Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/07/2011

Home

Toning Bulletin May 25, 2011 I Volume 5 No_ 10 The Background/Facts: In June 2006, William Cimino ("Cimi- no") purchased a home in the city of Cleveland Heights (the "City"). Prior to his purchase, Cimino was aware that the detached two -car garage on the property was in disrepair and —had —six code violations. Upon purchase, Cimino had 90 days to correct the code violations. The City subsequently gave Cimino a series of exten- sions to replace the garage. During that time, it became apparent that the garage could not be repaired, but needed to be rebuilt. In March 2009, Cimino applied to the City for a zoning vari- ance. Section 1121.09(b) of the City's Codified Ordinances re- quired: "Two (2) off-street enclosed parking spaces ... for each dwelling unit" —either as an attached garage or a detached garage. Cimino had demolished the existing garage and planted a garden in its place. He now sought a variance to permit him to not have a garage on the property. The City denied Cimino's variance request. Cimino appealed. The common pleas court affirmed the City's decision. Cimino again appealed. DECISION: Judgment of common pleas court affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Ohio held that the City's decision to deny Cimino's variance request was supported by the preponder- ance of the evidence. The court explained that the City's ordinances required that a "practical difficulty" must exist before a variance would issue. A "practical difficulty" exists if the area zoning requirement, as ap- plied to the property owner, is unreasonable, said the court. The court further explained that in making the determination as to whether a property owner seeking an area variance has encountered practical difficulties in the use of his property, certain factors must be considered and weighed, including but not limited to: (1) whether the property in questions will yield a reason- able return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; (2) whether the variance is substantial; (3) whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variances; (4) whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage); (5) whether the property owner © 2011 Thomson Reuters 9