Cuyahoga Cty. Land Reutilization Corp. v. Cleveland

Citations

• 199 N.E.3d 1104
• 2022 Ohio 3916

Syllabus

Interpretation of ordinances plain language rule of the last antecedent weight of the evidence. Trial court did not err in finding that the C.C.O. authorized the City to assess a fee for review of ten-day notices of asbestos removal accompanied by a demolition permit. The Code explicitly authorizes the fee. Trial court acted correctly in addressing the City's counterclaim when it determined that the City was only entitled to the fees when a ten-day notice was accompanied by a demolition permit application. C.C.O. 263.01(a)(6) allows a fee for the examination of plans and applications for the issuance of permits, not simply for the examination of plans and applications alone. The City did not have implied authority to assess the fees. Furthermore, the trial court did not err when it awarded the City unpaid fees but limited those fees to fiscal year 2018. The City's evidence did not separate ten-day notices issued with a permit from those that were issued without a permit, making it impossible for the trial court to determine when a fee could be assessed. Appellants, however, did provide such a break down, but only for fiscal year 2018. Therefore, the trial court correctly determined that there was insufficient evidence to award fees to the City for fiscal years 2013 through 2017.