Apple Group, Ltd. v. Granger Township Board of Zoning Appeals, 144 Ohio St. 3d 188, 2015-Ohio-1612

41 N.E.3d 118 (Ohio 2015) · Supreme Court of Ohio · June 17, 2015

Summary

The Supreme Court of Ohio held that R.C. 519.02 does not require a township to adopt a comprehensive plan as a separate document from its zoning resolution. A zoning resolution may satisfy the statute if it reflects current land uses, allows for change, promotes public health and safety, uniformly classifies similar areas, clearly defines district locations and boundaries, and identifies permissible uses for each property. The court affirmed the judgment upholding Granger Township's zoning resolution.

Holdings

  1. R.C. 519.02 does not require a township to enact a comprehensive plan as a separate and distinct document from its zoning resolution.
  2. A zoning resolution is enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan if it reflects current land uses, allows for change, promotes public health and safety, uniformly classifies similar areas, clearly defines district locations and boundaries, and identifies the uses to which each property may be put.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether R.C. 519.02 requires a township to enact a comprehensive plan as a separate and distinct document from its zoning resolution.
  2. Whether a township zoning resolution may itself constitute or incorporate a comprehensive plan for purposes of the requirement that zoning regulations be adopted in accordance with a comprehensive plan.
  3. Whether Granger Township's zoning resolution satisfied the statutory requirement of being enacted in accordance with a comprehensive plan.

Disposition

affirmed

Cases Cited (13)

  • Developers Diversified Ltd. v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Revision, 84 Ohio St. 3d 32, 701 N.E.2d 975 (1998)(cited)
  • Torok v. Jones, 5 Ohio St. 3d 31, 448 N.E.2d 819 (1983)(cited)
  • Yorkavitz v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of Trustees, 166 Ohio St. 349, 142 N.E.2d 655 (1957)(cited)
  • Cassell v. Lexington Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 163 Ohio St. 340, 127 N.E.2d 11 (1955)(followed)
  • B.J. Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 124 Ohio St. 3d 1, 2009-Ohio-5863, 918 N.E.2d 501(followed)
  • State ex rel. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. v. Cleveland, 106 Ohio St. 3d 70, 2005-Ohio-3807, 831 N.E.2d 987(followed)
  • Lamie v. United States Trustee, 540 U.S. 526, 124 S. Ct. 1023, 157 L. Ed. 2d 1024 (2004)(cited)
  • Columbus City School Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. Wilkins, 101 Ohio St. 3d 112, 2004-Ohio-296, 802 N.E.2d 637(followed)
  • White Oak Property Dev., L.L.C. v. Washington Twp., 12th Dist. Brown No. CA2011-05-011, 2012-Ohio-425, 2012 WL 368254(adopted)
  • Rumpke Waste, Inc. v. Henderson, 591 F. Supp. 521 (S.D. Ohio 1984)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Ohio Supreme Court