Case Title: State ex rel. Wood v. Rocky River

Citation: 2021-Ohio-3313

Docket Number: 2020-1159

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2021-09-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Wood v. Rocky River, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3313.] 
 
 
 
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. 2021-OHIO-3313 
THE STATE EX REL. WOOD, ET AL v. THE CITY OF ROCKY RIVER ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Wood v. Rocky River, Slip Opinion No.  
2021-Ohio-3313.] 
Mandamus—Petition seeking writ of mandamus to compel a board of zoning and 
building appeals to stay their approval of a development plan and hear the 
relators’ appeals—Writ denied on the ground of mootness. 
(No. 2020-1159—Submitted June 29, 2021—Decided September 23, 2021.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} In this original action, relators, Malcolm and Mary Wood (“the 
Woods”), seek a writ of mandamus to compel respondents, Rocky River Board of 
Zoning and Building Appeals and its members1 (“the zoning board”), to stay their 
 
1. The individual members are Eric Pempus, Patrick Farrell, Richard Christ, Christopher Wolf, Todd 
Brandt, and Craig Wright. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
approval of a development plan and hear their appeals.  On February 10, 2021, we 
denied the zoning board’s motion to dismiss and issued an alternative writ of 
mandamus.  161 Ohio St.3d 1425, 2021-Ohio-303, 162 N.E.3d 808.  For the reasons 
set forth below, we now deny the writ as moot. 
Background 
{¶ 2} Development plans for the city of Rocky River must be reviewed and 
approved by two municipal bodies.  The Rocky River Planning Commission first 
reviews a “preliminary” development plan.  Rocky River Codified Ordinances 
(“RRCO”) 1125.05(d)(1) and 1127.05(b).  Then, the Rocky River Design and 
Construction Board of Review (“the design board”) must approve a “detailed” 
development plan.  RRCO 1127.27.  The detailed development plan then returns to 
the planning commission for final approval.  RRCO 1127.05(d). 
{¶ 3} The planning commission’s decision to approve or reject a detailed 
development plan may be appealed to the zoning board.  RRCO 1127.35.  The 
Rocky River Codified Ordinances do not provide for a separate appeal from the 
design board’s decision to approve or reject a development plan.  However, Article 
VI, Section 5(c) of the Rocky River Municipal Charter provides that “[a]ppeals 
from final decisions of the [design board] shall be made to the [zoning board].” 
{¶ 4} Appeals to the zoning board are initiated by filing a notice of appeal 
with the zoning administrator and the zoning board within 21 days of receipt of a 
decision. RRCO 1133.03. The appeal must “specif[y] the grounds upon which the 
appeal is being taken.”  Id.  Upon receipt, the zoning administrator “shall” transmit 
to the zoning board the record of the action being appealed.  Id.  An appeal stays 
all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the zoning 
administrator certifies to the zoning board that a stay “would, in his opinion, cause 
imminent peril to life and property.”  RRCO 1133.09. 
 
 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
The evidence in the record 
{¶ 5} The Woods live next to the site of a proposed real-estate development 
in Rocky River known as the 700 Lake Project.  On February 18, 2020, the design 
board approved the detailed development plan for the 700 Lake Project.  On 
February 26, the Woods filed an appeal of the design board’s decision with the 
zoning board.  In the notice of appeal, the Woods stated that the appeal was based 
“upon grounds that said decision is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable having 
failed to satisfy all of the conditions and criteria contained in Cod. Ord. 1127.27(A) 
thorough [sic] (D) and Cod. Ord. 1125.07(C).” 
{¶ 6} Also on February 26, 2020, the planning commission approved the 
detailed development plan.  On March 5, the Woods filed an appeal from the 
planning commission’s decision with the zoning board.  In that notice of appeal, 
the Woods stated that the appeal was brought “upon grounds that said decision is 
arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable having failed to satisfy all of the conditions 
and criteria contained in Cod. Ord. 1127.17.” 
{¶ 7} In a letter to the Woods dated March 11, 2020, the city’s law director, 
Andrew Bemer, acknowledged that the two notices of appeal were timely and 
“accepted” both of them.  He assigned both appeals a tentative hearing date of April 
16, 2020.  However, Bemer informed the Woods that the two notices of appeal did 
not state the bases for the appeals with the required specificity.  He asked the Woods 
to provide additional information “at least two weeks before the scheduled hearings 
before the [zoning board],” warning that if the Woods failed to “identif[y] the 
specific factors upon which [they] base[d] [their] appeals, the [zoning board] 
[would] have no recourse but to summarily reject the appeals.” 
{¶ 8} The Woods’ counsel responded with a letter dated April 2, 2020, 
arguing that the notices of appeal did state the bases for the appeals. Specifically, 
the notices alleged that the two decisions approving the detailed development plan 
were arbitrary and capricious and failed to satisfy the conditions set forth in the 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
ordinances for approval by the two bodies.  In addition, counsel attached a February 
27, 2020 taxpayer-demand letter he had sent to Bemer and reiterated the objections 
set forth in that letter. 
{¶ 9} On April 3, 2020, Bemer replied that the Woods had “failed to provide 
the specific grounds of [the] appeal[s] according to the requirements of RRCO 
1133.03 within the time requested, and as a result [the] appeals have not been 
completed or perfected within a timely fashion.”  Accordingly, Bemer declared the 
notices of appeal void and canceled the hearing. 
{¶ 10} On September 25, 2020, the Woods filed a complaint for a writ of 
mandamus in this court. 
Legal analysis 
{¶ 11} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a party must establish by clear 
and convincing evidence (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a clear 
legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Love v. O’Donnell, 150 Ohio 
St.3d 378, 2017-Ohio-5659, 81 N.E.3d 1250, ¶ 3. 
{¶ 12} RRCO 1133.03 requires a notice of appeal to “specif[y] the grounds 
upon which the appeal is being taken.”  The Woods contend that the language in 
their notices of appeal satisfied this specificity requirement and therefore triggered 
a duty on the part of the zoning board to conduct a public hearing.  But before 
reaching that issue, we must consider a predicate defense the board has raised in its 
merit brief: mootness. 
{¶ 13} A case is moot when “ ‘without any fault of the defendant, an event 
occurs which renders it impossible for [a] court, if it should decide the case in favor 
of the plaintiff, to grant him any effectual relief whatever.’ ”  State ex rel. Eliza 
Jennings, Inc. v. Noble, 49 Ohio St.3d 71, 74, 551 N.E.2d 128 (1990), quoting Mills 
v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S.Ct. 132, 40 L.Ed. 293 (1990).  In Schuster v. 
Avon Lake, the court of appeals held that “where an appeal involves the 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
construction of a building or buildings and the appellant fails to obtain a stay * * * 
and construction commences, the appeal is rendered moot.”  9th Dist. Lorain No. 
03CA008271, 2003-Ohio-6587, ¶ 8; see also Pinkney v. Southwick Invs., L.L.C., 
8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 85074 and 85075, 2005-Ohio-4167, ¶ 14. 
{¶ 14} The zoning board contends that this case is moot because 
construction of the 700 Lake Project is substantially underway.  The zoning 
administrator has issued permits for construction work that include demolition of 
existing structures, sewer installations, street openings, concrete foundational work, 
and installation of electricity, plumbing, heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning 
systems.  Inspection reports confirm the amount of work that has been done, 
including pouring concrete for the foundation, footers, and support columns, and 
connecting the water supply.  It is too late to prevent construction of the 700 Lake 
Project altogether.  Therefore, a writ from this court commanding the board to hear 
the Woods’ appeals would not grant the Woods any effectual relief. 
{¶ 15} We conclude that subsequent events have rendered the case moot, 
and we deny the writ of mandamus on that basis. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 16} For the reasons set forth above, we deny the writ of mandamus on 
the ground of mootness. 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
Phillips & Co., L.P.A., and Gerald W. Phillips, for relators. 
Andrew D. Bemer, Rocky River Director of Law, for respondents. 
_________________