S. Cent. Ohio Pres. Soc'y v. Chillicothe Design Review Bd., Case No. 15CA3500

CourtUnited States Court of Appeals (Ohio)
Citation2016 Ohio 1495
Docket NumberCase No. 15CA3500
PartiesSOUTH CENTRAL OHIO PRESERVATION SOCIETY, ET AL., Appellants-Appellants, v. CHILLICOTHE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, Appellee-Appellee.
Decision Date18 March 2016

2016 Ohio 1495

SOUTH CENTRAL OHIO PRESERVATION SOCIETY, ET AL., Appellants-Appellants,
v.
CHILLICOTHE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD, Appellee-Appellee.

Case No. 15CA3500

COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT ROSS COUNTY

March 18, 2016


DECISION AND JUDGMENT ENTRY

APPEARANCES:

J. Jeffrey McNealey and Christen M. Blend, Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur, LLP, Columbus, Ohio 43215, for appellants.

Sheri K. Rutherford, Chillicothe Law Director, and Carrie L. Charles, Chillicothe Assistant Law Director, Chillicothe, Ohio 45601, for appellee.

CIVIL CASE FROM COMMON PLEAS COURT
ABELE, J.

{¶ 1} The Chillicothe Design Review Board issued a certificate of appropriateness for the Catholic Diocese of Columbus to demolish the building known as the old Rectory on the campus of St. Mary's Church in Chillicothe. South Central Ohio Preservation Society, Chillicothe Conservancy, Chillicothe Restoration Foundation, Robert L. Etline, William E. Hirsch, and Franklin B. Conaway appealed the board's decision to the Ross County Common Pleas Court, but did not seek or obtain a stay or injunction to prevent the building's demolition. After the building was demolished, the common pleas court granted the board's motion to dismiss the appeal as moot.

Page 2

This appeal followed.

{¶ 2} Appellants assert that the common pleas court erred by dismissing their administrative appeal based on mootness. Because the board's decision was limited to authorizing the demolition of the building, appellant's appeal was likewise restricted to contesting that demolition. Because the event that appellants attempted to prevent (the demolition) occurred after they failed to obtain a stay pending their appeal, the trial court properly dismissed it as moot. Additionally, they do not assert that any viable exception to the mootness doctrine is applicable. Therefore, we reject appellants' claim and affirm the trial court's judgment.

I. FACTS

{¶ 3} The Catholic Diocese of Columbus owns the buildings that comprise the campus of St. Mary's Church. The church campus is located in Chillicothe's Historic Design Review District. The campus consisted of the Church, the Academy, the Worthington building, and the old Rectory. The old Rectory was built in the late 1800s, and during the 1970s and early 1980s, it was used as a convent for the nuns. Later, the building reverted to its use as the Rectory until a priest deemed it uninhabitable and it was closed in 2005. The buildings required extensive renovation. The church-estimated cost of renovating the Rectory was $400,000, including costs to remove asbestos, lead-based paint, and mold. The other buildings were considered to have greater historical relevance and architectural character. Thus, the church decided to commit its $3.1 million to restoring the other buildings and to demolish the old Rectory, which would allow the church to install handicap parking spaces on the north side of the church.

{¶ 4} In January 2014, Michael Haller, the Chairman of the Restoration Committee for St. Mary's Church, filed an application on behalf of the Catholic Diocese of Columbus for a certificate

Page 3

of appropriateness for the demolition of the Rectory. In March 2014, the Chillicothe Design Review Board conducted a public hearing on the application and heard from representatives of the church, local preservation groups, and the public. On March 20, 2014, the board issued a certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the structure. It contained no post-demolition design plans.

{¶ 5} Appellants, South Central Ohio Preservation Society, Chillicothe Conservancy, Chillicothe Restoration Foundation, Robert L. Etline, William E. Hirsch, and Franklin B, Conaway, appealed the board's decision pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2506 to the common pleas court. In their notice, appellants specified that they were appealing "the decision of the Chillicothe Design Review Board issuing a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of the property known as the St. Mary's Rectory."

{¶ 6} Appellants did not seek or obtain a stay of the board's decision pending their administrative appeal, and before the certificate expired, the church demolished the Rectory. The board then filed a motion in the trial court to dismiss the administrative appeal based on mootness. After appellants filed a memorandum in opposition and sought to stay any approvals or permits relating to new construction on the property of the demolished building, the trial court granted the board's motion and dismissed the appeal based on mootness. The trial court determined that "the genuine matter in controversy of this appeal was to prevent the demolition of St. Mary's Rectory" and that its demolition rendered the appeal moot. This appeal followed.

II. ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

{¶ 7} Appellants assign the following error for our review:

THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISMISSING APPELLANT'S APPEAL BELOW.

Page 4

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

{¶ 8} "The issue of mootness presents a question of law; therefore, we review the trial court's finding under the de novo standard of review." Athens Cty. Commrs. v. Ohio Patrolmen's Benevolent Assn., 4th Dist. Athens No. 06CA49, 2007-Ohio-6895, ¶ 45; see also Tucker v. Leadership Academy for Math and Science of Columbus, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 14AP-100, 2014-Oho-3307, ¶ 7; Pla v. Wivell, 9th Dist. Summit No. 25814, 2011-Ohio-5637, ¶ 7.

IV. LAW AND ANALYSIS

{¶ 9} In their sole assignment of error, appellants assert that the trial court erred by dismissing their appeal from the decision of the Chillicothe Design Review Board based on mootness.

{¶ 10} A " 'case is moot when the issues presented are no longer "live" or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.' " Los Angeles Cty. v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631, 99 S.Ct. 1379, 59 L.Ed.2d 642 (1979), quoting Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496, 89 S.Ct. 1944, 23 L.Ed.2d 491 (1969). "It is not the duty of the court to answer moot questions, and when pending proceedings * * *, an event occurs, without the fault of either party, which renders it impossible for the court to grant any relief, it will dismiss the petition * * *." Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21 (1910), syllabus; see also Tschantz v. Ferguson, 57 Ohio St.3d 131, 133, 566 N.E.2d 655 (1991) ("Ohio courts have long exercised judicial restraint in cases which are not actual controversies. No actual controversy exists where a case has been rendered moot by an outside event"). "Conversely, if an actual controversy exists because it is possible for a court to grant the requested...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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