Swanton Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Toledo-Lucas Cty. Port Authority
Decision Date | 01 June 1990 |
Docket Number | TOLEDO-LUCAS,No. L-89-258,L-89-258 |
Citation | 66 Ohio App.3d 555,585 N.E.2d 871 |
Parties | SWANTON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF TRUSTEES, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, et al. v.COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY et al., Appellees and Cross-Appellants. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Jim Miller, Toledo, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Teresa Grigsby, Toledo, for appellees and cross-appellants.
This case is an appeal and cross-appeal from a judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas.
The undisputed facts of the case are as follows.Toledo Express Airport is partially located in Swanton Township.Appellee and cross-appellant, city of Toledo, is the owner of the land where the airport is located.Appellee and cross-appellant, Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority("Port Authority"), leases the land and operates Toledo Express Airport.
Toledo Express Airport presently includes two runways, a terminal, cargo buildings, airplane hangars and maintenance buildings.The Port Authority does not directly provide the services available at the airport.Instead, the Port Authority, through subleasing agreements with individual airlines, provides passenger and cargo air transport.The same is true of other services, which are inherent in the operation of any public, metropolitan airport, such as automobile parking and rental, motel and restaurant facilities and airplane hangar rental to various companies and other organizations.However, all transportation and other ancillary services are centralized, organized and managed through the Port Authority.
In 1989, the Port Authority began construction of a new hub facility and related improvements to be leased to Burlington Air Express USA, Inc., an air cargo transport company.Neither the city of Toledo nor the Port Authority applied for a zoning permit in regard to this project.
Appellant and cross-appellee, Swanton Township Board of Trustees("Trustees"), brought the present action for declaratory judgment alleging that Toledo Express Airport is subject to Swanton Township zoning regulation and, therefore, zoning certificates must be obtained for the new construction at the airport.In contrast, appellees argue that the airport is exempt from township zoning regulations because it is a public utility exempt from such regulation under R.C. 519.211.
On June 5, 1989, appellees filed a motion for summary judgment.On August 3, 1989, the trial court entered judgment in favor of appellees on the ground that as a public utility Toledo Express Airport is exempt from township zoning regulation.The trial court declined to address the further issue regarding the validity of the Swanton Township Zoning Resolution.
It is from that judgment that the Trustees raise the following three assignments of error:
It is also from that judgment that appellees raise the following sole cross-assignment of error:
As their first assignment of error, the Trustees argue that an airport may never be considered a public utility under R.C. 519.211.Essentially, the Trustees argue if an airport may be considered a public utility under R.C. 519.211, R.C. Chapter 4563( ) and R.C. 308.06(Q)(governing airport authorities) will be nullified.
We find that Sections II through IIIB of the well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Frederick H. McDonald, rejecting the argument that R.C. Chapter 4563 requires a finding that airports may not be considered public utilities, are dispositive of this issue as raised in the first assignment of error.For that reason, such opinion is hereby adopted as our own.See Appendix.
We further find the Trustees' remaining argument, that R.C. 308.06(Q) requires a finding that airports may not be considered public utilities, also without merit.R.C. 308.06(Q) authorizes regional airport authorities to request the appropriate zoning board "to establish and enforce zoning regulations pertaining to any airport * * * in the manner prescribed by sections 4563.01 to 4563.21 of the Revised Code."(Emphasis added.)Inasmuch as we have determined that R.C. Chapter 4563 does not preclude airports from being considered public utilities, it cannot be argued that R.C. 308.06(Q), which provides for the enforcement of R.C. Chapter 4563, precludes airports from being considered as such.Accordingly, the Trustees' first assignment of error is found not well taken.
The Trustees' second and third assignments of error will be considered together.Essentially, the Trustees argue that even if an airport may be considered a public utility, the determination that a particular airport, i.e., Toledo Express Airport, is a public utility must be made on a case-by-case basis.The Trustees further argue that the facts of the present case do not support the trial court's determination that Toledo Express Airport is a public utility.
R.C. 519.211 specifically exempts public utilities from township zoning regulation, although there is no definition of a "public utility" to be found in R.C. Chapter 519.The Supreme Court of Ohio in Marano v. Gibbs(1989), 45 Ohio St.3d 310, 311, 544 N.E.2d 635, 636, held that "the determination of entities as public utilities is a mixed question of law and fact."The Marano court further stated that "an entity may be characterized as a public utility if the nature of its operation is a matter of public concern, and membership is indiscriminately and reasonably made available to the general public."Id.The Marano court also held that "while it is important that an entity be subject to regulatory control, such regulation is not necessarily required for an entity to be considered a public utility."Id.At least one court of appeals has held that a commercial airport is a public entity and therefore exempt from township zoning regulation.Yunker v. Saddler (July 1, 1966), Lorain App.No. 1712, unreported.
In the present case, we find reasonable minds could only conclude that Toledo Express Airport is operated as a matter of public concern and that membership is indiscriminately and reasonably made available to the general public.It is undisputed that the airport's freight and passenger services are open to the public.Further, necessary and ancillary services such as parking facilities, restaurants and car rental agencies are also open to the public.It is the Port Authority's responsibility to negotiate and execute all leases and operating agreements, manage the Toledo Express Airport police, fire and rescue operations and supervise all aviation and other ancillary facilities.
Although the Port Authority operates the services of the Toledo Express Airport through subleasing agreements, agreements that are arguably not available to the general public, such agreements do not destroy the public nature of the services offered to the public by the airport.The service of passenger and cargo air transport, along with necessary and ancillary services, remains reasonably available to the general public.Accordingly, the Trustees' second and third assignments of error are found not well taken.
In light of our disposition of the Trustees' assignments of error, this court does not find it necessary to address appellees' cross-assignment of error.Accordingly, appellees' cross-assignment of error is found not well taken.
On consideration whereof, the court finds substantial justice has been done the party complaining, and the judgment of the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.It is ordered that appellant pay the court costs of this appeal.
Judgment affirmed.
ROBERT V. FRANKLIN, Jr., J., retired, of the Lucas County Common Pleas Court, sitting by assignment.
APPENDIX
Aug. 3, 1989
FREDERICK H. McDONALD, Judge.
This case is before the court on the joint motion for summary judgment filed on behalf of defendants, Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority and the city of Toledo, and the opposition thereto filed on behalf of plaintiffSwanton Township Board of Trustees and intervening plaintiffsCitizens Against Burlington, Inc., Floyd Elton, Jr., and Frances E. Garmenn.For the reasons that follow, I find that the defendants' motion for summary judgment is well taken.
The undisputed facts of this case are as follows.The plaintiffSwanton Township Board of Trustees is empowered to enforce its zoning...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
- State v. Cooper
-
Reynolds v. Akron-Canton Regional Airport Auth., 2009 Ohio 567 (Ohio App. 2/9/2009)
...as those terms are defined, respectively, at O.R.C. 308.01 (A) and (B)." Pursuant to Swanton Township Board of Trustees v. Toledo-Lucas County Port Authority (1990), 66 Ohio App.3d 555, a regional airport is a public utility under R.C. {¶16} In addition, the "Community Update," attached to ......