Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/01/1998

Home

Page 6- August 10, 1998 Z.B. DECISION: Affirmed. The board properly found the Obers' use of their property for an automo- bile repair business wasn't a customary home occupation. The Obers' use of their property didn't fit the definition of a "customary home occupation." That the Obers didn't do anything to change the appear- ance of the garage didn't mean their business was a proper home occupation. The regulations simply prohibited the alteration of a building to alter its ap- pearance as a residence; they didn't mean the business was allowed as long as the building's appearance wasn't changed. Although the Obers didn't have any signs advertising their business, they "couldn't deny that the business itself attracted customers to the property. Cus- tomers actually entered the property to leave their cars for repair, to pick up their cars, and to pay their bills. Even if the city had interpreted the prohibition against attracting customers to mean that no business signs were allowed, this didn't prevent the city from enforcing the regulations against any business that drew customers to the property. see also: Ober v. Deer Park, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 1st Appellate Dist., Hamilton County, Nos. C-950230 and C-950244 (1995). see also: Approval of a Residence at 10 Guido St. v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Cincinnati, 690 N.E. 2d 593 (1996). Historic District- City claims historic zoning ordinance applies only to exterior alterations Citation: Old West End Association v. City. of Toledo, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 6th Appellate Dist., Lucas County, L-97-1386 (1998) Old West End Association was an organization concerned with the preser- vation of historic districts in Toledo, Ohio. In 1982, Old West End sued the city, asking the court to require the city to enforce a zoning ordinance. The ordinance stated that no "environmental changes" could be made to properties in historic districts unless the historic district commission issued a certificate of appropriateness. It also prohibited the city from issuing a build- ing permit for any alterations unless the commission had issued a certificate. The court issued a decree stating no environmental changes could be made to properties in historic districts unless the historic commission had issued a cer- tificate of appropriateness. In 1985, the court amended the decree to state the city couldn't issue a demolition permit within a historical district without the commission's approval. The court amended the decree two years later to state that if an owner violated the terms of his or her certificate of appropriateness, the city couldn't retroac- tively approve changes to the certificate or grant a new certificate if the effect was to retroactively approve changes not specified in the original certificate. In 1996, Old West End notified the city building department that owners planned to seI1 windows from their historic property the next day. The building