In Gonda v. Austintown Twp. Bd. Of Zoning, 7th Dist. No. 05 MA 14, 2006 Ohio 670, Appellant had appealed an adverse ruling of the Board of Zoning Appeals to the court of common pleas. At the hearing before the trial court, appellant attempted to admit evidence that had not been admitted in the administrative hearing. The trial court refused to hear the new evidence and affirmed the decision of the board.
On appeal, the court found that the decision not to hear the new evidence was an abuse of discretion. “R.C. 2506.03 provides that a trial court shall hear additional evidence when reviewing an administrative order if one of the exceptions within that status applies. R.C. 2506.03 does not limit the type of evidence which can be introduced and the Ohio Supreme Court has called this a ‘liberal provision for the introduction of new or additional evidence.’ In this case, one of the exceptions in that statute applies.” In this case, appellant was seeking to introduce evidence that was not available at the time of the hearing. The court noted that there is a split of authority on this point, but sided with those districts that have allowed admission. “A trial court’s review of an administrative decision under R.C. Chapter 2506 is only static if none of the exceptions in R.C. 2506.03 apply. Once one of those exceptions apply, the court is free to hear any new evidence introduced by the parties in order to determine whether an administrative order is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence. Therefore, the trial court erred as a matter of law when it refused to allow Gonda to introduce additional evidence.” Reversed and remanded.