Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/1999

Home

Page 4- August 10, 1999 Z.B. /34- because it violated the city ordinance that regulated home occupations. cording to the planning director, the anchor was a sign advertising their home business. Apparently in response, the Houghtalings hung lights from each end of the anchor's crossbar. The Houghtalings appealed the planning director's order to the city board, claiming the anchor wasn't a sign. They also asked for a variance if the board determined the anchor was, in fact, a sign. The board found the anchor was a sign and denied the Houghtalings' request for a variance. It ordered the Houghtalings to remove the anchor. The Houghtalings appealed to court, claiming the anchor wasn't a sign because it had no markings informing the public of the name or telephone number of Pleasure Cruises. The city claimed the anchor was a prohibited home-occupation sign be- cause the Houghtalings used it to attract attention to their business. It showed the I-loughtalings used the anchor as a reference point for people who came to their home to pick up tickets, by telling clients to look for the anchor. One witness said the presence of a large anchor on one's lawn indicated some nau- tical connection. Several witnesses said they thbught the anchor advertised Pleasure Cruises, but each knew about the business and what services it provided. The court reversed the board's decision, finding the anchor wasn't a sign. According to the court, the anchor needed wording or something else clearly associated with cruises for it to be considered a sign. The city appealed. It claimed the court improperly found the anchor needed wording or something else associated with cruises to be considered a sign be- cause the zoning ordinance had no such requirement. DECISION: Affirmed. The Houghtalings could keep the anchor. Whether the Houghtalings' anchor met the definition of a "sign" was irrel- evant. Even if the anchor was a sign, it didn't advertise the Houghtalings' home business -- and the ordinance prohibited signs that advertised home businesses. The ordinance didn't define "advertise," so the court used a legal dictionary's definition: "to advise, announce, apprise, command, given notice of, inform, make known" or "to calf a matter to the public attention by any means whatso- ever.'' There were no words or markings on the anchor that announced the name or phone number of Pleasure Cruises. ~though several witnesses said they thought the anchor advertised Pleasure Cruises, they all knew about the business be- fore seeing the anchor. There ~vas nothing on or about the anchor itself that declared to the public at large, who didn't know about Pleasure Cruises, that a business that sold cruise ship vacations was run out of the Houghtalings' house. Houghtaling v. City of Medina Board of Zo~?ing Appeals, Court of Ap£eals of Ohio, 9th Appellate Dist., Medina Cout~ty, No. 2896-M (2999).' see also: Ohio Departme~t of Health v. Sowald, 603 N.E.2d l_OJ 7 (~992). see also: Smith v. Granville Township Board of Trustees, 693 N. E. 2d 219 (1999).