The Twelfth Appellate District of Ohio has sided with the City of Washington Court House in a case involving Shawn and Delta Hastings, who were found to be operating a commercial construction business from their residential property in violation of local zoning ordinances. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant a permanent injunction, preventing the Hastings from conducting business activities on their property.
Background of the Case
The Hastings own a property located at 1045 Damon Drive in Washington Court House, Ohio, which is zoned for single-family residential use (R-1A). They acquired the land in June 2021 and obtained a building permit in July 2022 to construct a home. After construction was completed, the City granted a temporary certificate of occupancy in September 2023, requiring additional concrete work to be finished. The Hastings moved into the home shortly before Christmas 2023 and completed the required concrete work in March 2024, receiving a permanent occupancy permit in April 2024.
However, during and after the construction of their home, the Hastings kept various construction equipment on their property. This equipment, including a dump truck, work truck, trailer, and Bobcat, was used for their concrete construction business. Neighbors noticed this and complained to the City.
City’s Action and Legal Proceedings
On October 31, 2023, the City’s Building and Zoning Inspector issued a notice of violation to the Hastings, stating they were conducting prohibited business activity by maintaining construction equipment at their residence, violating Section 3.01 of the Zoning Ordinance.
When the equipment remained, the City, through City Attorney Mark J. Pitstick, filed a lawsuit against the Hastings on February 23, 2024. The City sought a declaratory judgment that the Hastings were violating the zoning code, a declaration of a nuisance, and preliminary and permanent injunctions. The Hastings responded with counterclaims, including claims for declaratory judgment and that the City’s actions constituted an uncompensated taking.
The City initially sought a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which the trial court denied on June 28, 2024. The court found that the Hastings had a valid building permit and that the City had not provided sufficient evidence to prove they were operating a business on their property. However, the court scheduled a hearing for July 19, 2024, to determine whether the property was a public nuisance and if a permanent injunction should be issued.
Before the hearing, the Hastings filed motions for summary judgment and to continue the hearing, which the court later granted. A final hearing was held on August 8, 2024, where several witnesses testified, including the Building and Zoning Inspector and neighbors who observed the construction equipment. The Hastings’ counsel agreed to a stipulation that construction equipment was parked on or near the property.
On August 13, 2024, the court granted the City a permanent injunction, ordering the Hastings to stop operating a construction business from their residence. The court also declared the residence a public nuisance and dismissed all of the Hastings’ counterclaims.
Appellate Court’s Decision
The Hastings appealed the trial court’s decision, raising three main arguments:
1. Procedural Due Process: The Hastings argued that the trial court violated their due process rights by not setting a case schedule and unreasonably accelerating the final hearing without allowing for the prosecution of their counterclaims. They contended that they were not given adequate notice of the hearing’s scope and that the compressed timeline prevented them from adequately preparing for their counterclaims.
The appellate court acknowledged that the trial court failed to establish a case-management plan, which contributed to the compressed timeline. However, the court found that the core factual issues were straightforward and that the Hastings had sufficient opportunity to participate in the proceedings. The court concluded that, while the scheduling deviations were not ideal, they did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation that would warrant reversal.
2. Denial of Summary Judgment: The Hastings argued that the trial court should have granted their motion for summary judgment based on the law-of-the-case doctrine, claiming that the court’s earlier finding in the preliminary injunction hearing that the City had not presented clear and convincing evidence of a business operation should have been binding.
The appellate court rejected this argument, stating that the findings in a preliminary injunction hearing are not binding at a trial on the merits. The court explained that the purpose of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo until a trial can be held, and findings made at that stage are based on incomplete evidence and are not final legal determinations. The appellate court found that the City introduced additional evidence at the final hearing and that the trial court was correct in denying the summary judgment motion.
3. Jurisdiction and Sufficiency of the Evidence: The Hastings challenged the trial court’s jurisdiction to rule on the zoning violation, claiming that such determinations are exclusively within the jurisdiction of municipalities. They also argued that the City failed to present clear and convincing evidence of an unpermitted home occupation.
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s jurisdiction, stating that Ohio’s home-rule amendment does not grant municipalities exclusive authority over zoning violations, but rather, concurrent powers. The court found that the City appropriately sought judicial enforcement under statutory authority.
Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellate court determined that the evidence presented supported the trial court’s finding that the Hastings operated an unpermitted home occupation. The court noted that the property is zoned for single-family residential use and that the Hastings did not obtain a conditional-use permit for a home occupation. The court highlighted evidence, including witness testimony and the Hastings’ stipulation, demonstrating the regular storage of commercial construction equipment on the property, which the court determined constituted a change in use requiring permits.
Conclusion
The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, upholding the permanent injunction against the Hastings. The court found that the trial court did not violate the Hastings’ due process rights, correctly applied the law regarding preliminary and permanent injunctions, and based its decision on clear and convincing evidence.