The Ohio Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of the Lucas County Engineer and the Lucas County Board of Commissioners, dismissing a case brought by King Road Holdings, Ltd. The court's decision, issued on June 26, 2026, addresses property access rights and the implications of traffic control measures on business operations. The ruling is significant for property owners who may face similar issues in the future.
King Road Holdings, Ltd. (KRH) owns a property located at 3611 King Road in Sylvania Township, Ohio. The property is situated at the intersection of King Road and University Parks Trail, a pedestrian and bicycle path. KRH claimed that the installation of a traffic signal and stop bar at this intersection has severely disrupted its business operations. The company argued that the traffic light, which occasionally stops traffic for up to three-and-a-half minutes, blocks access to its driveway, the only entrance to the property. KRH sought legal action to compel the county to hold an appropriation hearing for compensation or to create an additional entrance to the property.
The dispute began when KRH filed a mandamus action against the county, asserting that the installation of the traffic light constituted a compensable taking of its property. The county admitted to the installation but denied that it represented a taking, arguing that the traffic signal did not physically occupy KRH's property and that any delays were temporary and shared with the general public.
The case reached the Ohio Court of Appeals after the Lucas County Court of Common Pleas granted the county's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court concluded that KRH had failed to demonstrate that the installation of the traffic signal constituted a compensable taking of its property. The court emphasized that a taking occurs only when access to a property is completely eliminated, which was not the case here.
The court ruled that KRH's claims of substantial interference with access rights did not meet the legal standards for a taking. The trial court's decision highlighted that the right to access public roadways does not guarantee uninterrupted access, especially when the regulation serves the public interest. The court stated, "Denial of access alone is only sufficient to show a taking when a state action completely deprives a property owner of all access to an abutting roadway." In this instance, the court found that the traffic signal created only brief delays and did not eliminate access to KRH's property.
In its analysis, the appellate court reaffirmed the distinction between "circuity of travel" to and from a property and within the property itself. The court noted that while KRH experienced some inconvenience due to the traffic signal, this inconvenience was shared with the general public, thus not constituting a substantial interference with access rights. The court referenced previous Ohio case law, stating that "mere circuity of travel, necessarily and newly created, to and from real property does not of itself result in legal impairment of the right of ingress and egress to and from such property." The court's ruling emphasized that the traffic signal's regulation of access was a valid exercise of police power aimed at ensuring public safety. The court concluded that the delays caused by the traffic signal did not amount to a compensable taking and that KRH had no clear legal right to the relief it sought.
This ruling has significant implications for property owners and local governments. It clarifies the legal standards regarding access rights and the extent to which government actions can impact property use. Property owners facing similar situations may find it challenging to claim compensation for access disruptions unless they can demonstrate a complete deprivation of access or a substantial interference that is not shared with the general public.
Looking forward, KRH may consider appealing the ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court, though it remains to be seen whether such an appeal would be successful. The case highlights the ongoing tension between property rights and public safety regulations, a topic that continues to evolve in legal discussions.
As local governments implement traffic control measures to enhance safety, property owners must remain vigilant and informed about their rights. The outcome of this case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in property access disputes and the importance of understanding the legal landscape surrounding these issues.