum staffing rules, and based on this, whether…”
Citizens Against Am. Landfill Expansion v. Koncelik, 2014 Ohio 123 (Ohio Ct. App. 2014).
Oxford Mining Co., L.L.C. v. Nally, 2015 Ohio 182 (Ohio Ct. App. 2015).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 3745.05(H)(1) — 1 case
Cecos Int'l, Inc. v. Shank, 598 N.E.2d 40 (Ohio Ct. App. 1991). “Initially, this court observes that two different standards of review govern appeals taken pursuant to R.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.