[Cite as Davis v. Mansfield Planning Comm., 2023-Ohio-3048.]
COURT OF APPEALS RICHLAND COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
JULIAN DAVIS : JUDGES: : Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant : Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. : Hon. Andrew J. King, J. -vs- : : CITY OF MANSFIELD PLANNING : COMMISSION, ET AL. : Case No. 2023 CA 0009 : Defendants-Appellees : OPINION
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDING: Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 21 CV 304
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT: August 30. 2023
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendants-Appellees
ROBERT A. FRANCO JAKE MICHAEL LINN 1007 Lexington Avenue 30 North Diamond Street Mansfield, OH 44907 8th Floor Mansfield, OH 44902 Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 2
King, J.
{¶ 1} Plaintiff-Appellant, Julian Davis ("Davis"), appeals the February 2, 2023
order of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio, affirming the demolition
order issued by Defendants-Appellees, City of Mansfield Planning Commission and City
of Mansfield Bureau of Buildings, Inspections, Licenses and Permits. We affirm the trial
court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
{¶ 2} On March 28, 2017, the city of Mansfield issued a demolition order to Helen
C. Davis, aka Carrie Helen Davis, the record owner of a house located on South Foster
Street in Mansfield. This order noted the structure was "deemed to be unsafe, to the life
and health of children and the community * * *" and the structure "poses an imminent
threat to health, potential fire [sic] and the safety of the neighborhood * * *." Davis, Helen's
nephew, appealed the order on her behalf to the planning commission. Davis's notice of
appeal did not appear to object to the finding the structure was dangerous nor did he cite
the order lacked enough notice to reasonably appraise him of the necessary corrective
steps to avoid demolition. Davis also posted a bond as required by the municipal
ordinances.
{¶ 3} Davis appeared at the June 13, 2017 meeting where the planning
commission heard his appeal. One of the commission members asked Davis if he
determined "what has to be done [to the house.]" Davis answered affirmatively and
stated, among other things, that framing and masonry work were required on one side of
the house. The commission also expressed concerns about the structural defects
surrounding the chimney and the nearby exterior wall. Although not directly stated, it Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 3
does not appear that the city required Davis to submit construction plans before or during
the meeting, rather the commission relied on his verbal agreements to grant him six
months to begin the repairs and return to the commission with an update; Davis agreed.
{¶ 4} Davis was unable to appear at the next meeting on March 13, 2018,
because he was recovering from surgery the previous week. His cousin appeared and
acknowledged that Davis had not performed any structural work on the house. Despite
the lack of substantial progress, the commission gave Davis another extension until May
of 2018. Davis returned on August 14, 2018. He reported tearing off parts of the house
to access the basement wall that had been compromised by water. The commission was
also informed by the building inspector that although Davis had submitted an electrical
plan set, he had not submitted plans, received permits, or requested inspections. Davis
claimed to have submitted plans for the whole house, but none of the plans were
presented to the commission. Again, the commission engaged in a dialog with Davis
about the work that needed to be performed, he agreed to it, and they gave him an
extension of time.
{¶ 5} Over the next several years, this became the regular course of dealings
between Davis and the city: Davis would update the commission that he performed no
work or some work that was frequently unrelated to the structural defects, Davis would
agree to perform work, and be given more time to complete it. Throughout his dealings
with the commission, Davis never claimed to not understand what was expected of him
to avoid the house's demolition.
{¶ 6} At some point, Helen passed away and Davis became the owner of the
property in 2020. Over the course of four years from 2017, Davis received numerous Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 4
extensions and attended a dozen meetings with the commission wherein the appeal was
discussed with Davis; he continuously failed to make important repairs, meet deadlines
and benchmarks, and seek permits and inspections.
{¶ 7} On May 25, 2021, the commission denied the appeal, finding Davis failed
to remedy the situation by the deadline date of May 17, 2021. Davis was notified via letter
dated June 23, 2021. On June 24, 2021, Davis filed an administrative appeal with the
Court of Common Pleas of Richland County. Davis alleged the city failed to provide
proper notice, failed to present evidence that the house was a dangerous building, and
applied the incorrect standard of "habitability."
{¶ 8} An evidentiary hearing before a magistrate was held on October 28, 2021.
The magistrate personally viewed the house and accepted testimony and exhibits. By
order filed October 29, 2021, the magistrate granted Davis more time to make repairs and
listed specific items that needed to be completed by January 6, 2022.
{¶ 9} A second evidentiary hearing before a magistrate was held on February 9,
2022. Again, the magistrate personally viewed the house and accepted testimony. By
decision filed August 12, 2022, the magistrate found the city substantially complied with
the notice requirements and the house was a "dangerous building," and affirmed the
demolition order. Davis filed objections. By order filed February 2, 2023, the trial court
disagreed with the objections and adopted the magistrate's decision.
{¶ 10} Davis filed an appeal with the following assignments of error:
I
{¶ 11} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY FINDING THE CITY OF MANSFIELD
(THE 'CITY') SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH THE MANDATORY Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 5
REQUIREMENTS OF CITY ORDINANCE § 1335.05(E) AND (F), REQUIRING A
'SPECIFIC ITEMIZATION OF THE DEFECTS AND CONDITIONS' GIVING RISE TO
THE DETERMINATION THAT THE BUILDING NEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED, AND 'A
REFERENCE TO THE SECTION OR SECTIONS OF [A CODE] WHICH ARE BEING
VIOLATED BY REASON OF THE DEFECTS OR CONDITIONS ENUMERATED,'
WHERE THE CITY PROVIDED NEITHER IN ITS NOTICE."
II
{¶ 12} "THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY FINDING THAT THE
SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS A 'DANGEROUS BUILDING,' WHERE THE
UNCONTRADICTED TESTIMONY OF THE CITY’S WITNESSES WAS THAT THE
BUILDING IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION WAS NOT DANGEROUS."
STANDARD OF REVIEW
{¶ 13} Under R.C. 2506.04, in an administrative appeal, the common pleas court
considers the whole record, including any new or additional evidence, and determines
whether the administrative order is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
{¶ 14} As an appellate court, our standard of review to be applied in an R.C.
2506.04 appeal is "limited in scope." Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30, 34, 465 N.E.2d
848 (1984). "This statute grants a more limited power to the court of appeals to review
the judgment of the common pleas court only on 'questions of law,' which does not include
the same extensive power to weigh 'the preponderance of the substantial, reliable, and
probative evidence,' as is granted to the common pleas court." Id. at fn. 4. See also Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 6
Henley v. Youngstown Board of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St. 3d 142, 147, 2000-Ohio-
493, 735 N.E.2d 433.
{¶ 15} Although a court of appeals reviews a trial court's legal decisions de novo,
a court of appeals applies the more deferential abuse of discretion standard to a trial
court's factual determinations. See Willow Grove, Ltd. v. Olmsted Township Board of
Zoning Appeals, 169 Ohio St. 3d 759, 764, 2022-Ohio-4364, 207 N.E.3d 779. See also
Henley at 148 ("Accordingly, the court of appeals did not exceed the proper scope of
review under that statute when it sought to determine whether Section 80 applied to the
undisputed facts in the record, or whether the common pleas court abused its discretion
by failing to apply Section 80").
{¶ 16} "[T]he standard of review for courts of appeals in administrative appeals is
designed to strongly favor affirmance" and "permits reversal only when the common pleas
court errs in its application or interpretation of the law or its decision is unsupported by a
preponderance of the evidence as a matter of law." Cleveland Clinic Foundation v.
Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals, 141 Ohio St.3d 318, 2014-Ohio-4809, 23 N.E.3d
1161, ¶ 30.
{¶ 17} In his first assignment of error, Davis claims the trial court erred in finding
the city of Mansfield substantially complied with its notice requirements set forth in
Mansfield Codified Ordinances 1335.05(e) and (f), requiring a " 'specific itemization of the
defects and conditions' giving rise to the determination that the building needs to be
demolished," and " 'a reference to the section or sections of [a code] which is or are being
violated by reason of the defects or conditions enumerated.' " We disagree. Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 7
{¶ 18} The March 28, 2017 demolition notice sent to Helen C. Davis listed the
subject property and stated the following:
The above described structure was inspected under the provisions of
Chapters 1321, 1335 and 1371 of the City Codified Ordinances on March
16, 2017 by MIKE STARCHER of the Bureau of Buildings, Inspections,
Licenses and Permits and from such inspection it has been determined that
the same is declared a nuisance and abandoned, based on the following:
DEMOLISH ABANDONED WHITE 2 STORY VINYL SIDED FAMILY
DWELLING WITH EXTERIOR STRUCTURE DAMAGES. REMOVE ALL
ATTACHED DECKS, PORCHES, STEPS, ROOFING MATERIALS,
RAILINGS, BED SIDEWALKS LEADING TO ANY FRONT, SIDE AND
REAR DOORS. VACANT. NO UTILITIES. CONDEMNED. STRUCTURE
DAMAGES AND DETERIORATION OF ENTIRE BUILDING DUE TO
EXTENDED ABANDONMENT. GARBAGE, JUNK, LITTER, AND DEBRIS.
THIS IS AN EYESORE AND POSES AN IMMINENT THREAT TO
HEALTH, POTENTIAL FIRE AND THE SAFETY OF THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS TO BE DEMOLISHED UNDER THE CRITERIA
DESCRIBED IN CHAPTER 1335 OF THE CODIFIED ORDIANANCES
(SIC) OF THE CITY OF MANSFIELD.
This structure is DEEMED TO BE UNSAFE, to the life and health of children
and the community and is ordered to obtain a licensed demolition contractor Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 8
to demolish and dispose of properly all debris from premise within THIRTY
(30) DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.
You are hereby advised that this order can be appealed within TEN
(10) (sic) from the date of this order under the provisions of Section
1335.07 of the City Codified Ordinances before the City Planning
Commission * * *. PLEASE NOTE FAILURE TO APPEAL THIS ORDER
WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS FROM RECEIVING THIS NOTICE WILL RESULT
IN FURTHER PROCESSING OF DEMOLITION PROCEEDINGS.
(Emphasis sic.)
{¶ 19} Davis argues this notice failed to comply with Mansfield Codified
Ordinances 1335.05 which governs Notice and Order under Chapter 1335, Repair and
Demolition of Buildings. Specifically, he cites to subsections (e) and (f) which state the
following:
When, from an inspection of a building, structure or premises, the
Bureau of Buildings, Inspections, Licenses and Permits, the Health
Department or the Bureau of Fire Prevention and Arson has determined that
a building, structure or premises is insecure, unsafe, abandoned or vacant
and open and unsecured to trespass, structurally defective, especially liable
to fire, or endangers life, health or other buildings or property, a notice and
order shall issue from the Bureau of Buildings, Inspections, Licenses and
Permits to the owner or the person in charge and to the occupant of such Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 9
building, structure or premises which shall be substantially in the following
form:
(e) A specific itemization of the defects and conditions in the building,
structure or premises which required the determination made in subsection
(d) hereof.
(f) A reference to the section or sections of the Ohio Revised Code
and/or to the section or sections of any code of the City under the
enforcement jurisdiction of the Bureau of Buildings, Inspections, Licenses
and Permits, the Bureau of Fire Prevention and Arson or the Health
Department which is or are being violated by reason of the defects or
conditions enumerated in subsection (e) hereof.
{¶ 20} The magistrate found the notice substantially complied with subsection (e)
by listing seven defects with the property. August 12, 2022 Magistrate's Decision at
Conclusions of Law ¶ 22 and 25. As for subsection (f), the magistrate noted the planning
commission admitted that the notice did not contain specific section numbers. Id. at ¶ 26.
However, the magistrate found the notice referenced chapters of the Mansfield Codified
Ordinances and that was sufficient to put Davis on notice "of defects in the property that
warranted further examination of the ordinances and to direct him where to find the
relevant sections." Id. at ¶ 29. The magistrate concluded the notice substantially
complied with the intent and the form of Mansfield Codified Ordinances 1335.05. Id. at ¶
30 and 31. Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 10
{¶ 21} Further, the magistrate found Davis was sufficiently noticed of his right to
file an appeal. Id. at ¶ 32. Davis filed his appeal twenty-seven days late, yet the planning
commission provided him with an opportunity to be heard. Id. The magistrate concluded
"the essential requirements of due process, notice and an opportunity to be heard have
been satisfied." Id. at ¶ 33.
{¶ 22} We begin by noting that Davis never objected to the notice failing to
adequately comply with the city's notice ordinance. Previously, we have held the "[f]ailure
to raise procedural errors during administrative proceedings results in waiver of the right
to claim those errors in an appeal to the common pleas court under R.C. Chapter 2506
and subsequently to an appellate court." Weinfeld v. Welling, 5th Dist. Stark No.
2000CA00252, 2001 WL 361176, *5 (Apr. 9, 2001), citing Zurow v. City of Cleveland, 61
Ohio App.2d 14, 24, 399 N.E.2d 92 (8th Dist.1978). See also Kachovec v. City of Akron,
9th Dist. Summit No. 9948, 1981 WL 3982 (May 20, 1981). In the four years Davis
repeatedly appeared before the commission, he never made this claim. It was only after
the commission refused to give him still more time did he first raise this claim in the Court
of Common Pleas. But then it was too late.
{¶ 23} Even if we were to find that Davis had not waived this claim, we agree with
the magistrate's thorough analysis and find that he had sufficient notice. In support of his
arguments, Davis cites this court's opinion in Nucklos v. Board of Building Appeals, 5th
Dist. Stark No. 2001CA00092, 2001 WL 1606806 (Dec. 10, 2001). We, as did the
magistrate, find the case to be distinguishable. In Nucklos at *4, the panel found the city
of Canton issued a demolition notice without "a statement of the particulars in which the
building or structure is unsafe" as required by Canton Codified Ordinances 1301.12. The Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 11
notice merely cited "vacant and severely deteriorated condition of the premises" and "the
existence of numerous building code violations" which "constitute a public nuisance." The
panel concluded "[w]hile appellants were advised that their building failed to comply with
minimum housing standards, they were never informed exactly what repairs needed to
be performed to bring the building up to code. Without such a statement of the
'particulars', appellants were, in essence, deprived of a reasonable time in which to repair
the building." Id.
{¶ 24} To the contrary, in the case sub judice, the notice listed seven specific
conditions and was more detailed than the Nucklos notice. As noted by the magistrate
and supported in the record, Davis "claimed to have a full understanding of what was
needed to renovate the property, ability to perform the renovations, and awareness of the
permitting and inspection processes." (Footnotes omitted.) August 12, 2022 Magistrate's
Decision at Findings of Fact ¶ 12. He had over four years to make repairs, but consistently
failed to make the repairs, meet deadlines and benchmarks, and seek permits and
inspections. Id. at ¶ 8 and 15-20. While the Nucklos panel was concerned with depriving
appellants of a reasonable time in which to repair their building, Davis had "multiple
opportunities and repeated extensions of time" to complete the repairs and therefore "was
not deprived of a reasonable time in which to repair the building due to any deficiencies
in the March 28, 2017 notice." Id. at Conclusions of Law ¶ 35 and 36. If Davis was
confused as to what repairs needed to be made, he had a dozen "opportunities to be
heard at meetings of the Mansfield Planning Commission to request specificity and clarify
the Commission's expectations." Id. at ¶ 41. Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 12
{¶ 25} The magistrate concluded "there is a preponderance of reliable, probative
and substantial evidence that the City of Mansfield Planning Commission has complied
with the notice requirements which are a prerequisite to demolition as set forth in the City
of Mansfield Codified Ordinances." Id. at ¶ 45. The trial court adopted the magistrate's
decision. See Order on Appellants Objections to the Magistrates Decision filed February
2, 2023. Because Davis did not raise his objection before the commission regarding the
city's failure to strictly follow section (f) of 1335.05, he has waived that argument. Based
upon the foregoing and our review of the record, we find no error.
{¶ 26} Assignment of Error I is denied.
{¶ 27} In his second assignment of error, Davis claims the trial court erred in
finding the house was a "dangerous building." We disagree.
{¶ 28} Mansfield Codified Ordinances 1335.02(a) defines "dangerous building" as
"any building, wall, shed, fence or other man-made structure which is, in whole or part":
(1) Insecure, unsafe, abandoned or open and vacant and unsecured
to trespass, structurally defective and unsafe to health, life and other
property from any cause;
(2) Unsafe to the public health because of any condition which may
cause or aid in the inception or spread of disease, or injury to the health of
the occupants thereof or of its neighboring structures; or
(3) Is especially liable to fire, or maintains or creates a fire hazard to
the premises or to adjoining property for any cause. Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 13
{¶ 29} In his appeal to the trial court, Davis raised for the first time a claim that the
city wrongly imposed on him a habitability standard to avoid demolition; he contends he
was only obligated to abate the dangerousness of the building to avoid the demolition
order. Whether or not the city conflated the two standards, Davis is in no position to raise
this particular error. For over four years, beginning with Davis's handwritten notice of
appeal, he agreed to bring the building up to code in order to avoid its demolition. Thus,
assuming the city in fact erred, it was an error Davis invited both initially and repeatedly.
Accordingly, Davis cannot now raise that error. Knott v. Revolution Software, Inc., 181
Ohio App. 3d 519, 2009-Ohio-1191, 909 N.E.2d 702, ¶ 81.
{¶ 30} We instead confine our review to whether the trial court erred in finding the
structure to be dangerous under the municipal ordinance. It is undisputed at the time of
the issuance of the notice, March 28, 2017, the house had severe structural damage and
the entire house had deteriorated. The record from the planning commission includes
numerous photographs of the house depicting the dilapidated condition. Davis attended
multiple commission meetings and was always granted an extension to complete
promised repairs and obtain required inspections. As acknowledged by Davis during a
September 8, 2020 meeting, three years after the demolition notice, the house was "three
quarters covered," meaning the house was not properly sealed and thus open to the
elements. Commission Record at 68. The record contains photographs labeled "updates
05/20/2020" showing the condition of the house. The photographs include notations and
show the house with a largely open roof causing severe water damage to the interior with
possible mold issues; the second floor and wall studs were not properly supported which Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 14
may impact the support system for the second and third floors. During the May 25, 2021
meeting, Davis stated "[h]alf of the roof is done." Commission Record at 75. Davis was
to call for an inspection by May 17, 2021, but failed to do so. At the May meeting, after
four years, the planning commission voted to deny the appeal of the demolition notice; a
formal decision was sent to Davis by a letter dated June 23, 2021. Davis appealed to the
Court of Common Pleas.
{¶ 31} The magistrate held a hearing on October 28, 2021; she personally viewed
the house and accepted testimony and exhibits on the condition of the house. Stephen
Risser, the city building inspector who was also at the site-view, testified the house's
foundation and roof were still incomplete. October 28, 2021 T. at 44-45, 50, 68. He
opined the foundation could possibly be structurally unsafe based on his observations;
water damage to the house because of the roof issues can undermine the structural
integrity of the house. Id. at 45, 48. He could not testify to "the continuous load bearing
path of that interior load bearing wall" because there was no access to the basement. Id.
at 46. There were improper connections of how the second floor was attached to the first
floor and problems with the stairs from the first floor to the second floor; these issues
demonstrated structural insecurity. Id. at 46-48. Based on his observations, Risser
testified the house has sustained structural damage. Id. at 51. He would not say it was
in "imminent danger of collapse," but it was "not structurally sound enough to occupy."
Id. He agreed if the current conditions continued, they could "eventually cause the
conditions to collapse." Id. At a minimum, this testimony supports there was an ongoing
violation under Mansfield Codified Ordinances 1335.02(a)(2). Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 15
{¶ 32} At the conclusion of the hearing, the magistrate gave Davis more time to
complete eight specific repairs to bring the house up to code and set a deadline and
second hearing for January 6, 2022. Id. at 96-97; Magistrate's Order filed October 29,
2021. The repairs ordered to be completed included repairing the foundation to comply
with building codes and to install stairs to the basement so further inspection of the
foundation and load bearing components can be had during the January hearing site-
view. Davis was also ordered to request periodic building inspections as the ordered
projects were completed. The magistrate informed Davis if the repairs are not done, "then
I will have no hesitation about going ahead and allowing the City to demolish the
property"; Davis stated he understood. October 28, 2021 T. at 93. The January hearing
was continued to February 9, 2022. Davis was permitted to work on the house during the
continued time.
{¶ 33} At the February 9, 2022 hearing, the magistrate again viewed the house
and accepted testimony about the ordered repairs not being completed and how Davis
failed to obtain required inspections. February 9, 2022 T. at 10-11, 13, 17-19, 25-26. The
magistrate was unable to view the basement because the basement stairs were not
installed as ordered. Id. at 28. Tim Brinley, the city building electrical inspector, went
down a ladder to inspect the basement. Id. at 10, 28. He testified a basement wall was
"bowed in and cracked open, in places approximately a half inch." Id. at 11. He stated
"it is a possibility that it could continue to bow in and collapse." Id. When questioned on
cross-examination about the house's "potential hazard to the safety of the house next
door or passersby," Brinley stated, "as the structure itself falling down, I don't think it
presents anything that way." Id. at 15. Marc Milliron, the manager of the Bureau of Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 16
Buildings and Codes, testified after the October hearing, Davis called for an inspection
on January 5, 2022, then canceled the request because the January hearing scheduled
for the next day had been continued. Id. at 17-18.
{¶ 34} The magistrate personally viewed the building on two occasions and was
able to see what she perceived as dangerous conditions. Brinley testified there was the
possibility that the building's basement wall could continue to bow in and collapse, "it's
kinda like at the beginning stages." February 9, 2022 T. at 13. Given the fact that Davis
has been agreeing and failing to make necessary repairs for five years, after receiving
numerous extensions, it is not unreasonable to believe that the basement wall could give
way and collapse the building. The foundation of the building and the load bearing wall
have been ongoing concerns, but Davis never completed the basement stairs for a proper
inspection. City inspectors had to traverse a ladder to get in and out of the basement
during the February 2022 viewing.
{¶ 35} The magistrate noted the house was "structurally defective" at the time of
the notice which was then, by definition under Mansfield Codified Ordinances 1335.02(a),
a "dangerous building." August 12, 2022 Magistrate's Decision at Conclusions of Law ¶
49. The magistrate found photographs from that time support that conclusion. Id. at ¶
50. The magistrate acknowledged repairs had been made to the house over the last five
years and analyzed all the changes. Id. at ¶ 51. First, the magistrate noted Davis failed
to have anything inspected to see whether any of the repairs complied with the building
code. Id. at ¶ 54. Through her two site-views, the magistrate determined the repairs "to
nearly every major system in the house - - foundation, roof, framing, electrical wiring,
plumbing, masonry, and drywall - either have not started, are incomplete, or remain Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 17
significantly structurally defective." Id. at ¶ 56; see Findings of Fact ¶ 23, 24, 38. The
magistrate found at ¶ 58 three specific conditions remain "unsafe to heath" or "life":
a. The grading remains unsafe as the ditch or trench was not filled in,
creating a potential trip and fall hazard.
b. The stairs are unsafe because there is movement in the stairs, indicating
that the stairs are not properly supported and are structurally insecure; there
is no mechanical ledger or stringer; and, there are no handrails on the
staircases. All of these conditions present potential collapse and/or falling
hazards.
c. The floors are unsafe because the flooring is rotten and broken up and
the flooring contains voids and holes, creating a potential trip and fall hazard
of fall-through hazard.
{¶ 36} The magistrate concluded, and the trial court agreed, the house remained
"structurally defective" and "unsafe to health" or "life" and therefore was a dangerous
building under Mansfield Codified Ordinances 1335.02(a). Id. at ¶ 59. Based upon
Mansfield's definition of "dangerous building," we cannot find the trial court erred in so
finding.
{¶ 37} Assignment of Error II is denied. Richland County, Case No. 2023 CA 0009 18
{¶ 38} The judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Richland County, Ohio is
hereby affirmed.
By King, J.
Gwin, P.J. and
Baldwin, J. concur.