Court of Appeals of Ohio, Fifth District, Licking
from the Court of Common Pleas, Case No. 18-CV-00588
PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE JOSEPH R. MILLER CHRISTOPHER L. INGRAM
KARA M. MUNDY
DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS MICHAEL J. KING
W. Scott Gwin, P.J. Hon. Craig R. Baldwin, J. Hon. Earle E.
Wise, Jr., J.
1} Defendants-Appellants, Village of Granville, Ohio
and Village Council for the Village of Granville, Ohio,
appeal the November 2, 2018 decision and order of the Court
of Common Pleas of Licking County, Ohio, vacating a decision
by the village limiting the commercial uses of a development
plan of Plaintiff-Appellee, Southgate Corporation.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
2} In January 2018, appellee submitted a planned
development district application with the Granville Planning
Commission to develop approximately 57.5 acres of vacant
land. Appellee proposed a planned unit district (hereinafter
"PUD") comprised of single-family and multi-family
dwellings and a limited mixed-use combination of commercial
uses. The Granville Planning Commission recommended that the
application be approved. Appellants approved appellee's
plan, except they limited appellee's mixed-use
combination of commercial uses to four uses: business and
professional offices and financial institutions, specialty
food shops, specialty retail shops, and restaurants.
Appellants cited Chapter 1171 of "the Granville Codified
Ordinances and Comprehensive Plan guidance regarding Future
Land Uses, Preserving Small Town Character and Strengthening
the Tax Base" to support their decision.
3} On June 8, 2018, appellee filed an administrative
appeal contesting the limitation with the Court of Common
Pleas of Licking County, Ohio pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2506.
By decision and order filed November 2, 2018, the trial court
vacated appellants' decision, finding appellants had no
authority to limit or condition the commercial uses in
approving appellee's PUD.
4} Appellants filed an appeal and this matter is now
before this court for consideration. Assignments of error are
5} "THE TRIAL COURT ERRED BY EFFECTIVELY
HOLDING CHAPTER 1171 OF THE GRANVILLE PLANNING AND ZONING
CODE TO BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE, WITHOUT REGARD TO
THE LAWFUL AND REASONABLE MANNER IN WHICH IT WAS ACTUALLY
APPLIED TO SOUTHGATE CORPORATION'S PUD APPLICATION IN
6} "IF AN 'AS APPLIED' ANALYSIS IS
CORRECTLY FOLLOWED, CHAPTER 1171 OF THE GRANVILLE PLANNING
AND ZONING CODE IS NOT UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AND DID NOT