This submit was authored by Jennifer Autar, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Touro Legislation Middle
On June 23, 2021, Defendant-Appellant Sulken was cited by Delhi Township Police for a misdemeanor zoning violation for having a dirt-bike observe on a one-acre property she co-owns behind her home. Even if her sons used the parcel to experience their filth bikes since 2016, it was not till 2018 when neighbors began complaining concerning the filth observe and the mounds.
The township despatched Sulken a cease-and-desist letter from utilizing the filth observe and eradicating the mounds from her property. Nonetheless, she continued to have her kids use the “worn-out” path to experience their bikes and prohibit them from using after 9 pm to keep away from any “…nuisance of the noise” points. The municipal courtroom discovered her responsible and sentenced her to a $100 wonderful plus courtroom prices. Sulken appealed, and the courtroom reversed the judgment and discharged Sulken from additional prosecution.
The State alleged that Sulken’s use of the property creates an impermissible accent use as a result of the filth bikes operated on a “parcel that was separate from the residence.” On enchantment, Sulken challenged the sufficiency of the proof as a result of she was cited for a dirt-bike observe, and the proof at trial centered solely on using filth bikes and the noise it created. Furthermore, the State’s sole witness, Anthony S. Roach, examined that there have been no unlawful constructions on Sulken’s property on the time of his inspection, and the filth mounds didn’t require a zoning allow. Because the State failed to point out ample proof to assist Sulken’s conviction that using the filth bikes was an “accent use” that violated the Delhi Zoning Decision, the courtroom discovered it unreasonable to interpret the decision to “prohibit the using of filth bikes on the property .”
State of Ohio v. Sulken, 2022 WL 2543682 (OH App. July 8, 2022)