OH Appeals Court docket Finds that Property Co-Proprietor Did Not Violate Zoning Ordinance by Having her Youngsters Journey Their Dust Bikes Behind her Dwelling

This put up was authored by Jennifer Autar, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Touro Regulation Heart

On June 23, 2021, Defendant-Appellant Sulken was cited by Delhi Township Police for a misdemeanor zoning violation for having a dirt-bike monitor on a one-acre property she co-owns behind her home. Even supposing her sons used the parcel to trip their grime bikes since 2016, it was not till 2018 when neighbors began complaining concerning the grime monitor and the mounds.

The township despatched Sulken a cease-and-desist letter from utilizing the grime monitor and eradicating the mounds from her property. Nonetheless, she continued to have her kids use the “worn-out” path to trip their bikes and prohibit them from driving after 9 pm to keep away from any “…nuisance of the noise” points. The municipal courtroom discovered her responsible and sentenced her to a $100 high-quality plus courtroom prices. Sulken appealed, and the courtroom reversed the judgment and discharged Sulken from additional prosecution.

The State alleged that Sulken’s use of the property creates an impermissible accent use as a result of the grime bikes operated on a “parcel that was separate from the residence.” On enchantment, Sulken challenged the sufficiency of the proof as a result of she was cited for a dirt-bike monitor, and the proof at trial centered solely on using grime bikes and the noise it created. Furthermore, the State’s sole witness, Anthony S. Roach, examined that there have been no unlawful constructions on Sulken’s property on the time of his inspection, and the grime mounds didn’t require a zoning allow. Because the State failed to indicate enough proof to assist Sulken’s conviction that driving the grime bikes was an “accent use” that violated the Delhi Zoning Decision, the courtroom discovered it unreasonable to interpret the decision to “prohibit the driving of grime bikes on the property .”

State of Ohio v. Sulken, 2022 WL 2543682 (OH App. July 8, 2022)

Scroll to Top