Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Board of Education of Olentangy Local Schools v. Delaware County Board of Revison

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Delaware

July 2, 2013

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE OLENTANGY LOCAL SCHOOLS Appellant-Appellee
v.
DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF REVISON, ET AL. Appellees-Appellees
v.
CHESHIRE DEVELOPERS, LLC Appellee-Appellant

Appeal from the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, Case No. 2010-Q-1291

For Appellant Cheshire Developers, LLC: MICHAEL R. SHADE, KELLEY A. GORRY

For Olentangy Board of Education: MARK H. GILLIS

For Delaware Cty. Auditor/Bd. of Revision: Mark W. Fowler

For Ohio Tax Commissioner Ohio Attorney General

Hon. W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Sheila G. Farmer, J Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J.

OPINION

Farmer, J.

{¶1} In March of 2009, appellant, Cheshire Developers, LLC, filed a complaint against the valuation of two parcels located in Delaware County, seeking a reduction in valuation for tax year 2008. Hearings before appellee, Board of Revision, were held on October 9, 2009 and May 5, 2010. On June 10, 2010, appellee Board of Revision granted a reduction in valuation. Appellee, Olentangy Local Schools Board of Education, filed an appeal with the Board of Tax Appeals. A hearing was held on May 9, 2012. By decision and order entered August 21, 2012, the Board of Tax Appeals reversed the Board of Revision and reinstated the valuations as originally set by appellee, Delaware County Auditor.

{¶2} Appellant filed an appeal and this matter is now before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are as follows:

I

{¶3} "THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF TAX APPEALS (HEREINAFTER 'BTA') IS UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL BECAUSE IT ERRED BY FAILING TO FIND THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS THE SAME AS IDENTICAL PROPERTY LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WHEN BOTH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WILL BE USED SOLELY FOR ROADWAY PURPOSES."

II

{ΒΆ4} "THE DECISION OF THE BTA IS UNREASONABLE AND UNLAWFUL BECAUSE IT FAILED TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE OF VALUE SUBMITTED BY ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.