Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/02/2003

Home

Page 6 -- August 25, 2003 z,g, The BZA tabled the application, contending the commission g-rantedthe fzrst variance and continued to have jurisdiction for this request. The motel filed another application with the commission, this time for a 60-fooi sign. The commission suggested the area's trees could be trimmed. The matter was passed to the Westervllle Shade Tree Commission (VqSTC), which refused to allow the trees to be trimmed. However, the WSTC recom- mended the variance be approved. The commission finally denied the application, and the motel appealed to the city council. At the heaping, the planning and zoning officer testified there- already were theme identgication signs directing travelers to the motels, in- cluding the Cross Country Inn. Further, he opined g-ranting the variance would set a bad precedent and the sign would be undes/rable at this location. The moteUs counsel responded to'other questions posed and stated the motel was not losing money but had suffered a dechne in business. Also, the motel admitted there was no "in-depth survey" demonstrat/ng a causal relationship between lack of sign visibility and the alleged business decline. The city council voted to affirm to decisions of the BZA and the commis- sion, and the motel appealed to the lower court. The court affirmed the deci- sion of the city council. It noted the motel purchased the property at a time when there was a 15-foot limit on signage height. Further, if ~anted, the vari- ance would be substantial in that it would be more than seven times the per- missible height for a new sign. The variance would be inconsistent with the effort to make the entrance to the city aesthetically pleasing. The motel appealed, a. rguing the court did not properly apply the standard of 'practical difficulties.' DECISION: Affirmed. The city council's decision to deny the sign variance was al-fro'ned. The court noted seven factors to be considered in determining whether a property owner seeking a variance had encountered "practical difficulties": 1) whether the property would yield a reasonable return without a vahance, 2) whether the variance was substantial, 3) whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered, 4) whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services, 5) whether the owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction, 6) whether the owner's predicament could be obviated by some other method than a vari- ance, and 7) whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variancel There was no evidence the downturn in business was being caused by the zoning restriction. Further, the owner had lcnowledge of the restriction when he purchased the property, and the requested variance would indeed be sub- stanrial if granted. The lower court did not abuse its discretion by affirming the BZA and commission. Ciraz'ion: Cross CounrC~ Irma bw. v. Ci~; of' Wesrerville, Co~rr of Appeals of Ohio;, loth App. D/sr., Frar~kli~ Co.. No. 02A?-410 (2003). 104