43
Appeals court hears arguments regarding Boardman landlord program
YOUNGSTOWN
Attorneys representing Boardman Township and a property owner who sued the township over its attempt to impose new regulations on landlords delivered oral arguments Wednesday at the 7th District Court of Appeals downtown.
Appearing before the panel of appellate judges – Gene Donofrio, Cheryl L. Waite and Mary DeGenaro – Atty. Joshua Hiznay, representing his brother appellant William Hiznay, argued the township’s attempt to charge landlords a fee to fund its proposed landlord registration program actually amounts to a tax.
Atty. Matthew Vansuch, representing the township, disagreed, calling the proposal for landlords to make an annual payment to the township for each rental unit they own an “impact fee” that would fund services benefiting landlords and tenants.
The appellate court arguments followed a trial in Mahoning County Common Pleas Court in which the court sided with the township. Hiznay’s lawsuit, filed in 2014, argued the township was exceeding the statutory authority provided to it by its status as a limited home-rule government.
The program in question would require landlords with township property to register with the zoning office and pay a fee. It also establishes certain standards, for both exterior and interior areas of rented properties, to which landlords and tenants must adhere.
“That is something that goes beyond what a township is statutorily able to do,” Joshua Hiznay said of the interior building regulations. He asked the appellate judges to reverse the lower court’s decision and rule the township exceeded its authority.
Judge DeGenaro questioned why the township needs to charge landlords.
“It seems like it’s generating income for the sake of generating income,” she said. “By your rationale, every property owner in Boardman Township should be charged this fee.”
The township has said revenue generated by the fees will be used solely to operate the program, and that it will reassess the fee if it turns out to generate more than needed.
Central to the township’s argument is its status as a limited home-rule government, which gives it broader powers than other types of local government, but not as much authority as cities.
In the common pleas court judgment entry, visiting Judge Linton Lewis Jr. wrote state law allows a limited home-rule government to “[a]dopt and enforce within the unincorporated area of the township local police, sanitary, and other similar regulations that are not in conflict with general laws or otherwise prohibited by division [B] of this section[.]”
The panel will take the matter under advisement.