Owners of a Medina County tavern that closed in 2019 when it lost its liquor license asked a township zoning inspector in 2022 about the possibility of reopening. The inspector, both in conversation and in writing, told one of the property owners that the tavern’s non-conforming use that allowed it to operate had been voluntarily abandoned under the area’s zoning regulations. In short, the inspector told them no.

The property owners attempted to appeal the zoning inspector’s “decision” to the Hinckley Township Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The Supreme Court of Ohio today unanimously ruled that both sides had prematurely sought to involve the BZA and the courts in the matter. The Supreme Court found that the township has never made an official decision on whether to allow the tavern, formerly known as the Adult Day Care Center, to reopen.

Writing for the Court, Justice Patrick F. Fischer explained that the Adult Day Care Center owners simply asked the Hinckley Township zoning inspector whether the bar met current zoning requirements. The property owners did not make any formal attempts to obtain permission to reopen, and the inspector took no formal action to prevent the tavern from opening, the opinion stated.

The powers of township boards of zoning appeals and the right to appeal are specified in two state laws, R.C. 519.14 and R.C. 519.15, the Court explained. An email that the zoning inspector sent to a tavern co-owner was not a formal action to deny the bar from reopening, the opinion stated.

“Thus, the BZA did not have jurisdiction over the appeal because the email was not a ‘decision’ under R.C. 519.14 and 519.15,” Justice Fischer wrote.

Owners Inquire About Reopening
Until April 2019, the Adult Day Care Center operated at 729 W. 130th St. in Hinckley. The property was located in an area zoned “R-2 residential” under the Hinckley Township Zoning Resolution. The tavern operated under a “nonconforming use” provision of the zoning resolution because its use as a bar predated the adoption of the zoning code.

The township regulations allow nonconforming use properties to continue to operate if no “voluntary discontinuance” of that use has occurred for two years or more. However, the tavern’s liquor license became inactive in January 2019, and it ceased operations in April 2019.

After being contacted by a potential buyer interested in reviving the property as a bar in 2022, Brent Rumes and another interested person of the closed tavern visited the office of Thomas Wilson, the Hinckley Township zoning inspector. They asked about the property’s zoning status as a nonconforming use.

Wilson followed up with an email to Rumes, while also copying a state liquor control agent and several township officials. He explained that since the tavern operated as a nonconforming use and stopped operating as a tavern after losing its liquor license in January 2019, the property would be deemed to have met the standard of a “voluntary discontinuance” for more than two years. Wilson then listed the permitted uses for property in a R-2 residential district.

That same day, Wilson called Rumes to discuss the email. Rumes informed Wilson that he was going to contact his attorney, and Wilson alerted the Medina County Prosecutor’s Office by email about the situation. The office serves as the attorney for the township zoning inspector.

The property owners’ attorney contacted Wilson after reading the email Wilson sent to Rumes. The attorney claimed the property owners had not received “written notice of the Township’s findings or an explanation regarding the Township’s position.” The attorney requested a copy of any written notices sent to the owners.

County Decided Bar Cannot Reopen
An assistant prosecuting attorney contacted the property owners’ attorney and stated that the zoning inspector determined that the property can no longer be used as a tavern because it no longer conforms to the township zoning code. The prosecutor attached Wilson’s email to Rumes and concluded that the email constituted a written decision.

Wilson had sent the email to Rumes on March 15. The prosecutor sent his email to the property owners’ attorney on April 12. Two days later, the property owners appealed Wilson’s email “ruling” to the township BZA.

Rather than considering the merits of whether the property’s discontinued use as a tavern was voluntary, the board focused on whether appeal from the email was timely appealed under R.C. 519.15. The board noted that an appeal of a decision had to be filed within 20 days.

At the hearing, Wilson testified that he concluded the property had lost its status as a nonconforming use because the liquor license was inactive and the tavern had not operated for over two years. He said he reached his ruling after doing “some simple math.” The board then dismissed the appeal, not on the merits, but rather because it lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal that had not been filed within 20 days of Wilson’s March 15 email.

Dispute Moves to Court
The property owners appealed the BZA’s dismissal to the Medina County Common Pleas Court. The BZA argued, and the trial court agreed, that Wilson’s email was a “decision.” Because the appeal was filed too late, though, the court agreed that the BZA could not decide the merits.

The property owners appealed to the Ninth District Court of Appeals. The Ninth District found that the email did not constitute an “official formal action” taken by a township administrative official. The Ninth District held that, because Wilson never issued a decision, the 20-day deadline to appeal was never triggered. It reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the case.

The BZA appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Analyzed Zoning Appeal Requirements
The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Ninth District Court of Appeals. Justice Fischer explained that under R.C. 519.14(A), the BZA has authority to decide appeals “where it is alleged there is error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by an administrative official in the enforcement” of state zoning laws.

Justice Fischer wrote that, while “decision” is not defined in the zoning law, when read in context with “order,” “requirement,” and “determination,” the word refers to a formal conclusion reached by an administrative official in enforcing the zoning regulations. Applying that definition to the statute, the Court concluded that a party can appeal to the BZA only when a formal conclusion has been reached by an administrative official regarding a zoning regulation.

The property owners sought information from Wilson when they asked about the status of the property. Wilson responded by outlining the rules for nonconforming uses and the history of the property’s use, including its closure as a tavern for more than two years, the Justice Fischer noted.

The township’s zoning resolution allows the zoning inspector to make a determination regarding a property’s status as a nonconforming use after the property owner submits evidence that the property can lawfully be used.

“Because the property owners did not engage in any formal process by which the zoning inspector issued a formal decision based on evidence, the zoning inspector was unable to issue a ‘decision’ on whether the use of the property remained in compliance with the property’s non-conforming- use status,” the Justice Fischer stated.

Even if the property owners asked Wilson to decide and he ruled that the property could not reopen, that action does not necessarily make it a decision that could be appealed to the BZA, the Court concluded. Under R.C. 519.14(A), the decision must be made when enforcing the zoning regulation, and Wilson was not asked to issue or refuse to issue a zoning certificate, nor was he investigating a zoning violation, the Court ruled.

Justice Fischer explained, had the property owners wanted to challenge Wilson’s conclusions about the tavern’s status, they would have had to take an action such as seeking a certificate of nonconforming use or asking for a variance, which would have triggered Wilson to take formal action.

“Simply asking Wilson about the status of the property is not sufficient under the zoning resolution to receive an official answer that can be appealed to the BZA,” the Court concluded.

2024-1419. 729 W. 130th St. LLC v Hinckley Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-595.

View oral argument video of this case.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.