Phillips Supply Co. v. Cincinnati Board of Zoning Appeals

17 N.E.3d 1 (2014)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Phillips Supply Co. v. Cincinnati Board of Zoning Appeals

Ohio Court of Appeals
17 N.E.3d 1 (2014)

  • Written by Robert Cane, JD

Facts

City Gospel Mission (Gospel) (defendant) operated a homeless shelter and sought to relocate the shelter to a new facility at a property on Dalton Avenue in Cincinnati. Gospel also sought to operate related services on an adjacent property on York Street. Gospel planned to offer a daily 45-minute chapel service at the homeless shelter. The chapel was to take up 4.4 percent of the Dalton property’s square footage. Gospel’s services at the York property were guided by religious principles, but the services themselves were part of a program to provide recreation, food, and employment counseling for homeless persons. The properties were zoned manufacturing general (MG district), so the city passed an ordinance that approved the operation of a special-assistance shelter on the Dalton Street property. Next, the city issued building permits to Gospel for the two properties. Phillips Supply Company (Phillips) (plaintiff) appealed the issuance of the building permits to the Cincinnati Board of Zoning Appeals (board) (defendant). Phillips argued that the Dalton property’s principal use was a religious assembly, which was a prohibited use in the MG district, and that the York property’s principal use was a community-service facility, which was also a prohibited use in the MG district. The city code defined a special-assistance shelter as a facility for short-term housing of individuals who are homeless and who may require special services. The city code defined religious assembly as an establishment for religious worship. The board upheld the issuance of the permits, finding that the Dalton property met the definition of a special-assistance shelter and that the York property’s individual uses were all permitted uses under the zoning ordinance. Phillips appealed to the trial court, which upheld the board’s issuance of the permits. Phillips then appealed the trial court’s judgment.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Hendon, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership