Alesi v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs

Decision Date24 November 2014
Docket NumberCA2013–12–131,CA2013–12–124,Nos. CA2013–12–123,CA2013–12–132.,CA2013–12–128,CA2013–12–127,s. CA2013–12–123
Citation24 N.E.3d 667
PartiesDan ALESI, et al., Appellants/Cross–Appellees, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WARREN COUNTY, Ohio, Appellee/Cross–Appellant, v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, and The Sisters Ltd., Appellees/Cross–Appellants.
CourtOhio Court of Appeals

24 N.E.3d 667

Dan ALESI, et al., Appellants/Cross–Appellees
v.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, WARREN COUNTY, Ohio, Appellee/Cross–Appellant
v.
Pilot Travel Centers, LLC
and
The Sisters Ltd., Appellees/Cross–Appellants.

Nos. CA2013–12–123
CA2013–12–124
CA2013–12–127
CA2013–12–128
CA2013–12–131
CA2013–12–132.

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth District, Warren County.

Nov. 24, 2014.


24 N.E.3d 670

Timothy G. Mara, Cincinnati, OH, for appellants/cross-appellees, Dan Alesi, et al.

Timothy M. Burke, Kathleen Farro, and Manley Burke, LPA, Cincinnati, OH, for appellees/cross-appellants, Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, and The Sisters Ltd.

David P. Fornshell and Bruce McGary, Civil Division—Office of Warren County Prosecutor, Lebanon, OH, for appellee/cross-appellant, Board of County Commissioners, Warren County, Ohio.

OPINION

DeWINE, J.

{¶ 1} These are consolidated appeals involving a proposed Pilot/Flying J truck stop to be built near the intersection of Interstate 71 and State Route 123 in Turtlecreek Township of Warren County.

{¶ 2} The Warren County Board of Commissioners approved the zoning application for the truck stop subject to certain conditions. On appeal, the Warren County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the approval

24 N.E.3d 671

of the zoning application but modified some of the conditions. The Board of Commissioners, Pilot and 58 residents have all appealed to this court. We hold that the common pleas court should have dismissed the appeal filed by the residents because Ohio law does not provide them with standing to appeal, and, as a consequence, the common pleas court was without jurisdiction to consider their appeal. We must dismiss the cross-appeal filed by the Board of Commissioners in this court because it does not challenge the judgment issued by the common pleas court.

{¶ 3} As to the appeal filed by Pilot, we affirm the lower court's decision in all but one respect. One of the conditions attached by the Board of Commissioners and upheld by the common pleas court was that Pilot submit an additional traffic-impact study to the Ohio Department of Transportation (“ODOT”). The number and type of traffic studies to be submitted to and considered by ODOT as part of ODOT's review process is something for ODOT to decide, not the Board of Commissioners. Thus, we conclude that the Board exceeded its authority in ordering the traffic-impact study. We affirm the judgment of the common pleas court in all other respects.

The Proposed Travel Center

{¶ 4} Pilot Travel Centers LLC operates truck stops across the country. It seeks to build and operate one of its “Flying J” truck stops on a 10.5–acre lot at the southeast quadrant of Interstate 71 and State Route 123 (the “Property”). The proposed travel center includes a Wendy's drive-through restaurant, a marketplace deli, 12 automobile fueling pumps, eight diesel-fueling lanes and overnight parking to accommodate semi-trucks and recreational vehicles (“RVs”). Pilot Travel Centers has agreed to purchase the Property from its current owner, The Sisters Ltd., subject to zoning approval.

{¶ 5} The proposed truck stop is located in an unincorporated area of Turtlecreek Township in Warren County. The Warren County Board of County Commissioners (“BOCC”) has adopted a zoning resolution, the Warren County Rural Zoning Code (“the Zoning Code” or “Code”), to regulate zoning in the Township. See R.C. 303.02.

{¶ 6} The Property is in an area zoned “Light Industrial Manufacturing” or “I–1.” Truck stops are a permitted use in the “I–1” zone, but they are subject to “site plan review” by the BOCC. Under the site-plan-review process, the BOCC is to review “the site plan in the interests of public health and safety, as well as, public convenience, comfort, prosperity, or general welfare.” Code Section 1.303.

{¶ 7} In September 2012, The Sisters Ltd. and Pilot (collectively referred to as “Pilot”) filed a joint application with the Warren County Zoning Department for a site plan review. While the application was pending, the BOCC approved a Joint Economic Development District (“JEDD”), a zoning overlay district, within the Interstate 71/State Route 123 area that includes the Property.

{¶ 8} The BOCC held public hearings on Pilot's zoning application on November 15, 2012, and January 10, 2013. The BOCC considered testimony from the county's zoning inspector, representatives of Pilot, an employee of an engineering firm who had performed a “noise study” on behalf of Pilot, and a number of citizens who opposed the project. A report prepared by the Warren County Regional Planning Commission recommended approval of the site plan with certain conditions, including additional landscaping to increase the attractiveness of the Property and to obstruct the view from Interstate 71. The zoning inspector reported on comments

24 N.E.3d 672

that he had received from a number of public bodies, including the Turtlecreek Township Trustees, the Turtlecreek Township Fire Department and ODOT. The inspector testified that the impervious surface ratio of 0.724 percent provided for in Pilot's application would comply with the new requirements of the JEDD, but not with the 0.63–percent requirement in the I–1 zone in effect at the time of the application.1

{¶ 9} The citizens who spoke against the application expressed concerns that a truck stop would lead to increased pollution, noise, traffic and crime. James Kuschill testified and submitted voluminous reports and statistics he had collected regarding air quality and pollution generally caused by semi-trucks. Kuschill argued that the proposed travel center should include electrification in the parking area to prevent trucks from idling. Other citizens raised concerns regarding traffic impact on the local streets, and noted the proximity of nearby attractions, including YMCA Camp Kern and the Fort Ancient historical site.

{¶ 10} On February 23, 2013, the BOCC approved the application by a two-to-one vote, subject to 24 enumerated conditions (the “Resolution”). The additional conditions pertinent to these consolidated appeals are:

• Condition 9: requiring Pilot to comply with the maximum impervious surface ratio for the I–1 zone or seek approval for the less restrictive requirement in the JEDD from the JEDD board;
• Condition 11: requiring that Pilot provide an additional traffic-impact study to ODOT;
• Condition 13: requiring Pilot to provide landscaping beyond that required in the Zoning Code to block the view from Interstate 71; and
• Condition 23: requiring Pilot to provide electrification for all RV and semi-truck parking spaces in an effort to decrease vehicle idling.

{¶ 11} Pilot, as well as 78 citizens with postal addresses in Lebanon, Morrow and Oregonia, Ohio, appealed the BOCC's decision to the Warren County Court of Common Pleas. The lower court affirmed the BOCC's decision approving the application; however, the court struck or modified some of those enumerated conditions. The common pleas court affirmed Condition Nos. 9, 11, 13 and 23, over the objections of Pilot.

{¶ 12} Pilot, the BOCC and 58 of the citizens (the “Residents”) all filed appeals to this court.2 The Residents challenged the common pleas court's reversal and amendment of some of the conditions of approval, as well as the approval of the site plan in general. Pilot challenged several of the conditions attached to the approval. The BOCC doesn't challenge the judgment of the common pleas court, but asks this court to correct dicta in the lower court's decision that it believes was erroneous.

The Residents Lack Standing to Appeal under R.C. 2506.01

{¶ 13} As an initial matter, we must address a jurisdictional issue with

24 N.E.3d 673

regard to the Residents' standing to appeal the BOCC's decision approving the Flying J.

{¶ 14} Standing requirements exist “to prevent the courts from being used to usurp the authority of the political branches.” See generally Clapper v. Amnesty Internatl. USA, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1138, 1146, 185 L.Ed.2d 264 (2013) ; Hollingsworth v. Perry, ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 2652, 2661, 186 L.Ed.2d 768 (2013). They ensure that courts do not become a forum for generalized grievances, but instead limit resort to the judicial process to those who have suffered a particularized injury. “The requirement of standing is not designed to shield agencies and officials from accountability to taxpayers; instead, it denies the use of the courts to those who, while not sustaining a legal injury, nevertheless seek to air their grievances concerning the conduct of government. The doctrine of standing directs those persons to other forums.” Racing Guild of Ohio, Local 304, Serv. Emps. Internatl. Union, AFL–CIO, CLC v. Ohio State Racing Comm., 28 Ohio St.3d 317, 321, 503 N.E.2d 1025 (1986).

{¶ 15} Here, none of the parties has raised the issue of standing. Thus, we only need reach the issue if we determine that it affects our subject-matter jurisdiction to hear the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Meziane v. Munson Twp. Bd. of Trs.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 2 Noviembre 2020
    ...hearing his or her intention to appeal an adverse decision); Alesi v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Commrs. , 12th Dist. Warren, 2014-Ohio-5192, 24 N.E.3d 667, ¶20 (emphasis added) ("The ‘active-participation’ element requires that the third party must have actively participated in an administrative h......
  • Brooks v. Butler Cnty., Ohio
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 7 Julio 2022
    ...hearing may appeal a zoning decision to the Ohio Court of Common Pleas, id. § 2506.01; see Alesi v. Warren Cnty. Bd. Of Comm'rs, 24 N.E.3d 667, 674 (Ohio 2014); Willoughby Hills v. C. C. Bar's Sahara, Inc., 591 N.E.2d 1203, 1205 (Ohio 1992). Non-adjacent landowners may also appeal a zoning ......
  • Eckert v. Warren Cnty. Rural Bd. of Zoning Appeals, CASE NO. CA2017-06-095
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 29 Octubre 2018
    ...decision and must have "actively participated" in an administrative hearing. See Alesi v. Warren Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2014-Ohi-5192, 24 N.E.3d 667, ¶ 19 (12th Dist.), citing Safest Neighborhood Assn. v. Athens Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 2013-Ohio-5610, 5 N.E.3d 694, ¶ 24 (4th Dist.). "The 'dire......
  • Powell v. Bd. of Comm'rs of Warren Cnty.
    • United States
    • United States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
    • 7 Diciembre 2020
    ...effect at the time an applicant files for a zoning change control. See Alesi v. Bd. of Cty. Commrs. , 12th Dist. Warren, 2014-Ohio-5192, 24 N.E.3d 667, ¶ 30. Consequently, we will use the version submitted to the trial court.2 See R.C. 519.021, 742.3711(A), 1111.13(A)(2), 1751.52(B), 1751.6......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT