By James Simon, Esq., Buckingham, Doolittle & Burroughs, LLP
In White Castle System, Inc., et al. v. West Chester Township Zoning Commission (June 9, 2008), 12th Dist. No. CA2007-07-157, 2008-Ohio-2738, the Twelfth District Court of Appeals examined an appeal of a decision by the West Chester Township Zoning Commission that dictated the traffic patterns and location of the drive-thru window in a proposed restaurant. The Appellant, White Castle, argued that the location and layout of the drive-thru was not subject to the Final Development Plan requirements under “C-PUD” zoning. The Twelfth District upheld the trial court’s findings that “a condition delineating the location of the drive-thru in order to enhance safety and aesthetics falls within the criteria to be considered and the discretion of the Zoning Commission. * * * the proposed plan advances the public health safety, welfare and morals.” Thus, the Zoning Commission was determined to be within their statutory powers to regulate the aesthetics of the building.
In Fairfax Homes, Inc. v. Blue Belle, Inc. (May 15, 2008), 5th Dist. No. 2007CA00077, 2008-Ohio-2400, the Fifth District Court of Appeals examined a lower court's decision in a breach of contract case where the plaintiff tried to cancel a contract because subdivision lots were in a different location within the subdivision than it was initially told. Because of the change in the location, the lots would be sellable at a lower cost and less profit to the Appellant. The Fifth District found that the location of lots was not an essential contract term when the contract’s description of the land as “ten buildable [sic] plots in the platted [subdivision]” was definite and sufficient. The court determined that Blue Belle, Inc., the landowner, had the discretion to determine the location of the lots as long as the plots were sold at the agreed contract price.