Ohio Supreme Court rules Hinckley zoning inspector did not issue a "decision" regarding zoning status for Adult Day Care Center

HINCKLEY TWP. — The Ohio Supreme Court recently unanimously ruled that a former Hinckley zoning inspector did not issue an appealable or enforceable "decision" regarding the zoning status of the former Adult Day Care Center's property. Court documents state that the Adult Day Care Center at 729 W. 130th St. in Hinckley was operational until April 2019. The tavern's liquor license became inactive in January 2019. The Hinckley Township Zoning Resolution has the property zoned as R-2 Residential, but the tavern was allowed to operate as a nonconforming use because the tavern predated the zoning resolution. A nonconforming use can continue as long as there has not been a "voluntary discontinuance" of the use for two years or more. The property owners heard from a potential buyer who was interested in reviving the property as a tavern, court documents state. On March 4, 2022, the property owners visited the township's zoning inspector's office to ask about the property's status as a nonconforming use. The zoning inspector followed up with the property owners by email on March 15, 2022, and said the property no longer qualified as a nonconforming use because it had been more than two years since the tavern was operational, court documents state. The property owners appealed the email "ruling" to the Hinckley Township Board of Zoning Appeals on April 14. The board of zoning appeals focused on whether the email was considered a "decision" under the Ohio Revised Code that required an appeal to be filed within 20 days. The board dismissed the appeal because it had not been filed within 20 days of the email being sent. The property owners then appealed the board of zoning appeal's dismissal to the Medina County Court of Common Pleas. The Court of Common Pleas concluded the email was considered a "decision" under the Ohio Revised Code because the statute and the zoning resolution do not state requirements regarding the content or delivery of a "decision." The court affirmed the Board of Zoning Appeal's dismissal of the appeal. An appeal was then brought to the Ninth District Court of Appeals by the property owners. According to court documents, the 9th District Court agreed with the property owners, stating that the email does not constitute a "decision" under the Ohio Revised Code. The court considered a "decision" to be an "official, formal action." Since the Ninth District Court stated the zoning inspector did not issue a "decision," the 20-day filing deadline was never triggered. The appellate court concluded that the Court of Common Pleas did not have jurisdiction, so the trial court's decision was vacated and the appeal was dismissed. The board of zoning appeals then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth District Court's ruling, stating the zoning inspector did not make a "decision" under Hinckley's zoning resolution or the Ohio Revised Code that would trigger a deadline. Therefore, the board of zoning appeals did not have jurisdiction regarding the property owner's appeal. "Simply asking (the zoning inspector) about the status of the property is not sufficient under the zoning resolution to receive an official answer that can be appealed to the (Board of Zoning Appeals)," Justice Patrick Fischer stated. According to court documents, for the property owners to challenge the zoning inspector's "ruling," they would have to seek a certificate of nonconforming use or ask for a variance, which would have prompted the zoning inspector to formally take action. "Because the property owners did not engage in any formal process by which the zoning inspector issued a formal decision based on evidence, the zoning inspector was unable to issue a 'decision' on whether the use of the property remained in compliance with the property's nonconforming use status," Fischer stated. Contact reporter Madisyn Woodring at (330) 721-4049 or mwoodring@medina-gazette.com.