Case Title: Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp. v. Harrison Township Board of Zoning Appeals

Citation: 2020-Ohio-845

Docket Number: 2018-1008

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2020-03-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Slip Opinion 
No. 2020-Ohio-845.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2020-OHIO-845 
COLUMBUS BITUMINOUS CONCRETE CORPORATION ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. 
HARRISON TOWNSHIP BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS ET AL., APPELLEES. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp. v. Harrison Twp. Bd. of 
Zoning Appeals, Slip Opinion No. 2020-Ohio-845.] 
Zoning—Townships—Township trustees may regulate mining under R.C. 
519.02(A) only in the interest of public health and safety—R.C. 519.141(A) 
does not provide board of zoning appeals with basis for denying an 
application to engage in mining when an application fails to meet a 
township’s general conditions—Court of appeals’ judgment reversed and 
cause remanded to the board of zoning appeals. 
(No. 2018-1008—Submitted July 9, 2019—Decided March 11, 2020.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Pickaway County, 
No. 17CA15, 2018-Ohio-2706. 
________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
O’CONNOR, C.J. 
{¶ 1} In this appeal, we consider whether appellee Harrison Township 
Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) lawfully denied an application for a conditional-
use permit to conduct sand-and-gravel mining based on general conditions 
applicable to all conditional uses set out in a Harrison Township zoning resolution.  
We conclude that it did not.  We therefore reverse the judgment of the Fourth 
District Court of Appeals, vacate the orders issued by the BZA and the court of 
common pleas, and remand the cause to the BZA. 
I. BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} Appellant Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corporation owns 178.9 
acres of land in Harrison Township, on which it seeks to have appellant Shelly 
Materials, Inc., conduct quarrying and mining of sand and gravel.  (We refer to 
appellants, Columbus Bituminous Concrete Corp. and Shelly Materials, Inc., 
collectively as “CBCC.”)  CBCC sought approval from the BZA to engage in sand-
and-gravel mining, but the BZA denied its request, and the court of common pleas 
and the Fourth District affirmed on appeal. 
A. Relevant Laws 
{¶ 3} Ohio townships have “ ‘no inherent or constitutionally granted police 
power, the power upon which zoning legislation is based.  Whatever police or 
zoning power townships of Ohio have is that delegated by the General Assembly, 
and it follows that such power is limited to that which is expressly delegated to 
them by statute.’ ”  Bainbridge Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Funtime, Inc., 55 Ohio St.3d 
106, 108, 563 N.E.2d 717 (1990), quoting Yorkavitz v. Columbia Twp. Bd. of 
Trustees, 166 Ohio St. 349, 351, 142 N.E.2d 655 (1957).  See also Apple Group, 
Ltd. v. Granger Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 144 Ohio St.3d 188, 2015-Ohio-2343, 
41 N.E.3d 1185, ¶ 6 (“In Ohio, the authority of a township to enact zoning 
ordinances derives not from the township’s inherent authority or the Ohio 
Constitution, but from the General Assembly”). 
January Term, 2020 
 
3
1. Revised Code Provisions on Township Trustees’ Power to Adopt Regulations 
{¶ 4} R.C. 519.02 grants township trustees the power to adopt certain 
building and land-use regulations.  These regulations pertain to matters such as “the 
location, height, bulk, number of stories, and size of buildings and other structures, 
* * * and the uses of land for trade, industry, residence, recreation, or other 
purposes.”  R.C. 519.02(A).  But the statute places certain restrictions on township 
trustees’ power to adopt these regulations.  Namely, the regulations are permitted 
to further only specified interests, including “public health and safety” and “public 
convenience, comfort, prosperity, or general welfare.”  Id.  The statute also provides 
that certain types of regulations may apply only to nonresidential properties.  Id. 
{¶ 5} After setting out these grants of power, R.C. 519.02(A) contains a 
provision applying only to mining activities regulated under R.C. Chapters 1513 
and 1514, which concern coal and other surface mining, respectively.  The sand-
and-gravel mining sought to be engaged in by CBCC is regulated under 
R.C. Chapter 1514.  R.C. 519.02(A) states: 
 
For any activities permitted and regulated under Chapter 
1513. or 1514. of the Revised Code and any related processing 
activities, the board of township trustees may regulate under the 
authority conferred by this section only in the interest of public 
health or safety. 
 
(Emphasis added.)  Id. 
2. Revised Code Provisions on the Board of Zoning Appeals’ Power to Grant 
Conditional Zoning Certificates 
{¶ 6} The Revised Code also empowers a township board of zoning appeals 
to “[g]rant conditional zoning certificates for the use of land, buildings, or other 
structures if such certificates for specific uses are provided for in the zoning 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
resolution.”  R.C. 519.14(C).  But for mining activities “permitted and regulated 
under Chapter 1514. of the Revised Code * * *, the board shall proceed in 
accordance with section 519.141 of the Revised Code.”  Id. 
{¶ 7} R.C. 519.141(A) provides that the BZA “shall not consider or base its 
determination on matters that are regulated by any federal, state, or local agency.”  
But it “may require as a condition of the approval of a conditional zoning certificate 
* * * compliance with any general standards contained in the zoning resolution that 
apply to all conditional uses that are provided for in the zoning resolution * * *.”  
Id. With certain exceptions not relevant here, the BZA also may  
 
require any specified measure, including, but not limited to, one or 
more of the following: 
(1) Inspections of nearby structures and water wells to 
determine structural integrity and water levels; 
(2) Compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws 
and regulations; 
(3) Identification of specific roads in accordance with 
division (B) of section 303.141 of the Revised Code to be used as 
the primary means of ingress to and egress from the proposed 
activity; 
(4) Compliance with reasonable noise abatement measures; 
(5) Compliance with reasonable dust abatement measures; 
(6) Establishment of setbacks, berms, and buffers for the 
proposed activity; 
(7) Establishment of a complaint procedure; 
(8) Any other measure reasonably related to public health 
and safety. 
 
January Term, 2020 
 
5
R.C. 519.141(A). 
{¶ 8} Finally, the board of zoning appeals may “[r]evoke [a] * * * 
conditional zoning certificate granted for the extraction of minerals, if any 
condition of the * * * certificate is violated.”  R.C. 519.14(D). 
3. Regulation of Conditional Uses in Harrison Township 
{¶ 9} Pursuant to R.C. Chapter 519, the Harrison Township Board of 
Trustees has adopted a zoning resolution regulating land use in the township.  See 
Harrison Township, Pickaway County, Ohio Zoning Resolution (March 2008), 
available 
at 
https://www.harrisonpickaway.com/pdf/zoningresolution.pdf 
(accessed 
February 
14, 
2020) 
[https://perma.cc/ZEX9-7NNE] 
(“Zoning 
Resolution”). 
{¶ 10} Article XVII of the Zoning Resolution identifies uses that are 
specifically permitted on property zoned as a “general business district,” as 
CBCC’s property is, as well as several “Conditional Uses.”  A “Conditional Use” 
is “an uncommon or infrequent use which may be permitted in specific zoning 
districts subject to compliance with certain standards, explicit conditions, and the 
granting of a conditional use permit as specified in Article IX of this Resolution.”  
Id. at Article 2, Section 2.02.  “Quarrying or mining operations” are among the 
conditional uses permitted in a general business district, “provided that all County, 
State and federal regulations are met and licenses are obtained.”  Id. at Article XVII, 
Section 17.03(J). 
{¶ 11} A property owner seeking permission to engage in a conditional use 
must file an application for review by the BZA.  See id. at Article IX, Section 9.02.  
The application must contain specific information on the proposed conditional use 
and its impact on the surrounding area, id., and for applications to engage in mining 
in particular, a development plan is required, id. at Article XVII, Section 17.03(J). 
{¶ 12} In addition to these provisions, the township trustees have enacted 
General Standards for Conditional Uses, which the BZA is also required to 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
consider.  Id. at Article IX, Section 9.03 (“General Standards”).  The General 
Standards require the BZA to “review the particular facts and circumstances of each 
proposed use in terms of [six specified standards] and * * * find adequate evidence 
that such use at the proposed location meets all of [those] requirements.”  Id.  Three 
of those six requirements are relevant to this case—subsections (B), (E), and (F).  
They require the BZA to find the following: 
 
(B) The use will be designed, constructed, operated and 
maintained so as to be harmonious and appropriate with the existing 
or intended character of the general vicinity and that such use will 
not change the essential character of the same area. 
 
* * * 
(E) The use will not involve uses, activities, processes, 
materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be 
detrimental to any persons, property, or the general welfare by 
reason of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare 
or odors. 
(F) The use will be consistent with the objectives of this 
Zoning Resolution and any adopted comprehensive plan for the 
area. 
 
Id. at Section 9.03. 
{¶ 13} According to Article XI of the Zoning Resolution, “a conditional use 
shall be allowed [by the BZA] * * * when such use, its location, extent and method 
of development will not substantially alter the character of the vicinity, or unduly 
interfere with or adversely impact the use of adjacent lots.”  Id. at Article XI, 
Section 11.02.04. 
January Term, 2020 
 
7
{¶ 14} In the course of considering the application, the BZA may hold a 
hearing.  Id. at Section 9.05.  In the end, the BZA “shall either approve, approve 
with supplementary conditions * * *, or disapprove the application as presented.”  
Id. at Section 9.06; Section 9.04 (“In granting any conditional use, the Board may 
prescribe appropriate conditions and safeguards in conformance with this 
Resolution”).  Once an application is approved, the BZA may revoke the 
conditional-use certificate “upon written evidence by any resident or official of the 
Township of violation of the Zoning Resolution and/or written terms and conditions 
upon which approval was based.”  Id. at Section 9.07. 
B. The decisions in this case 
{¶ 15} CBCC submitted an application for conditional use to the BZA, 
seeking approval to engage in quarrying and mining sand and gravel.  The BZA 
held three hearings on the application, at which it received testimony from 
numerous witnesses.  At the conclusion of the third hearing, the BZA denied the 
application.  In doing so, however, it made no findings of fact and engaged in no 
discussion of the relevant law.  It subsequently issued a written decision in which 
it stated only that CBCC “was unable to affirmatively prove all the requirements of 
[the General Standards contained in] the Harrison Township Zoning Resolution.”  
It provided no explanation of what facts supported that conclusion. 
{¶ 16} CBCC appealed the BZA’s decision to the Pickaway County Court 
of Common Pleas.  The trial court held that the BZA appropriately required CBCC 
to show compliance with the General Standards contained in the Zoning 
Resolution.  It also held that the BZA did not err when it found that CBCC had 
provided insufficient evidence of its proposal’s compliance with the General 
Standards, pointing to the three General Standards noted above.  See id. at 
Section 9.03(B), (E), (F).  Unlike the BZA, however, the trial court identified 
evidence it believed supported the conclusion that CBCC had failed to meet these 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
General Standards.1  The trial court therefore affirmed the BZA’s denial of CBCC’s 
application for a conditional-use permit. 
{¶ 17} CBCC then appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeals, which 
affirmed.  The appellate court rejected CBCC’s argument that the trial court 
inappropriately considered the Zoning Resolution’s General Standards for 
Conditional Uses; it did so because R.C. 519.141(A) expressly permits the BZA to 
“require as a condition of the approval of a conditional zoning certificate * * * 
compliance with any general standards contained in the zoning resolution that apply 
to all conditional uses,” R.C. 519.141(A).  See 2018-Ohio-2706 at ¶ 27, 33.  The 
appellate court also found sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that CBCC 
failed to meet the General Standards contained in Article IX, Sections 9.03(B), (E), 
and (F) of the Zoning Resolution. 
{¶ 18} CBCC then sought review by this court, and we granted jurisdiction 
over the following proposition of law:   
 
A township’s jurisdiction to regulate surface mining 
activities permitted and regulated under Chapter 1513. or 1514. 
through zoning is strictly limited to matters of public health or 
safety, whether mining is a permitted use or conditional use under 
the township zoning resolution.  R.C. 519.02.  A township may not 
regulate mining in the interest of general welfare, directly or 
indirectly through the creation of general zoning criteria that appl[y] 
to all permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the township, 
including mining.  R.C. 519.02, 519.14, and 519.141. 
                                                 
1. Among other things, the trial court pointed to a substantial increase in traffic in the area, noting 
that up to 180 truck trips per day were expected, along with the lack of any sound, sight, and safety 
barriers planned for the south side of CBCC’s property, insufficient dust-abatement measures, and 
that the development plan for the area envisioned mining only on the west side of S.R. 23, while 
other uses were envisioned for the east side, the location of CBCC’s property. 
January Term, 2020 
 
9
 
See 2018-Ohio-4092, 153 Ohio St.3d 1494, 108 N.E.3d 1103. 
II. ANALYSIS 
{¶ 19} We review questions of statutory interpretation de novo.  Turner v. 
CertainTeed Corp., 155 Ohio St.3d 149, 2018-Ohio-3869, 119 N.E.3d 1260, ¶ 11. 
{¶ 20} The dispute in this case focuses on two of the statutes discussed 
above.  R.C. 519.02(A) prohibits a township from regulating mining activities for 
any reason other than “the interest of public health or safety,” while 
R.C. 519.141(A) permits the BZA to “require * * * compliance with any general 
standards contained in the zoning resolution that apply to all conditional uses.”  We 
must determine whether a general standard that does not relate to public health or 
safety may be applied to deny an application to conduct mining as a conditional 
use. 
{¶ 21} CBCC argues that a general standard that does not relate to public 
health or safety cannot be applied to deny a conditional-use application to engage 
in mining activities and that the Fourth District erred by holding to the contrary.  
CBCC asserts that because R.C. 519.02(A) expressly limits township trustees’ 
power to regulate mining to matters in the interest of public health and safety, no 
zoning regulation concerning interests unrelated to public health and safety, such 
as general welfare, can provide a basis for denying a mining application. 
{¶ 22} Appellees Harrison Township, the BZA, and the township zoning 
inspector respond by asserting that R.C. 519.141(A) reflects a grant of power to the 
township trustees that is not eclipsed by R.C. 519.02.  They argue that by expressly 
permitting the BZA to “require * * * compliance with any general standards 
contained in the zoning resolution that apply to all conditional uses,” 
R.C. 519.141(A), the statute permits the trustees to adopt general standards in the 
interest of general welfare that are applicable to conditional-use applications to 
engage in mining. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
{¶ 23} Appellee Berger Health System additionally argues that the General 
Assembly easily could have included an exception or limiting language making 
clear that R.C. 519.141(A) permitted the application of general standards to mining 
applications only insofar as they are in the interest of public health and safety but 
that it did not do so.  Instead, Berger argues, R.C. 519.141(A) permits the 
application of “any” general standards. 
{¶ 24} We agree with CBCC. 
{¶ 25} Because a township’s authority to adopt zoning regulations “ ‘is 
limited to that which is expressly delegated * * * by statute,’ ” Bainbridge Twp. Bd. 
of Trustees, 55 Ohio St.3d at 108, 563 N.E.2d 717, quoting Yorkavitz, 166 Ohio St. 
at 351, 142 N.E.2d 655, our analysis of whether the General Standards may be 
applied to deny CBCC’s application must begin by recognizing the limited scope 
of the powers granted to the trustees by the General Assembly.  R.C. 519.02(A) is 
clear that township trustees may adopt resolutions pertaining to mining activities 
regulated under R.C. Chapters 1513 and 1514 “under the authority conferred by 
this section only in the interest of public health and safety.”  (Emphasis added.)  
Any exercise of the township trustees’ regulatory powers under R.C. 519.02 must 
be consistent with this limitation. 
{¶ 26} R.C. 519.141(A) does not expand or limit township trustees’ 
regulatory power.  It first prohibits a board of zoning appeals from considering 
“matters that are regulated by any federal, state, or local agency.”  The language to 
which appellees point is then stated as an exception to this rule: “However, the 
board may require as a condition of the approval of a conditional zoning certificate 
for [an R.C. Chapter 1514 mining] activity compliance with any general standards 
contained in the zoning resolution that apply to all conditional uses.”2  (Emphasis 
                                                 
2. As noted above, R.C. 519.141(A) also permits the board to impose “any specified measure,” 
including eight listed measures, the last of which is “[a]ny other measure reasonably related to public 
health and safety.” 
January Term, 2020 
 
11 
added.)  Any general standards with which the board may require compliance under 
R.C. 519.141(A) must be adopted pursuant to powers granted to township trustees 
elsewhere in the Revised Code. 
{¶ 27} Furthermore, R.C. 519.141(A) does not provide a board of zoning 
appeals with a basis for denying an application to engage in mining when the 
application fails to meet a township’s general conditions.  R.C. 519.141(A) simply 
provides that the board may not consider “matters that are regulated by any federal, 
state, or local agency,” but it may require compliance with general standards “as a 
condition of the approval.”3   
{¶ 28} This analysis leads to two conclusions relevant to the outcome of the 
present appeal.  First, because township trustees may regulate mining under 
R.C. 519.02(A) only in the interest of public health and safety, when the BZA 
considers an application to engage in mining activities, it may require compliance 
with the General Standards only insofar as doing so is in the interest of public health 
and safety.4  Second, even when compliance with the General Standards is in the 
interest of public health and safety, the BZA may require compliance with those 
standards only as conditions of the approval of an application.  The BZA may not 
deny an application to engage in mining when it finds the applicant has not 
established compliance with those standards. 
                                                 
3. We reject Berger Health System’s argument that CBCC’s application was properly denied 
because R.C. 519.141(A), as the later-enacted statute, governs over R.C. 519.02(A) and permits the 
denial of CBCC’s application.  Because the two statutes address different subjects—one addresses 
trustees’ regulatory powers while the other addresses the board of zoning appeals’ mining-
application review process—there is no need to consider whether one governs over the other. 
4. This principle applies equally to other resolutions adopted by the Harrison Township Board of 
Trustees pursuant to R.C. 519.02(A).  Resolutions based on other interests, such as general welfare, 
cannot be applied to activities regulated under R.C. Chapters 1513 and 1514.  Furthermore, 
provisions potentially based on multiple interests, at least one of which is public health or safety, 
may be applied to such activities only to the extent doing so is in the interest of public health and 
safety. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
{¶ 29} We therefore hold that the Fourth District erred by holding that 
compliance with the General Standards is required irrespective of whether such 
compliance is in the interest of public health and safety and by holding that the 
absence of such compliance provides a basis for denying CBCC’s application. 
III. CONCLUSION 
{¶ 30} We reverse the decision of the Fourth District and remand the case 
to the BZA.  On remand, the BZA shall consider CBCC’s conditional-use 
application based on the evidence in the record, the provisions of the Revised Code, 
and the terms of the township Zoning Resolution.  Consistent with this opinion, it 
must ensure that resolutions adopted pursuant to the powers granted in 
R.C. 519.02(A), including the General Standards, are applied to CBCC’s 
application only to the extent doing so is in the interest of public health and safety.  
Furthermore, if, upon applying General Standards in the interest of public health 
and safety to CBCC’s application, the BZA finds that public-health-and-safety 
concerns are raised, it may address those concerns only through conditions on an 
approved application. 
Judgment reversed 
and cause remanded. 
KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, and STEWART, JJ., 
concur. 
_________________ 
Kegler, Brown, Hill & Ritter, Co., L.P.A., and Catherine A. Cunningham; 
and Paul D. Rice, for appellants. 
Judy C. Wolford, Pickaway County Prosecuting Attorney, and Jayme 
Hartley Fountain, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees Harrison Township 
Board of Zoning Appeals, Harrison Township Zoning Inspector Dale Hoover, and 
Harrison Township. 
January Term, 2020 
 
13 
Bricker & Eckler, L.L.P., Anne Marie Sferra, and Jennifer A. Flint, for 
appellee Berger Health System. 
Eastman & Smith, Ltd., Brian P. Barger, and Barry W. Fissel, urging 
reversal for amici curiae Ohio Aggregates and Industrial Minerals Association, 
Flexible Pavements of Ohio, Ohio Ready Mixed Concrete Association, and Ohio 
Contractors Association. 
David P. Fornshell, Warren County Prosecuting Attorney, and Kathryn M. 
Horvath and Adam M. Nice, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, urging affirmance 
for amicus curiae Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association 
Carlile, Patchen & Murphy, L.L.P., Carl A. Aveni, and Shaun P. Lyons, 
urging affirmance for amici curiae Pickaway County Board of Commissioners, 
village of Ashville, and village of South Bloomfield. 
Brosius, Johnson & Griggs, L.L.C., Peter N. Griggs, Emily L. Butler, and 
Jennifer L. Huber, urging affirmance for amici curiae Ohio Township Association 
and County Commissioners Association of Ohio. 
_________________