# Sanicky v. Ruggles Township B.Z.A., Unpublished Decision (6-16-2003)

> Ohio Court of Appeals · June 16, 2003

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3694288

## Case

- **Full name:** Fred Sanicky v. Ruggles Township Board of Zoning Appeals
- **Court:** Ohio Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** June 16, 2003
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Dissent
- **Judges:** Farmer, J.
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3694288

## Opinion text

{¶ 1} I respectfully dissent from the majority's decision finding the zoning resolution as it applies sub judice unconstitutional. I do agree however, the trial court erred when it determined it would not consider de novo evidence of undue hardship because such evidence was not presented at the hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court's judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for its consideration of whether appellant's evidence at the administrative appeal was sufficient to establish undue hardship and, as a result, find the zoning resolution is unconstitutional as applied to appellant's property.
JUDGE WILLIAM B. HOFFMAN

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3694288. Public record. Not legal advice.