Roper v. Board of Zoning Appeals, Richfield Tp., Summit County, No. 37114
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
Writing for the Court | O'NEILL; Doyle; WEYGANDT; RADCLIFF, J., of the Fourth Appellate District, sitting by designation in the place and stead of HERBERT |
Citation | 173 Ohio St. 168,180 N.E.2d 591,18 O.O.2d 437 |
Parties | , 18 O.O.2d 437 ROPER, Appellee, v. BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, TOWNSHIP OF RICHFIELD, SUMMIT COUNTY, et al., Appellants. |
Docket Number | No. 37114 |
Decision Date | 28 February 1962 |
Page 168
v.
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, TOWNSHIP OF RICHFIELD, SUMMIT COUNTY, et al., Appellants.
[180 N.E.2d 592] Syllabus by the Court.
A resident, elector and property owner of a township, who appears before a township Board of Zoning Appeals, is represented by an attorney, opposes and protests the changing of a zoned area from residential to commercial, and advises the board, on the record, that if the decision of
Page 169
the board is adverse to him he intends to appeal from the decision to a court, has a right of appeal to the Common Pleas Court if the appeal is properly and timely made pursuant to Sections 519.15 and 2506.01 to 2506.04, inclusive, and Chapter 2505, Revised Code.In an election in May 1960, a proposal was presented to the electorate of the township of Richfield, Summit County, Ohio. If passed, this proposal would have changed the zoning of a 100-acre parcel of land in the township from a R-1, residential zone, to a C-1, commercial zone, to permit the construction of an oil distribution center on such 100-acre tract.
This zoning change was defeated by the electorate of the township.
Soon thereafter, Steven Nagy, Jr., owner of a 50-acre tract wholly within the 100-acre tract referred to above in the referendum question, applied to the Richfield zoning inspector for a permit to construct such an oil distribution center on the 50-acre tract.
The inspector refused to grant such a permit on the ground that the 50-acre parcel in question was located in an area which had been designated by a township zoning resolution as R-1, residential, that the electorate had refused to change this zoning use, and that an oil distribution center could only be built in a commercial zone.
Nagy then appealed to the Richfield Township Board of Zoning Appeals for a zoning change permitting the construction of the oil distribution center.
The Board of Zoning Appeals held a public hearing upon Nagy's appeal on June 30, 1960. Notice of this public hearing was published as required by law.
[180 N.E.2d 593] Peter Roper, a resident, elector and property owner in the township, appeared with his attorney, in response to a public notice required by statute, to protest this change in zoning from residential to commercial. Roper spoke in opposition to the proposed change, and his attorney, representing him, presented
Page 170
both argument and citations of law in opposition to the change.A reading of the record indicates that to describe the hearing as informal is charitable. It, in fact, got completely out of hand on more than one occasion. From the record this would not appear to have been the fault of Roper or his attorney, but rather the result of the large crowd which was present, the inability of the chairman to maintain order and the inability of the secretary to record the proceedings.
Before the hearing was concluded and a vote taken by the board, Roper advised the board, according to the record, that, if this application for a zoning change was granted, he intended to appeal the matter and that the board should get itself an attorney.
At the close of the hearing, the application for a zoning change was granted by the board by a vote of three to two.
On July 9, 1960, Roper filed the following notice of appeal in the Common Pleas Court of Summit County, stating that he was a party adversely affected by the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals:
'Appellant, Peter Roper, a party adversely affected by the following decision of the township Board of Zoning Appeals for the township of Richfield, Summit County, Ohio, hereby gives notice of his appeal from said decision to the Court of Common Pleas of Summit County, Ohio:
"We (Board of Zoning Appeals, township of Richfield, Summit County, Ohio) permit the granting of a veriance to Mr. Steve Nagy, Jr., permitting the use of lot No. 14 as described in the appeal, for a petroleum distribution center, by applicant, appellant or his successors in title to aforedescribed lands. Above permission to be granted pursuant to Article XIII, Sec. A-4b of the Richfield Township Zoning Resolutions, to alleviate an unnecessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Women of the Old W. End, Inc. v. Toledo City Council, L-20-1181
...Zoning Appeals, 91 Ohio St.3d 174, 177, 743 N.E.2d 894, 897 (2001), citing Roper v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Richfield Tp., Summit Cty., 173 Ohio St. 168, 173, 180 N.E.2d 591 (1962). We look to the language of R.C. 2506.01, which states: (A) Except as otherwise provided in [R.C. 2506.05 2506.......
-
Women of the Old W. End, Inc. v. Toledo City Council, L-20-1181
...Zoning Appeals , 91 Ohio St.3d 174, 177, 743 N.E.2d 894, 897 (2001), citing Roper v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Richfield Tp., Summit Cty. , 173 Ohio St. 168, 173, 180 N.E.2d 591 (1962). We look to the language of R.C. 2506.01, which states:(A) Except as otherwise provided in [ R.C. 2506.05 to ......
-
Driscoll v. Austintown Associates, No. 74-204
...challenging the constitutionality of the existing legislation. Equally irrelevant is the case of Roper v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (1962), 173 Ohio St. 168, 180 N.E.2d 591, a case cited by both the Court of Appeals and the appellees. The distinctions between Roper and the present appeal are re......
-
Safest Neighborhood Assoc. v. City of Athens Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Nos. 12CA32
...the appellees did not meet the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Roper v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Twp. Of Richfield, 173 Ohio St. 168, 180 N.E.2d 591 (1962), and applied by this court in Fahl v. Athens, 4th Dist. Athens No. 06CA23, 2007-Ohio-4925, 2007 WL 2753181. {¶ 19}......
-
Women of the Old W. End, Inc. v. Toledo City Council, L-20-1181
...Zoning Appeals, 91 Ohio St.3d 174, 177, 743 N.E.2d 894, 897 (2001), citing Roper v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Richfield Tp., Summit Cty., 173 Ohio St. 168, 173, 180 N.E.2d 591 (1962). We look to the language of R.C. 2506.01, which states: (A) Except as otherwise provided in [R.C. 2506.05 2506.......
-
Women of the Old W. End, Inc. v. Toledo City Council, L-20-1181
...Zoning Appeals , 91 Ohio St.3d 174, 177, 743 N.E.2d 894, 897 (2001), citing Roper v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Richfield Tp., Summit Cty. , 173 Ohio St. 168, 173, 180 N.E.2d 591 (1962). We look to the language of R.C. 2506.01, which states:(A) Except as otherwise provided in [ R.C. 2506.05 to ......
-
Driscoll v. Austintown Associates, No. 74-204
...challenging the constitutionality of the existing legislation. Equally irrelevant is the case of Roper v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals (1962), 173 Ohio St. 168, 180 N.E.2d 591, a case cited by both the Court of Appeals and the appellees. The distinctions between Roper and the present appeal are re......
-
Safest Neighborhood Assoc. v. City of Athens Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Nos. 12CA32
...the appellees did not meet the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Roper v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Twp. Of Richfield, 173 Ohio St. 168, 180 N.E.2d 591 (1962), and applied by this court in Fahl v. Athens, 4th Dist. Athens No. 06CA23, 2007-Ohio-4925, 2007 WL 2753181. {¶ 19}......