Board of Commissioners, Metropolitan Park District, the Toledo Area v. Showcase Mobile Homes, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 August 1983 |
| Docket Number | L-83-076,83-LW-3999 |
| Parties | Board of Commissioners, Metropolitan Park District, The Toledo Area, APPELLEE, v. Showcase Mobile Homes, Inc., et al., APPELLANTS. C. A. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY
This cause came on to be heard upon the record in the trial court. Each assignment of error was reviewed by the court and upon review the following disposition made:
This is an appeal from the Lucas County Common Pleas Court. Appellant DEN Developers, Inc. (DEN) owns a parcel of land located on the west side of State Route 295 in Monclova Township, Lucas County, Ohio. Upon this parcel of land appellant DEN acting jointly and in concert with appellant Showcase Mobile Homes, Inc. (Showcase) proposed to develop a mobile home park to be known as Oak Park Mobile Home Development.
Appellee Board of Commissioners, Metropolitan Park District, Toledo Area (Commissioners) is a duly appointed park district board and as such, owns a fee simple interest in Oak Openings Metropark (Metropark). The Commissioners' fee simple interest in the Metropark, however, is subject to an easement granted to the state of Ohio for the right-of-way of State Route 295.
Directly related to the development of the proposed mobile home park, appellants DEN and Showcase propose to construct a pipeline upon appellee's property, but entirely within the right-of-way easement, the purpose of which is to discharge storm water and treated effluent into Swan Creek. Appellant DEN sought and received permission to construct the proposed pipeline from the grantee of the right-of-way easement, State of Ohio, Department of Transportation, (D.O.T.) and from the State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.). Originally, appellant Showcase requested but then subsequently withdrew its request for appellee Commissioners' permission to construct the proposed pipeline.
Nevertheless, appellee conducted a public hearing on October 20, 1981, regarding the installation of the proposed pipeline. The Commissioners, at a regular meeting conducted on November 17, 1981, adopted a resolution®1¯ which stated, inter alia, that the Commissioners had ". . . determined that the development of a highly intensive mobile home park at this location and the installation of the sewage disposal line as proposed would not be in the best interest of the Park District or of the public."
Footnote 1 Resolution No. 182-81 was adopted by the Commissioners, the full text of which reads as follows:
On December 23, 1981, appellee Commissioners filed a complaint for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in the Lucas County Common Pleas Court. A trial to the court was conducted on January 12, 1983, and on February 14, 1983, the trial court filed its judgment entry, in which that court stated, inter alia:
"IT IS THEREFORE, ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that Defendants [appellants] Showcase Mobile Homes, Inc. and DEN Developers, Inc., their respective agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and any and all persons, entities or organizations acting in concert and/or participating with them are hereby permanently and forever restrained and enjoined from installing and/or commencing to install a pipeline in, over, under or upon the right-of-way on the west side of State Route 295 within the boundaries of Plaintiff's [appellee's] property for any purpose whatsoever including, but not limited to, the discharge of storm water and treated effluent into Swan Creek from a mobile home development proposed to be developed on the west side of State Route 295 in Swanton Township, Lucas County, Ohio."
It is this judgment®2¯ from which appellants now appeal, assigning as error the following:
Footnote 2 In addition to the trial court's judgment entry, that court also filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, in which the trial court concluded, inter alia, that:
As at least one Ohio appellate court has observed, "the concept of 'public use' . . . has followed a tortured and twisted course and, as a result, two alternative theories and various shadings thereof have developed to implement the general test for public use." State, ex rel. Allerton Parking Corp., v. City of Cleveland (1965), 4 Ohio App. 2d 57, 64, aff'd. 6 Ohio St. 2d 165. Under one theory, an "'actual use' by the public is required," while under the other theory, a "'beneficial use' to the public is sufficient." Allerton, supra, at 64.
Initially, we note that whether the proposed use of certain property is for a public or private purpose is a question of law rather than a question of fact. McQuillen v. Hatton (1884), 42 Ohio St. 202, 204. The trial court, in its judgment entry and conclusions of law determined that the proposed pipeline was for a private use and not for the public benefit. In so concluding, however, the trial court did not set forth nor did it specify what guidelines, if any, that court used in making its determination.
We agree with the appellate court's determination in Allerton, supra, at 66, that prior case law in Ohio is consistent with the "beneficial use" theory. See Dayton v. Cloud (1972), 30 Ohio St. 2d 295, 301. The adoption of the "beneficial use" theory is "in accord with a general trend in Ohio to relax the concepts of 'public purpose' and 'public use."' Chase v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1967), 10 Ohio App. 2d 75, 82. In Lake Erie & Western R.R. Co. v. Commissioners of Hancock County (1900), 63 Ohio St. 23, 27, for example, the Supreme Court stated:
(Emphasis added.)
Further, in discussing public purpose in the context of eminent domain, the Supreme Court, in St. Stephan's Club v. Youngstown Metropolitan Housing Authority (1953), 160 Ohio St. 194, 199, commented that:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial