Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/04/2016

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 24 the right to meaningfully participate at the public meeting Citation: Guenther v. Sheffield Lake Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 2015 -Ohio - 4521, 2015 WL 6652150 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. Lorain County 2015) OHIO (11/02/15)—This case addressed the issue of whether constitutional due process and First Amendment rights were violated when the discussion by citizens at a zoning board meeting were limited to one minute and were required to pertain to only the size and location of the proposed building be- ing addressed by the zoning board. The Background/Facts: Dearborn Land Investment, LLC ("Dearborn") had an option to purchase real property commercially zoned with a `B-2" designation in Sheffield Lake (the "City"). Dearborn sought to construct a Dollar General retail store on the property. Such a use was permitted on the B-2 zoned property. Dearborn received a notice from the City's Chief Build- ing Official that City Ordinance 1139.06(c) required Dearborn to submit an application to the Board of Zoning and Building Appeals (the "Board") for size and location approval of the proposed store building. Pursuant to that no- tice, Dearborn submitted such a site plan application to the Board. The Board met several times on the application. At those meetings, several residents of the City (the "Residents") voiced their opposition to the proposed store building. Ultimately, the Board voted to deny the application for reasons other than size and location. Dearborn appealed and the trial court determined that the Ordinance 1139.06(c) applied to the property and that the Board did not have discretion to deny the permit on factors other than size and location. The trial court remanded the case back to the Board for a hearing as to the size and location of the building. At that hearing, the Board permitted com- ments from citizens, but limited them to one minute and requested that citizens not repeat comments already made at the prior meetings. • Eventually, the Board approved Dearborn's application. The Residents appealed. The trial court affirmed the Board's decision, and the Residents again appealed. On appeal, among other things, the Residents argued that the Board violated their First and 14th Amendment rights by denying them the right to meaningfully participate at the public meeting following the remand of the case by the trial court. More specifically, the Residents challenged the one -minute time limitation and the subject restrictions (i.e., to size and loca- tion) placed on their comments at the Board's hearing on Dearborn's site plan application. DECISION: Judgment of Court of Common Pleas affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Ohio concluded that the subject restrictions and time limitations on public comments made at the Board's hearing on Dearborn's site plan application did not violate the Residents' due process rights or First Amendment rights. In so concluding, the court explained that "[b]efore the state may deprive a person of a property interest, it must provide procedural due process consist- ing of notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard." The court said that whether due process was deprived was a matter that was fact -specific to each case. 0 2015 Thomson Reuters 3