Background
Michael E. Cheek owned and resided in a house in Montabella Estates, a Canton development zoned R-1b for single-family residential use. He also listed the property on Airbnb. Canton permits “limited lodging” as a conditional use in R-4 multi-family districts, but not in R-1b districts. In August 2024, the city cited Cheek for operating limited lodging in violation of its zoning ordinances.
Cheek appealed to the City of Canton Board of Zoning Appeals, arguing that he lived at the property and merely allowed authorized paying guests to stay with him. The Board heard testimony from Cheek and neighborhood residents and considered an Airbnb listing stating that guests had access to the entire home. It denied his appeal, and the Stark County Court of Common Pleas affirmed. Cheek then appealed to the Fifth District, contending that the Board relied on speculation and generalized neighborhood opposition and failed to apply the ordinance’s definition of a “dwelling unit.”
The Court’s Holding
The Fifth District affirmed. It held that the common pleas court committed no legal error in determining that the Board’s decision was supported by a preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence. The court emphasized that its own review under Ohio Revised Code § 2506.04 was limited to questions of law and did not permit it to reweigh the evidence considered by the common pleas court.
The court concluded that Cheek’s use fell within Canton’s specific definition of “limited lodging,” which includes renting all or part of a dwelling through Airbnb or a similar booking service. Although the property could also fit the broader definition of a dwelling unit, the ordinance’s definition of “family” expressly distinguishes a cohesive household from persons occupying a short-term rental. Cheek admitted using the residence as an Airbnb, and the listing offering guests the entire home undermined his claim that renters stayed only while he was present.
The court also rejected Cheek’s constitutional challenge. It upheld the common pleas court’s conclusion that barring limited lodging in a single-family residential district was rationally and substantially related to public health, safety, morals, or general welfare and that the Board’s action was not unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Key Takeaways
- An owner-occupied house may still constitute prohibited “limited lodging” when it is rented through Airbnb under an ordinance specifically covering such arrangements.
- A specific zoning definition governing short-term rentals controls over a broader definition of a dwelling unit that permits occupancy by authorized persons.
- In an Ohio administrative appeal under R.C. 2506.04, the court of appeals reviews legal questions and does not independently reweigh the evidence considered by the common pleas court.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that municipalities may distinguish short-term rentals from ordinary residential occupancy and restrict them to designated zoning districts, even when the property owner claims the home remains a personal residence.
It also illustrates the narrow scope of appellate review in Ohio zoning appeals: once the common pleas court has reviewed the entire administrative record under the statutory evidentiary standard, the appellate court generally intervenes only for an error of law.