[Cite as Pay N Stay Rentals, L.L.C. v. Canton, 2020-Ohio-1573.]
COURT OF APPEALS STARK COUNTY, OHIO FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
PAY N STAY RENTALS, LLC JUDGES: Hon. William B. Hoffman, P.J. Plaintiff-Appellant Hon. W. Scott Gwin, J. Hon. Patricia A. Delaney, J. -vs- Case No. 2019 CA 00148 CITY OF CANTON
Defendant-Appellee O P I N IO N
CHARACTER OF PROCEEDINGS: Appeal from the Stark County Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 2019-CV-66
JUDGMENT: Affirmed
DATE OF JUDGMENT ENTRY: April 17, 2020
APPEARANCES:
For Plaintiff-Appellant For Defendant-Appellee
JOHN V. BOGGINS, ESQ. KEVIN R. L’HOMMEDIEU 1428 Market Avenue, North PHILLIP D. SCHANDEL Canton, Ohio 44714-2616 Canton Law Department 218 Cleveland Avenue, S.W. MELISSA S. ULRICH, ESQ. Canton, Ohio 44701-1906 5888 Linder Circle, N.E. Canton, Ohio 44721 Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 2
Hoffman, P.J. {¶1} Plaintiff-appellant Pay N Stay Rentals, LLC (“PNS”) appeals the September
12, 2019 Judgment Entry entered by the Stark County Common Pleas Court affirming the
decision of the defendant-appellee City of Canton (“Canton”) Zoning Board PNS’s non-
conforming use of its property was voluntarily discontinued or abandoned for more than
one year.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS AND CASE
{¶2} In October, 2018, PNS purchased property located at 1610 Yale Avenue
N.W., in Canton, Ohio. The structure located on the property was built in 1920 as a single-
family residence. In 1946, the structure was converted into a four-unit residence.
{¶3} In 1977, Canton enacted its Zoning Code, which restricted structures in the
area of PNS’s property to single-family residences. Because of the structure’s pre-
existing use as a four-unit residence, it was “grandfathered” and allowed to keep its
nonconforming use unless “voluntarily discontinued or abandoned for more than one
year” pursuant to Canton Cod. Ord. 1133.03(d). If voluntarily discontinued or abandoned,
the structure would revert to a single-family residence and could only regain its
nonconforming use status by being granted a variance by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
{¶4} The property was purchased by Nick and Parthena Halkides in 1974, but
due to a series of health problems, the property remained vacant for a long period of time.
Nick Halkides passed away in 2013, and the property was transferred to Parthena
Halkides. The neighbors observed the deterioration of the structure of the home, and the
lack of maintenance of the property.
{¶5} PNS purchased the property for $26,400.00 at auction in 2018. Within thirty
days of the sale, PNS submitted an application to Canton to register the building as a Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 3
four-unit residence, and paid the registration fee. A week later, Canton rejected the
application and returned the fee, claiming the property had lost its nonconforming multi-
family use status due to abandonment.
{¶6} PNS filed an appeal with the Board of Zoning Appeals on November 27,
2018. A hearing was held on December 18, 2018. On January 4, 2019, Canton issued
a letter denying the nonconforming use. The Board of Zoning Appeals found the
nonconforming use was voluntarily discontinued or abandoned for more than one year
pursuant to Canton Cod. Ord. 1133.03(d).
{¶7} PNS filed an appeal of the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals to the
Stark County Common Pleas Court. PNS also filed a request for a transcript of the
hearing. Canton notified PNS due to an error, the testimony taken at the hearing was not
recorded.
{¶8} On February 4, 2019, the Common Pleas Court received the decision of the
Board of Zoning Appeals, the Board of Zoning Appeals application, the list of property
owners notified as required by ordinance, the agenda for the Board of Zoning Appeals,
the minutes of the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting, and the findings of fact of the Board
of Zoning Appeals.
{¶9} The trial court affirmed the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals, finding
its conclusion the property lost its status as a nonconforming use due to abandonment
was supported by a preponderance of evidence in the record, and was not an abuse of
discretion. It is from the September 12, 2019 judgment of the trial court affirming the
decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals PNS prosecutes its appeal, assigning as error: Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 4
I. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW WHEN IT
AFFIRMED THE APPELLEE CITY OF CANTON BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS’ DECISION THAT THE 4-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING
LOCATED AT 1610 YALE AVENUE N.W. IN CANTON, OHIO, HAD BEEN
ABANDONED, THEREBY LOSING ITS NON-CONFORMING MULTI-
FAMILY STATUS UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCES FOR THE CITY
OF CANTON.
II. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION WHEN IT
FOUND THAT THE APPELLEE CITY OF CANTON BOARD OF ZONING
APPEALS’ DECISION WAS SUPPORTED BY A PREPONDERANCE OF
THE EVIDENCE.
I.
{¶10} PNS argues the court erred as a matter of law in finding the Halkides family
abandoned the nonconforming use of the property. PNS argues problems with
maintenance of the property are insufficient as a matter of law to demonstrate
abandonment; and actual intent to abandon the property must be shown. PNS argues
because the Halkides family continued to pay registration fees for a four-unit dwelling and
marketed the property at auction as a four-unit dwelling, intent to abandon was not
demonstrated and the trial court erred in affirming the decision of the Board of Zoning
Appeals.
{¶11} R.C. 2506.04 sets forth the applicable standard of review for a court of
common pleas in an administrative appeal: Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 5
[T]he court may find that the order, adjudication, or decision is
unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported
by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence on
the whole record. Consistent with its findings, the court may affirm, reverse,
vacate, or modify the order, adjudication, or decision, or remand the cause
to the officer or body appealed from with instructions to enter an order,
adjudication, or decision consistent with the findings or opinion of the court.
The judgment of the court may be appealed by any party on questions of
law as provided in the Rules of Appellate Procedure and, to the extent not
in conflict with those rules, Chapter 2505 of the Revised Code.
{¶12} The Ohio Supreme Court further explained:
[W]e have distinguished the standard of review to be applied by
common pleas courts and courts of appeals in R.C. Chapter 2506
administrative appeals. The common pleas court considers the ‘whole
record,’ including any new or additional evidence admitted under R.C.
2506.03, and determines whether the administrative order is
unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported
by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence. See
Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trustees (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 608, 612, 693
N.E.2d 219, * * * citing Dudukovich v. Lorain Metro. Hous. Auth. (1979), 58
Ohio St.2d 202, 206–207, 12 O.O.3d 198, 389 N.E.2d 1113 * * *. Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 6
{¶13} Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142, 147, 735
N.E.2d 433 (2000).
{¶14} As an appellate court, however, our standard of review to be applied in an
R.C. 2506.04 appeal is “more limited in scope.” Kisil v. Sandusky, 12 Ohio St.3d 30, 34,
12 OBR 26, 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
substantial, reliable and probative evidence,’ as is granted to the common pleas court.”
Id. at fn.4. See, also, Health Management, Inc. v. Union Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 118
Ohio App.3d 281, 285, 692 N.E.2d 667 (1997). “It is incumbent on the trial court to
examine the evidence. Such is not the charge of the appellate court.” Lorain City School
Dist. Bd. of Edn. v. State Emp. Relations Bd., 40 Ohio St.3d 257, 261, 533 N.E.2d 264
(1988).
{¶15} Ultimately, the standard of review for appellate courts in a Section 2506
zoning appeal is whether the common pleas court abused its discretion in making its
determinations pursuant to R.C. 2506.04. See Weber v. Troy Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals,
5th Dist. Delaware No. 07 CAH 04 0017, 2008-Ohio-1163, ¶13; Powers v. City of Rocky
River Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 70439, 1996 WL 648689 (Nov. 7,
1996). Thus, the standard of review for appellate courts in this context is “designed to
strongly favor affirmance.” Frazeysburg v. Stokes, 5th Dist. Muskingum No. CT2018-
0022, 2018-Ohio-4153, ¶17, citing Cleveland Clinic Foundation v. Cleveland Board of
Zoning Appeals, 141 Ohio St.3d 318, 2014-Ohio-4809, 23 N.E.3d 1161. These standards
permit reversal only when the common pleas court errs in its application or interpretation Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 7
of the law or its decision is unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence as a matter
of law. Cleveland Clinic Foundation, supra, at ¶ 30.
{¶16} PNS argues the trial court erred as a matter of law in its interpretation of the
law concerning abandonment, and thereby erred in finding the decision of the Board of
Zoning Appeals to be supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
{¶17} Canton Codified Ordinance 1133.03 provides in pertinent part:
If a lawful use involving individual structures, or of a structure and
premises in combination exists at the effective date of adoption or
amendment of this Zoning Ordinance that would not be allowed in the
district under the terms of this Ordinance, the lawful use may be continued
so long as it remains otherwise lawful, subject to the following provisions:
(d) When a nonconforming use of a structure, or structure and
premises in combination is voluntarily discontinued or abandoned for more
than one year, the structure or structure and premises in combination, shall
not thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district
in which it is located unless approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
{¶18} PNS cites this Court’s definition of “abandonment” as set forth in Durben v.
Malek, 5th Dist. Tuscarawas No. 2013 AP 08 0032, 2014-Ohio-2611, ¶ 30:
“Abandonment requires affirmative proof of the intent to abandon
coupled with acts or omissions implementing the intent.” Village of New Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 8
Richmond v. Painter, 12th Dist. No CA2002–10–080, 2003–Ohio–3871 at ¶
9, citing Davis v. Suggs (1983), 10 Ohio App.3d 50, 52, 460 N.E.2d 665.
Intent to abandon “must be shown by unequivocal and decisive acts
indicative of abandonment.” Erie Metroparks Bd. of Commrs. v. Key Trust
Co. of Ohio, 145 Ohio App.3d 782, 790, 2001–Ohio–2888 at ¶ 47 (Citations
omitted). Mere non-use is not sufficient to establish the fact of
abandonment, absent other evidence tending to prove the intent to
abandon.” Long v. Noah's Lost Ark Inc., 158 Ohio App .3d 206, 814 N.E.2d
555, 2004–Ohio–4155, ¶ 35 (7th Dist.) (quoting Davis v. Suggs, 10 Ohio
App.3d 50, 52, 460 N.E.2d 665 (12th Dist .1983).
{¶19} We note Durben did not deal with the issue of discontinued or abandoned
nonconforming use of property in a zoning context, but rather dealt with the issue of
abandonment of personal property in a tort action for conversion.
{¶20} PNS also cites this Court to City of Canton v. Pappas, 5th Dist. Stark No.
5726, 1982 WL 2910. In Pappas, this Court considered Canton's action to enjoin Pappas
from operating a bar, alleging the bar had lost its right to operate as nonconforming use
because it closed in 1977, shortly after the previous owner died. Pappas bought the
property in 1979, and eventually reopened the bar in 1980. This Court held the
discontinuance of the nonconforming use was involuntary rather than voluntary based on
several factors: Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 9
It is the conclusion of this court that the cessation of the operation of
the bar from November 11, 1977 to February, 1980 was an involuntary
discontinuance because of the death of two parties, to wit: the licenseholder
and operator of the bar and the death of the landowner or owner of the
property or the building with resulting complications of administrations of
estate. The repeated renewal of D-5 license in the name of the estate and
designating the subject premises is an overt expression of intent to continue
the business at that location.
The sickness of the barmaid and the disrepair of the building and
orders by the Safety Department to temporarily discontinue are facts
tending to justify the discontinuance of the business. The extensive need of
repair and refurbishing the building which were done appear reasonable.
{¶21} Id. at *3.
{¶22} PNS argues the instant case is indistinguishable from Pappas because just
as the bar owner continued to purchase a liquor license, Mrs. Halkides continued to pay
the registration fee for the home as a four-unit dwelling. However, the purchase of the
liquor license was not the only evidence we relied on in Pappas to conclude the use was
not voluntarily discontinued or abandoned. In Pappas, the totality of the evidence
demonstrated an ongoing intent to use the building as a bar, and an involuntary temporary
discontinuance of use of the building as a bar.
{¶23} In the instant case, the evidence at the hearing demonstrated while Mrs.
Halkides continued to pay the four-unit registration fee, the building had been vacant Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 10
since the 1980’s. While a friend and neighbor of Mrs. Halkides testified she mowed the
lawn and picked up trash from the property, and the property was therefore not
“abandoned,” we note there is a distinction between the property itself being abandoned,
and the nonconforming use being abandoned. While there was evidence family did not
want to sell the home because it had belonged to an aunt, for approximately 30 years the
family did nothing other than pay the four-unit registration fee to maintain the
nonconforming use of the property as a four-unit dwelling. In fact, the testimony of
Elizabeth Burick, owner of PNS, established when the property was being rented out, the
rental was too much for Mrs. Halkides to handle. All of this evidence supports the
conclusion of the Board of Zoning Appeals Mrs. Halkides voluntarily discontinued or
abandoned use of the property as a four-unit rental dwelling for more than a year prior to
its sale to PNS.
{¶24} We find the trial court did not abuse its discretion in affirming the decision
of the Board of Zoning Appeals, as the court did not err in its application or interpretation
of the law, nor was its decision unsupported by a preponderance of the evidence as a
matter of law.
{¶25} The first assignment of error is overruled.
II.
{¶26} PNS argues the trial court abused its discretion in overruling its motion for
an evidentiary hearing, and in finding the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals
supported by a preponderance of the evidence. In order to find an abuse of discretion,
we must determine the trial court's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary or Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 11
unconscionable and not merely an error of law or judgment. Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5
Ohio St.3d 217, 450 N.E.2d 1140 (1983).
{¶27} PNS first argues the trial court abused its discretion in not conducting an
evidentiary hearing because there was no transcript of the proceedings filed, nor was the
file of the Building Department filed with the trial court.
{¶28} PNS argues pursuant to R.C. 2506.03, the trial court was required to hold
an evidentiary hearing because no transcript of the proceedings was available:
(A) The hearing of an appeal taken in relation to a final order,
adjudication, or decision covered by division (A) of section 2506.01 of the
Revised Code shall proceed as in the trial of a civil action, but the court shall
be confined to the transcript filed under section 2506.02 of the Revised
Code unless it appears, on the face of that transcript or by affidavit filed by
the appellant, that one of the following applies:
(1)The transcript does not contain a report of all evidence admitted
or proffered by the appellant.
(2) The appellant was not permitted to appear and be heard in
person, or by the appellant's attorney, in opposition to the final order,
adjudication, or decision, and to do any of the following:
(a) Present the appellant's position, arguments, and contentions;
(b) Offer and examine witnesses and present evidence in support;
(c) Cross-examine witnesses purporting to refute the appellant's
position, arguments, and contentions; Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 12
(d) Offer evidence to refute evidence and testimony offered in
opposition to the appellant's position, arguments, and contentions;
(e) Proffer any such evidence into the record, if the admission of it is
denied by the officer or body appealed from.
(3) The testimony adduced was not given under oath.
(4) The appellant was unable to present evidence by reason of a
lack of the power of subpoena by the officer or body appealed from, or the
refusal, after request, of that officer or body to afford the appellant
opportunity to use the power of subpoena when possessed by the officer or
body.
(5) The officer or body failed to file with the transcript conclusions of
fact supporting the final order, adjudication, or decision.
If any circumstance described in divisions (A)(1) to (5) of this section
applies, the court shall hear the appeal upon the transcript and additional
evidence as may be introduced by any party. At the hearing, any party may
call, as if on cross-examination, any witness who previously gave testimony
in opposition to that party.
{¶29} It is undisputed a verbatim transcript taken from a recording of the
proceedings was not filed in the instant case. However, the term “transcript” as used in
this statute encompasses more than a verbatim transcript taken from a recording of the
proceedings. Neither R.C. 2506.02 or 2506.03 require a verbatim transcript of the
evidence be filed; rather, a synopsis of the evidence or minutes of the meeting will suffice Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 13
as a transcript of the proceedings. Green Vision Materials, Inc. v. Newbury Twp. Bd. of
Zoning Appeals, 11th Dist. Geauga No. 2013-G-3136, 2014-Ohio-4290, ¶15.
{¶30} Because no verbatim transcript of the proceedings was required, and
Canton filed the detailed minutes of the meeting, PNS was required to demonstrate one
of the circumstances set forth in R.C. 2506.03(A)(1) to (5) to be entitled to an evidentiary
hearing.
{¶31} Despite being given multiple opportunities by the trial court to present the
court with evidence not included in the minutes of the meeting pursuant to R.C.
2506.03(A)(1), PNS failed to identify or present the court with any additional evidence
admitted or proffered which was not included in the record of the proceedings. Further,
while PNS argues in this assignment of error the board failed to file conclusions of fact
supporting its decision, a document titled “Findings of Fact to Support Decision to Deny”
was filed with the record of the proceedings as Exhibit F.
{¶32} PNS also argues the court abused its discretion in failing to review the entire
Building Department file. While the court states in its judgment entry the complete
Building Department record was forwarded promptly, if this is indeed the case, the
Building Department record was not filed as part of the record before this Court. However,
we find no abuse of discretion in failing to file or review the Building Department file. PNS
points to nothing in the record suggesting the file was reviewed by the Board of Zoning
Appeals. In fact, the only evidence submitted on the issue was the affidavit of board
member Kathleen Tatarsky, filed by Canton, averring she did not review the entire
Building Department file on the property, and the file was not presented or considered at
the Board of Zoning Appeals meeting. We find no abuse of discretion in the trial court’s Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 14
failure to consider the Building Department file, as the record demonstrates it was not
considered at the meeting.
{¶33} PNS argues the decision was based on hearsay and on evidence irrelevant
to abandonment. “Since the BZA is not a court of law, it is not required to follow the rules
of evidence, including the admissibility of evidence and hearsay testimony, as well as
rulings on objections. The fact that the BZA may be composed of a body of lay people
must be taken into consideration * * *.” Hollinger v. Pike Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 5th
Dist. Stark No. 2009CA00275, 2010-Ohio-5097, ¶ 60, quoting North Coast Payphones,
Inc. v. Cleveland, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 88190, 2007–Ohio–6991, ¶11.
{¶34} We find no error in the consideration of hearsay testimony. Further, while
evidence was presented of matters not relevant to abandonment, such as problems with
PNS’s other rental properties and the effect on the community of a four-unit rental, the
record reflects legal counsel for Canton steered the testimony toward the issue of
abandonment at several points in the hearing, and the factual conclusions of the board
members reflect they focused properly on the issue of abandonment or discontinuation
of the nonconforming use.
{¶35} Finally, PNS argues the court abused its discretion in finding the owners of
the property intended to abandon the nonconforming use because they continued to pay
registration fees for a four-unit rental property. For the reasons set forth in our discussion
of the first assignment of error, we find the court did not abuse its discretion in affirming
the decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals on this issue. Stark County, Case No. 2019 CA 00148 15
{¶36} The second assignment of error is overruled.
{¶37} The judgment of the Stark County Common Pleas Court is affirmed.
By: Hoffman, P.J. Gwin, J. and Delaney, J. concur