Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/05/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 I Issue 1 • preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence on the whole record." The court held that the BZA had "reasonably relied on C.C.O. 343.01(b)(8) and the evidence in the record" in concluding that a helipad was not an accessory use as of right, and the trial court had abused its discretion "in determining that the administrative order was not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence." It further held that courts must give "due def- erence" to an agency that has accumulated special expertise. The Clinic appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court of appeals reversed; common pleas court judgment reinstated. The Supreme Court of Ohio first held that the appellate court had applied the incorrect standard of review when it reversed the corn - mon pleas court's decision. The appellate court had analyzed whether the BZA had reasonably interpreted the ordinance. Rather, found the Supreme Court of Ohio, under the proper standard of review, the appellate court should have analyzed whether the com- mon pleas court's decision was properly supported by evidence (not whether the BZA's decision was properly supported by evidence). (R.C. 2506.04.) The Supreme Court of Ohio found that the common pleas court's decision was properly supported by the evidence. The Supreme Court of Ohio reiterated the common pleas court finding that "hospitals and their accessory uses [were] expressly permitted in the City's Multi -Family District, and [were] therefore permissible in the City's areas that [were] zoned `Local Retail Business District.' " The parties had not disputed that conclusion. Rather, they had disputed whether a helipad was an accessory use. The BZA had asserted that because C.C.O. 343.01(b)(8) provided that accessory uses were allowed "only to the extent necessary normally accessory to the limited types of neighborhood service use permitted under this division," a helipad was forbidden because helipads were not "normally required for the daily local retail busi- ness needs of the residents of the locality only." The Supreme Court of Ohio rejected that argument, finding it "seem[ed] designed to inject ambiguity into a code that [was] not ambiguous." The court said that the BZA had to look at the Code as a whole. Looking at the Code as a whole, the court focused on the language of the C.C.O. that defined accessory uses (C.C.O. 325.02 and 325.721) and that defined the types of buildings permissible in the Multi -Family District and the Local Retail Business District (C.C.O. 337.08 and 343.01(b)). Strictly construing the ordinance in favor of © 2015 Thomson Reuters 7