Court Opinion

ID: 9392667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-05 20:00:42.226006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:47.852177
License: Public Domain

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
                                     File Name: 23a0215n.06

                                              No. 22-3512

                                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                       FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT                             FILED
                                                                                   May 05, 2023
 L.O.I. PROPERTY, LLC, B.A.O. PRODUCTIONS                                      DEBORAH S. HUNT, Clerk
 LLC, and BRETT OAKLEY,
                                                              ON APPEAL FROM THE
           Plaintiff-Appellants                               UNITED STATES DISTRICT
                                                              COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
           v.                                                 DISTRICT OF OHIO
 BUTLER COUNTY, OHIO, BUTLER COUNTY                                                   OPINION
 BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, and PETER
 ACUFF,
           Defendant-Appellees

Before: KETHLEDGE, WHITE and STRANCH, Circuit Judges.

       HELENE N. WHITE, Circuit Judge. In this case arising from Butler County’s rejection

of a preliminary Business Planned Unit Development (B-PUD), Plaintiff-Appellants L.O.I.

Property, LLC, B.A.O. Productions, LLC, and Brett Oakley (Plaintiffs) appeal the grant of

judgment on the pleadings dismissing their complaint alleging due process and equal protection

violations. Because Plaintiffs have not stated a cognizable property interest or plausibly pleaded

that Defendants acted out of animus or ill will, we AFFIRM.

                                                I.

       Land of Illusion Adventure Park (LOI) is a regional family entertainment venue that

provides seasonal attractions in Madison Township, Butler County, Ohio. LOI has been owned

and operated by Plaintiff Brett Oakley since its founding in 2005.1 Oakley owns several parcels

       1
       This is not the first time Oakley has butted heads with the Butler County. From 1997 to
2004, Oakley hosted the Middletown Haunted Trails—a Halloween fundraiser for Madison
Township’s Fire Department—out of his home. Plaintiffs allege that Butler County shut down the
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

of property at 8762 Thomas Road and LOI currently operates on the largest of those parcels, which

is zoned for general business use. The original zoning was secured through Butler County in 2005.

As LOI has expanded between 2005 and the present,2 Oakley has sought a number of variances

and conditional use permits to alter and enhance the park. For example, Oakley sought variances

and conditional use permits to operate a paintball facility and to alter the signage at the entrance

to LOI. Plaintiffs allege that these variance and conditional-use requests were largely approved

by Butler County. In 2015, Oakley sought a zoning change for two parcels abutting the current

LOI site, but ultimately withdrew his application before it was considered.

       In 2020, Oakley sought a zoning change for a B-PUD, which would have affected all 228

acres of his property at 8762 Thomas Road. Plaintiffs allege that Oakley chose this route because

the Butler County Planning Administrator, Defendant Peter Acuff, and other members of the

Butler County Department of Development, advised Oakley to seek a comprehensive re-zoning

for all his parcels, rather than piecemeal zoning changes for each parcel. Oakley’s preliminary B-

PUD application included “a plan for a campground, a themed hotel, an indoor water park, a family

entertainment center, an expansion of the existing outdoor water park, and an amusement park.”

R.1, PID 14.

       Butler County’s zoning process involves a multi-level review for preliminary B-PUDs.

First, an applicant submits a preliminary B-PUD plan to the planning staff of the Butler County

Department of Development. Once the application is deemed complete by the Department of

Middletown Haunted Trails in 2004. As a result, Oakley purchased a salvage yard on Thomas
Road in Madison Township, which he converted into the permanent site for LOI.
       2
          Since 2005, LOI has expanded to include seven haunted attractions that operate from
September to October; a water park, which operates from late spring to late summer; and Christmas
attractions during the holiday season.
                                                    -2-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

Development, the application is considered by the Butler County Planning Commission. Then it

is considered by the Butler County Rural Zoning Commission. Each of the commissions makes

an independent recommendation on the plan. Finally, the preliminary B-PUD plan and zoning-

change application are considered by the Butler County Board of County Commissioners, who

review the applications alongside the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the Rural

Zoning Commission.       The Board of County Commissioners’ review is set forth in the Butler

County Rural Zoning Resolution. The Rural Zoning Resolution requires that Upon receipt of the
report of the County Rural Zoning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners shall study
and review the proposed PUD application and Preliminary PUD Plan to (1) see that all
requirements have been satisfied, and (2) ascertain that the following specific conditions are fully
met:
               •      That the PUD District is in conformance with the Land Use
               Plan for Butler County
               •      That the total density . . . for the development does not
               exceed the maximum density . . . allowed for the [PUD] as a whole
               •      That the use(s) proposed will not be detrimental to present
               and potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect
               which could not be achieved under other zoning districts.
               •      That the use(s) proposed shall be used only for those uses
               permitted under these provisions and the usual accessory uses
               •       That the internal streets and primary and secondary roads
               that are proposed shall properly interconnect with the surrounding
               existing primary and secondary road network . . .
               •      That the minimum common open space area(s) has been
               designated and shall be duly transferred to a legally established
               Homeowner’s Association, commercial management group or they
               have been dedicated to Butler County . . .
               •      That the Preliminary PUD Plan is consistent with the intent
               and purpose of this Resolution: to promote public health, safety and
               general welfare of the residents of Butler County, Ohio.

Id. at PID 9 (quoting Butler Cty., Ohio, Rural Zoning Resol. § 13.04, et seq.)

                                                    -3-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

       Once the preliminary B-PUD plan is approved, the landowner still must return to the Board

of County Commissioners to seek final B-PUD plan approval. Plaintiffs allege that “specific and

detailed engineering plans” are required only during that final review period.

       Plaintiffs allege that when Oakley submitted the preliminary B-PUD application to the

planning staff of the Butler County Department of Development, the staff recommended

preliminary approval.    Plaintiffs also allege that the Butler County Planning Commission

unanimously recommended approval. The Butler County Rural Zoning Commission, however,

unanimously recommended denial. Following the Rural Zoning Commission’s recommendation,

Oakley withdrew the B-PUD application to amend it to include comments and suggestions he had

received from the planning staff of the Butler County Department of Development.

       Oakley submitted an amended, second preliminary B-PUD application to Butler County in

September 2020. That application included several major changes from the initial application.

Notably, the amended application “entirely removed the proposed amusement park from the B-

PUD plan” and added an enlarged greenspace buffer between local residents and the proposed LOI

expansion. Id. at PID 14.

       But when Oakley submitted the amended B-PUD plan to the planning staff of the Butler

County Department of Development, the planning staff “changed their recommendation from

approval . . . to suddenly recommending denial.” Id. at PID 15. The amended application was

similarly rejected by the Butler County Planning Commission as well as the Butler County Rural

Zoning Commission. Plaintiffs allege that the planning staff, the Planning Commission and the

Rural Zoning Commission did not provide reasoning for their recommendations of denial.

       Both the Butler County Planning Commission and the Butler County Rural Zoning

Commission issued resolutions recommending denial of the preliminary B-PUD. The Planning

                                                   -4-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

Commission explained that “the amendment is not generally consistent with the Comprehensive

Plan for Butler County.” R.17-1, PID 131. Similarly, the Rural Zoning Commission explained

that “the requested zone change . . . is not consistent with the adopted Future Land Use Plan.” Id.

at 132. The Butler County Planning Commission also issued a Zone Change Staff Report, which

made additional findings. The Planning Commission explained that the “zone change application

and preliminary PUD plan are ambitious and broad in both physical and temporal scope. The

impacts of this proposed development on the surrounding area and Madison Township as a whole

will be significant.” Id. at 130. The Planning Commission concluded that “[m]any questions

remain to be resolved around this project,” and that “resubmittal of the application is premature

without addressing the pertinent public health and safety concerns.” Id.3

       Still, Oakley presented the B-PUD application to the Butler County Board of County

Commissioners during a public hearing on November 30, 2020. Plaintiffs allege that during that

hearing Oakley “provided significant evidence to show that the application complied with the

[approval] conditions of the preliminary PUD plan” and provided testimony “from the area

chamber of commerce, the county’s visitors’ bureau” and others in support of the application. R.1

       3
          Defendants appended several public records to their motion for judgment on the
pleadings, including the resolutions passed by the relevant Butler County bodies as well as the
staff report prepared by the Butler County Planning Commission. The district court considered
these documents and explained that “[t]he Court may consider public records that are referenced
in or central to the allegations in a complaint without converting a Rule 12 motion into a Rule 56
motion.” R.36, PID 854, n.1 (citing Rondigo, L.L.C. v. Twp. of Richmond, 641 F.3d 673, 681 (6th
Cir. 2011)). Because the Commissions’ and Commissioners’ reasoning is central to the allegation
that their decision making was arbitrary, we agree that these documents can be considered on
appeal. Rondigo, 641 F.3d at 681 (“[A] court may consider ‘exhibits attached [to the complaint],
public records, items appearing in the record of the case and exhibits attached to defendant’s
motion to dismiss so long as they are referred to in the complaint and are central to the claims
contained therein,’ without converting the motion to one for summary judgment.” (quoting Bassett
v. Nat’l Coll. Athletic Ass’n, 528 F.3d 426, 430 (6th Cir. 2008)).
                                                   -5-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

at PID 15. Despite the presentation, the “two Butler County Commissioners present for the hearing

voted to deny the zone-change application.” Id.

       The Board of County Commissioners made eight findings of fact to support their denial:

       1.     The requested zoning map amendment to B-PUD for Land of Illusion (RZC
              20-03) does not conform to the adopted Madison Township Proposed Land
              Use Plan’s recommendation of residential or agricultural use for the subject
              site.
       2.     Analysis of Madison Township’s development over the last 10-20 years
              shows very little change in the character of the Township, suggesting that
              the Land Use Plan adopted in 2001 is still relevant and applicable:
              a) Since 2000, the Township’s population has only increased by
                 2%, from 8,611 to 8,772 persons[.]
              b) Over the last ten years, there has only been an average of 5.8
                 new homes built annually, comprising 1.4% of residential
                 permits issued countywide[.]
              c) A Department of Development planning study conducted in
                 2019 shows that land uses have remained stable over the past
                 two decades, with only minor fluctuations in the percentage of
                 land dedicated to agricultural, residential, recreational,
                 commercial, and industrial uses.
              d) Since 2004, the County has considered ten zone change requests
                 in Madison Township, only five of which were approved (two
                 cases in 2004 and one case each in 2005, 2011, and 2019). Two
                 prior zone change requests for the subject site (in 2015 and 2020)
                 were withdrawn by the applicant.
       3.     The high intensity commercial recreation uses proposed in the Preliminary
              Development Plan (PDP) are likely to adversely impact the existing land uses and
              have detrimental effects on the surrounding rural residential development,
              particularly with respect to development density and intensity, quality of life and
              enjoyment of property as zoned, and/or other public health, safety and general
              welfare elements, including but not limited to noise, traffic, sanitary wastewater
              treatment, storm water runoff, and demand for local emergency services.
       4.     The PDP does not adequately address the aforementioned adverse impacts or
              detrimental effects or adjoining property owners’ voiced concerns during the
              public hearings process.
       5.     The PDP does not integrate or demonstrate protections to and for the public health,
              safety, and general welfare of the residents of Madison Township and Butler
              County, Ohio.
       6.     Relevant state and local agencies (Ohio EPA, Butler County General Health
              District, Butler Soil and Water Conservation District) have questioned the ability

                                                  -6-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

               of the proposed project as illustrated in the PDP to provide public services in an
               effective manner.
       7.      The existing zoning districts on the subject site currently allow a broad range of
               uses, including production agriculture, residential development, and general
               business or institutional uses.
       8.      The Madison Township Trustees have expressed their opposition to the requested
               zoning map amendment.

R.17-1, PID 134-35.

       After making these findings, the Board of County Commissioners stated that it concurred

with the recommendations of the Planning and Rural Zoning Commissions and “denies the zoning

map amendment request for . . . Land of Illusion based on the complete record submitted and

established during the public hearing process and the aforementioned findings of fact.” Id. In

doing so, the County Commissioners made three additional determinations. First, that the “request

is inconsistent with the adopted Madison Township Proposed Land Use Plan designation.” Id.

Second, that “the Preliminary Development Plan and proposed development intensity and density

and schedule do not promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the adjoining

property owners, residents of Madison Township, or the citizens of Butler County.” Id. And third,

that “based on [] development patterns and population growth . . . it has not been demonstrated

there is a need for business zoning at the expense of the adjoining existing land uses.” Id.

       After the denial, Plaintiffs sued Butler County, the Board of County Commissioners, Acuff,

Madison Township and the Madison Township Board of Township Trustees. They alleged

violations of the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments—specifically, that

“L.O.I. Property and Mr. Oakley possess the right to receive a zone change for a business planned

unit development when satisfying the preliminary PUD plan conditions of the Rural Zoning

Resolution,” and that the Defendants’ recommendation that Oakley submit a B-PUD, as well as

their “failure to properly and dutifully consider” the preliminary PUD application, violated their

                                                    -7-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

due process rights. R.1, PID 18. Plaintiffs also alleged equal protection violations under the

United States Constitution as well as similar violations under the Ohio Constitution.

       Defendants filed an answer and motion for judgment on the pleadings. Defendants

appended several public records to the motion, including the resolutions of the Butler County

Planning Commission, Butler County Rural Zoning Commission and Butler County Board of

County Commissioners. A magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation, recommending

that the district court grant Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. Specifically, the

magistrate judge found that Plaintiffs’ due process claims failed to allege a cognizable property

interest and that their equal protection claim failed to allege that their zoning application was

similarly situated to other re-zoning applications or that Defendants had acted with ill will or

animus. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs timely appealed.

                                                II.

       Plaintiffs raise three issues on appeal: whether they failed to state a claim that Defendants

violated Plaintiffs’ rights to substantive and procedural due process; whether Plaintiffs failed to

state an equal protection claim; and whether public policy considerations warrant “a more flexible

application of local zoning regulations.” Appellants Br. at 2. Because Plaintiffs’ public policy

arguments are not properly before this court, we review only their due process and equal protection

arguments.4

       4
          As Defendants point out, Plaintiffs did not raise these public policy arguments before the
district court. See Appellee Br. at 40; see also R.25, R.35. Further, it is unclear how we would
apply these public policy considerations in the face of Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent
requiring that a plaintiff demonstrate a cognizable liberty or property interest to recover on a due
process claim. See e.g. Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter Twp., 519 F.3d 564, 573 (6th Cir. 2008)
(explaining that in the re-zoning context, “[i]n order to have a property interest in a benefit, a
person must have more than a desire for it or unilateral expectation of it; rather, he must have a
‘legitimate claim of entitlement to it.’” quoting R.S.W.W., Inc. v. City of Keego Harbor, 397 F.3d
427, 435 (6th Cir. 2005)).
                                                      -8-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

       A judgment on the pleadings granted under Rule 12(c) is reviewed de novo, “using the

same standard that applies to a review of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” Moore v.

Hiram Twp., 988 F.3d 353, 357 (6th Cir. 2021). So “[c]ourts must accept as true all well-pleaded

factual allegations, but they need not accept legal conclusions.”            Bates v. Green Farms

Condominium Ass’n, 958 F.3d 470, 480 (6th Cir. 2020). Those “well-pleaded factual allegations

must ‘plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.’” Id. (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

679 (2007)). “Thus, ‘[t]o survive a Rule 12(c) motion, the complaint must contain sufficient

factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Barber v.

Charter Twp. of Southfield, Michigan, 31 F.4th 382, 386 (6th Cir. 2022) (quoting Engler v. Arnold,

862 F.3d 571, 575 (6th Cir. 2017)). Although our review “rests primarily upon the allegations of

the complaint, ‘matters of public record, orders, items appearing in the record of the case, and

exhibits attached to the complaint[] may be taken into account.’” Barany-Snyder v. Weiner, 539

F.3d 327, 332 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Amini v. Oberlin Coll., 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2001).

    A. Procedural and Substantive Due Process Claims

       Plaintiffs argue that Defendants denied them procedural and substantive due process under

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The district court reviewed these claims together. The due

process clause has both a procedural and a substantive component; procedural due process is

concerned with whether “the government provide[d] a ‘fair procedure’ when depriving someone

of life, liberty, or property,” and “substantive due process ‘protects individual liberty against

certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them.’”

EJS Props., LLC v. City of Toledo, 698 F.3d 845, 855 (6th Cir. 2012) (quoting Collins v. City of

Harker Heights, 503 U.S. 115, 125 (1992). Under either theory, a plaintiff must show that he had

a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest. Id. (noting that a plaintiff must show that

                                                     -9-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

“he had a life, liberty, or property interest protected by the Due Process Clause” to prove a

procedural due process violation, and that a plaintiff must show that “a constitutionally protected

property or liberty interest exists” to recover on a substantive due process theory (quoting Braun

v. Ann Arbor Charter Twp., 519 F.3d 564, 573 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1062 (2008)).

       Plaintiffs argue that they had a protectible property interest in the re-zoning of their

property based on the preliminary B-PUD application that was submitted to the Butler County

officials. The district court acknowledged that although “a property owner arguably has a property

right where the government rezones an existing property,” R.36, PID 858 (quoting Braun, 519 F.3d

at 573), and “[c]itizens have a substantive due process right not to be subjected to arbitrary or

irrational zoning decisions,” id. (quoting Tollbrook, LLC v. City of Troy, 774 F. App’x 929, 933

(6th Cir. 2019)), the creation of a protectible property interest requires “more than a desire for it

or unilateral expectation of it” and instead requires “a legitimate claim of entitlement to it—in this

case, a legitimate claim or an entitlement to rezoning,” id. (quoting Braun, 519 F.3d at 933).

Accordingly, when the government’s “decision to award or withhold [a] benefit is wholly

discretionary” a plaintiff cannot “possess a property interest in the receipt” of that discretionary

benefit. Id. (quoting EJS Props., 698 F.3d at 846). The district court found that several criteria in

the Rural Zoning Resolution were “inherently subjective” and, therefore, conferred discretion on

the Butler County Commissioners in their review of the preliminary B-PUD application. Id. at

860. The district court found that because “approval was not mandatory even if the conditions

were satisfied,” Plaintiffs had not alleged “a legitimate claim to entitlement of approval of their

BPUD application” and therefore, could not allege a protectible property interest as necessary for

their procedural and substantive due process claims. Id. at 861.

                                                    -10-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

       Plaintiffs argue that the district court erred in finding that the Rural Zoning Resolution

provided the Butler County Commissioners with discretion to deny the preliminary B-PUD

application. Specifically, they argue that a review of the Rural Zoning Resolution reveals that the

Commissioners’ “discretion with respect to the approval of a preliminary PUD plan is limited.”

Appellants Br. 16. They focus on language in the resolution providing:

               Approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan shall be limited to the
               general acceptability of the land uses proposed, proposed general
               density levels and their inter-relationship, and shall not be construed
               to endorse precise location of uses, configuration of parcels or
               engineering feasibility which are to be determined in the subsequent
               preparation of the detailed Site Development Plan(s).

R.25-1, PID 411-12. But this ignores other requirements of the Rural Zoning Resolution. To start,

that same section of the resolution grants the Commissioners authority to deny the Preliminary

PUD Plan if certain subjective criteria are not met. As the district court explained, the conditions

for approval of a preliminary PUD plan involve inherently subjective determinations by the

Commissioners. Section 13.048 of the Rural Zoning Resolution requires the Commissioners to

determine that “the Preliminary PUD Plan is consistent with the intent and purpose of this

Resolution: to promote public health, safety and general welfare of the residents of Butler County,

Ohio.” Id. at 411. Similarly, Section 13.044 requires the Commissioners to determine that “the

use(s) proposed will not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses but will have a

beneficial effect which could not be achieved under other zoning districts.” Id. Both sections

require the Commissioners to make subjective evaluations, necessarily vesting them with

discretionary, rather than mandatory, authority to grant the preliminary PUD plan.

       Plaintiffs point us to Ritz v. City of Findlay, No. 3:07-cv-3716, 2009 WL 1954635 (N.D.

Ohio July 6, 2009), an unpublished district court case, to suggest that the Rural Zoning Resolution

confers only limited discretion on the Commissioners. Plaintiffs acknowledge that, as “an

                                                    -11-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

unpublished [district court] opinion” Ritz is not “precedential authority to this Court,” but argue

that it is nonetheless persuasive authority. Appellants Br. at 15. Specifically, they argue that in

Ritz, the zoning resolution at issue used the word “‘shall,’ [which] together with the exhaustive list

of factors” to be considered when reviewing a site plan “created a mandate that required

conforming applications to be approved.” Id. at 15 (quoting Ritz, 2009 WL 1954635, at *15). Ritz

is distinguishable from this case.

       In Ritz, Findlay city ordinances required the Planning Committee to consider:

       (1) The location and design of driveways providing vehicular ingress to and egress
       from the site, in relation to streets giving access to the site, and in relation to
       pedestrian traffic.
       (2) The traffic circulation features within the site and location of automobile
       parking areas; and may make such requirements with respect to any matters as will
       assure:
               (A) Safety and convenience of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic
               both within the site and in relation to access streets.
               (B) Satisfactory and harmonious relationships between the
               development on the site and the existing and prospective
               development of contiguous land and adjacent neighborhoods.
       (3) The proposed method of surface drainage control, including the methods for
       stormwater retention and erosion prevention.

Ritz, 2009 WL 1954635 at *2, n.1. And “once the Commission considers these matters, it has the

authority to approve, approve with conditions, or ‘if appropriate, reject the site plan submission if

it is noncomforming.’” Id. (emphasis added).

       The Rural Zoning Resolution does not impose comparable restrictions on the

Commissioners. Instead, Section 13.051 instructs that “[i]f from the facts presented, the Board of

County Commissioners is unable to make the necessary findings, the application shall be denied.”

R.25-1, PID 411-412. And the Rural Zoning Resolution requires the Commissioners to make

inherently subjective determinations, e.g. that “the Preliminary PUD Plan is consistent with the

intent and purpose of this Resolution: to promote public health, safety and general welfare of the

                                                    -12-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

residents of Butler County, Ohio,” id. at 411 (Section 13.048), and that “the use(s) proposed will

not be detrimental to present and potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect which

could not be achieved under other zoning districts,” id. (Section 13.044). Thus, Ritz is inapposite

here.

        Even if Plaintiffs have a protectible property interest, they still cannot prevail on their

procedural or substantive due process claims. Plaintiffs argue that Defendants’ denial of the

preliminary B-PUD application was arbitrary and capricious. This is not supported by the limited

record. The record shows that, before denying Plaintiffs’ preliminary B-PUD application, the

Butler County Board of County Commissioners heard testimony from Oakley’s “planner and his

attorney” as well as from the “chamber of commerce, the county’s visitors’ bureau, the school

district’s superintendent, the Ohio State Representative . . . and numerous business owners.” R.1,

PID 15. And the resolution of the County Commissioners explains that other groups, including

the “Ohio EPA, Butler County General Health District, Butler Soil and Water Conservation

District” as well as the “Madison Township Trustees” expressed their concerns regarding the

preliminary B-PUD application. R.17-1, PID 135. Further, a review of the record shows that the

Butler County Commissioners reviewed the application under the appropriate standards set out in

the Rural Zoning Resolution, which requires that “the Preliminary PUD Plan is consistent with the

intent and purpose of this Resolution: to promote public health, safety and general welfare of the

residents of Butler County, Ohio” and that “the use(s) proposed will not be detrimental to present

and potential surrounding uses but will have a beneficial effect which could not be achieved under

other zoning districts.” R.25-1, PID 411. In denying the application, the County Commissioners

made independent findings of fact that “the PDP does not integrate or demonstrate protections to

and for the public health, safety and general welfare of the residents of Madison Township and

                                                   -13-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

Butler County, Ohio” and that the “PDP does not adequately address . . . adverse impacts or

detrimental effects or [the] adjoining property owners’ voiced concerns during the public hearings

process.” R.17-1, PID 135.

       With respect to Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claims, it is not clear from their briefing

what kind of additional procedures they contend would be required before Defendants could deny

the B-PUD. The denial was preceded by three rounds of review by the Planning Commission, the

Rural Zoning Commission and the County Commissioners. And Plaintiffs do not dispute that they

received a hearing before the County Commissioners and were provided the opportunity to present

testimony before the County Commissioners. Plaintiffs seem to argue that the reasoning of the

Board provided “only pretextual explanation as to why [the County’s] support disappeared.”

Appellant Br. at 19. But as discussed above, this is not supported by the record.

       Plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim fares no better. To establish a violation of

substantive due process, “a plaintiff must show that the state administrative agency has been guilty

of ‘arbitrary and capricious action’ in the strict sense.” Pearson v. City of Grand Blanc, 961 F.2d

1211, 1221 (6th Cir. 1992) (quoting Stevens v. Hunt, 646 F.2d 1168, 1170 (6th Cir. 1981)). This

means that Plaintiffs “must show ‘that there is no rational basis’” for the county’s decision.

Johnson v. Morales, 946 F.3d 911, 937 (6th Cir. 2020) (quoting Pearson, 961 F.2d at 1221)). In

Pearson, this court explained “at length the various contexts in which courts have found that

substantive due process is violated—including that the action was ‘willful and unreasoning,’

‘shocks the conscience,’ was ‘extreme[ly] irrational[],’ or lacks ‘some factual basis.’” Id. at 937,

n.4 (quoting Pearson, 961 F.2d at 1221-22.) The Commissioners’ action here does not reach that

searching standard.

                                                   -14-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

    B. Equal Protection Claims

        Plaintiffs also argue that the denial of their preliminary B-PUD application constituted a

violation of their Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection under the law. Because

Plaintiffs proceed on a “class of one” equal protection claim, they can only prevail if they can

prove that “the state treated the plaintiff differently from others similarly situated and that there is

no rational basis for such difference in treatment.” Warren v. City of Athens, Ohio, 411 F.3d 697,

710 (6th Cir. 2005). A plaintiff “may demonstrate that a government action lacks a rational basis

in one of two ways: either by ‘negativ[ing] every conceivable basis which might support’ the

government action or by demonstrating that the challenged government action was motivated by

animus or ill-will.” Id. at 711 (quoting Klimik v. Kent Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 91 F. App’x 396, 400

(6th Cir. 2004)).

        Plaintiffs have not attempted to negate “every conceivable [rational] basis” for the denial

of their B-PUD and instead argue that the denial was “motivated by animus or ill-will.” Id. As

evidence of animus or ill will, Plaintiffs point to their allegations that Butler County shut down the

Middletown Haunted Trails event in 2004 and that Peter Acuff initially suggested that they submit

a B-PUD plan, rather than proceed with piecemeal re-zoning requests.

        Although in reviewing a motion under Rule 12(c), we “must accept as true all well-pleaded

factual allegations,” we “need not accept legal conclusions.” Bates, 958 F.3d at 480. And

Plaintiffs still must plead factual allegations that “plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. As pleaded, the complaint does not give rise to a plausible inference of

animus or ill will against Plaintiffs by Defendants. Plaintiffs admit in their complaint that when

they purchased “an old salvage yard in 2004 on Thomas Road to expand the Halloween haunt”

that decision was motivated in part by the intent to provide a “more permanent and safer

                                                     -15-
No. 22-3512, L.O.I. Property, L.L.C., B.A.O. v. Butler County, Ohio

environment.” R.1, PID 6. And Plaintiffs also allege that, “[f]rom 2005 to 2020, Mr. Oakley

sought a number of variances and conditional-use permits for the Property” and “[f]or the most

part, the Butler County Defendants approved those requests.” Id. at PID 13. That Butler County

approved variance requests between 2005 and 2020 without issue seriously undermines the

plausibility that the denial of Plaintiffs’ preliminary B-PUD application was motivated by animus

against Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ response that the haunted trail was shut down in 2004 and that Acuff

made the seemingly neutral suggestion that Oakley proceed with an omnibus rezoning, rather than

through piecemeal applications, is not sufficient to establish animus or ill will. Cf. Loesel v. City

of Frankenmuth, 692 F.3d 452, 466 (6th Cir. 2012) (explaining that “[a]nimus is defined as ‘ill

will, antagonism, or hostility usually controlled but deep-seated and sometimes virulent” and “ill

will is defined as an ‘unfriendly feeling: animosity, hostility” and that “[t]hese definitions indicate

that a showing of animus or ill will . . . requires more than simply failing to invite [plaintiffs] to a

meeting.”) Accordingly, the district court did not err in dismissing this claim as well.

        We AFFIRM.

                                                     -16-