State ex rel. R.L. Hawk, L.L.C. v. City of Troy Planning Comm.
| Decision Date | 05 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Appellate Case No. 2020-CA-11 |
| Citation | 2021 Ohio 327 |
| Parties | STATE OF OHIO ex rel. R.L. HAWK, LLC Plaintiff-Appellee v. CITY OF TROY, OHIO PLANNING COMMISSION, et al. Defendants-Appellants |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
(Civil Appeal from Common Pleas Court)
OPINIONPATRICK J. JANIS, Atty. Reg. No. 0012191 and JEREMY M. TOMB, Atty. Reg. No. 0079664, 124 West Main Street, Troy, Ohio 45373 Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
JARED B. CHAMBERLAIN, Atty. Reg. No. 0090785, 215 West Water Street, Troy, Ohio 45373 Attorney for Defendants-Appellants
{¶ 1} The trial court held that Defendants-Appellants, City of Troy, Ohio Planning Commission ("TPC") and City of Troy, Ohio, failed to comply with R.C. 711.09(C) when considering the application of Plaintiff-Appellee, R.L. Hawk, LLC ("Hawk"), for a plat plan.1 The court therefore rendered summary judgment in Hawk's favor, concluding that Hawk was entitled to relief under the statute.
{¶ 2} According to TPC, this case is moot because TPC did, in fact, issue a unanimous recommendation for approval of the plat plan. In addition, TPC argues that the trial could should have applied doctrines of laches and waiver because Hawk voluntarily followed TPC's procedures during three applications, and Hawk only applied for preliminary plat approval rather than final approval. Finally, TPC contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the ordinance in question conflicts with R.C. 711.09(C).
{¶ 3} For the reasons that follow, we find no error on the trial court's part. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court will be affirmed.
{¶ 4} The relevant facts in this case are not disputed. In 2000, the Troy City Council and TPC approved the Villages of Concord ("VOC") subdivision, which was laid out as a private condominium community. Part of the development was completed in the mid-2000s, including 20 condominiums, a common area (with a 2.565-acre lake), and a clubhouse. Of the original 16 acres, slightly more than 10 acres remained for development. As a result, in 2018, Hawk proposed creating 35 building lots that were to be developed as single-family residences.
{¶ 5} In March 2018, Hawk submitted a plat plan for VOC to TPC, along with a written application to the Troy City Engineer for review of the plat. However, TPC tabled the VOC Plat Plan from March 2018 until August 2018 because it wanted more information.
{¶ 6} On August 22, 2018, TPC denied the application because it wanted an easement across two private properties to permit an ingress and egress road. As a result, Hawk submitted a revised VOC Plat Plan to TPC in January 2019. Although the Troy Development Staff concluded that the Plan appeared to comply with the city's Zoning Code and Subdivision Regulations, the staff suggested that the application be tabled so that notice of the preliminary plan proposal could be given to all current unit owners. TPC then tabled consideration of the application at its February 27, 2019 meeting. At the TPC meeting on March 13, 2019, the application was again tabled because TPC wished to seek guidance from the Fire Chief and Troy Law Director based on questions adjoining property owners had raised about administration of a homeowner's association on adjoining property.
{¶ 7} Subsequently, the Troy Law Director reported that complaints between property owners were only civil issues between the parties. The issue instead was whether the VOC Plan satisfied subdivision regulations, and City staff had determined that the Plan did satisfy the regulations. In a report dated March 13, 2019, the Troy Development Staff recommended that TPC approve the VOC Plan as submitted. However, on March 27, 2019, TPC denied the application without providing any grounds for the denial.
{¶ 8} Hawk again submitted another VOC Plat Plan on September 17, 2019, but TPC did not take any action on the plan. Hawk then, through counsel, sent a letter to TPC and the Troy City Council on November 18, 2019, demanding that TPC issue a certification that the subdivision plans were approved and appropriate for recording by operation of law under R.C. 711.09(C) due to TPC's failure to take action within 30 days after submission. Neither TPC nor the City of Troy responded. However, on December 2, 2019, the Troy Zoning Inspector sent Hawk a letter indicating that TPC had recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat for VOC on November 27, 2019, with two conditions. These conditions were:
Verified Complaint, ¶ 26. Quoting Ex. 5 attached to the Complaint.
{¶ 9} On December 16, 2019, Hawk filed a verified complaint against TPC, seeking a declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus. TPC then filed a motion to dismiss based on Hawk's alleged failure to exhaust administrative remedies and on the fact that Hawk had an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law by appealing from TPC's administrative order.
{¶ 10} On January 16, 2020, Hawk filed a motion to consolidate this action with his administrative appeal, which was also pending. Hawk also filed a motion for summary judgment in February 2020. Subsequently, on March 23, 2020, the trial court overruled the motion to dismiss in part and sustained it in part, holding that Hawk did not need to exhaust administrative remedies, but that he had an ordinary remedy and was not entitled to extraordinary relief in mandamus. The same day, the court also overruled Hawk's motion to consolidate the two actions.
{¶ 11} TPC filed its answer in April 2020 and then filed its own motion for summary judgment. On August 5, 2020, the trial court granted summary judgment in Hawk's favor. The court held that the case was not moot and that TPC's later conditional approval conflicted with R.C. 711.09(C) because the Troy Subdivision Regulations theoretically provided an unlimited consideration period for plat plans. The court therefore held that Hawk was entitled to the relief provided by R.C. 711.09(C). In addition, the court rejected the equitable defenses that TPC raised. TPC then timely appealed.
{¶ 12} TPC's First Assignment of Error states that:
The Trial Court Erred as a Matter of Law in Granting Summary Judgment to Plaintiff Where Appellee in This Case Never Requested Approval of a Final Plat Plan, and Appellee in This Case Is Not Prejudiced and the Matter is Moot Where He Received an Unanimous Recommendation for Approval After Submitting His Demand Letter to Appellants.
{¶ 13} Under this assignment of error, TPC argues first that this case is moot because Hawk, in fact, received a unanimous recommendation for approval of his preliminary plat plan application shortly after the November 18, 2019 demand letter. The trial court found, however, that a justiciable controversy existed because Hawk completed his plat submission on September 27, 2019, and TPC did not act on it until November 27, 2019, leaving an issue as to whether Hawk was entitled to relief under R.C. 711.09(C).
{¶ 14} In reviewing summary judgment decisions, we conduct de novo review, "which means that we apply the same standards as the trial court." GNFH, Inc. v. W. Am. Ins. Co., 172 Ohio App.3d 127, 2007-Ohio-2722, 873 N.E.2d 345, ¶ 16 (2d Dist.). "Summary judgment is appropriate if (1) no genuine issue of any material fact remains, (2) the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and (3) it appears from the evidence that reasonable minds can come to but one conclusion, and construing the evidence most strongly in favor of the nonmoving party, that conclusion is adverse to the party against whom the motion for summary judgment is made." State ex rel. Duncan v. Mentor City Council, 105 Ohio St.3d 372, 2005-Ohio-2163, 826 N.E.2d 832, ¶ 9, citing Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317, 327, 364 N.E.2d 267 (1977).
{¶ 15} As indicated, the action before us was decided on the basis of declaratory judgment. The elements of a declaratory judgment are: "(1) A real controversy between the parties; (2) which is justiciable in character; and (3) speedy relief is necessary to preserve the rights of the parties." Burger Brewing Co. v. Liquor Control Comm., Dept. of Liquor Control, 34 Ohio St.2d 93, 97, 296 N.E.2d 261 (1973).
{¶ 16} Under the mootness doctrine, " 'American courts will not decide * * * cases in which there is no longer any actual controversy.' " In re A.G., 139 Ohio St.3d 572, 2014-Ohio-2597, 13 N.E.3d 1146, ¶ 37, quoting Black's Law Dictionary 1100 (9th Ed.2009). This is because courts have no duty "to decide purely academic or abstract questions." James A. Keller, Inc. v. Flaherty, 74 Ohio App.3d 788, 791, 600 N.E.2d 736 (10th Dist.1991), citing Miner v. Witt, 82 Ohio St. 237, 92 N.E. 21 (1910). Dismissals on the basis of mootness present questions of law and are reviewed de novo. Brown v. Dayton, 2d Dist. Montgomery No. 24900, 2012-Ohio-3493, ¶ 9.
{¶ 17} This case involves the application of R.C. 711.09. R.C. 711.09(A)(1) states that "when a city planning commission adopts a plan for the major streets or thoroughfares and for the parks and other open public grounds of a city or any part of it, or for the unincorporated territory within three miles of the corporate limits of a city or any part of it, then no plat of a subdivision of land within that city or territory shall be recorded until it has been approved by the city planning commission and that approval endorsed in writing on the plat. * * *"
{¶ 18} R.C. 711.09(C) further provides, in pertinent part,...
To continue reading
Request your trial