Stumpff v. Riverside Bd. of Zoning Appeals

Citations

• 2020 Ohio 4328

Syllabus

The trial court did not abuse its discretion by affirming the BZA's administrative decision, in which the BZA found that appellant did not prove a continuing, nonconforming use of land, because appellant failed to satisfy his burden to prove the use by a preponderance of the evidence. In addition, the trial court did not consider inadmissible evidence contrary to Crim.R. 11(B)(2), and even if the court's consideration of the evidence were error, the error was harmless. Finally, the trial court did not err by failing to resolve an apparent conflict between the testimony of a witness and certain documentary evidence. Judgment affirmed.