Laserfiche WebLink
Z.B. ,: ' ?[ .~: ;~..-': February 25, 2005 -- Page 7 <br /> <br /> with respect to the.vdeSt~wall ~uidoW was reasonably necess~ to Hefazi's' <br /> enjoyment of hs pro, ny. ~: ~ ::}:;: ~ ' · <br /> <br /> The record con~ed:v~ n0 ~nfomauon about the value of the west- <br /> wall w~ndoW m relati~ t0~ ~s~f~ef~i s propeay. Without such detmls as <br /> the amount of rent th~aP~el[t~ g~/~rated, any reduction of rent that would <br /> . .'J ~ 7 ~ % . · . . . <br />result from seahng ~ wtn~Owl ~o ~ung condmons m the f~st floor ap~- <br />ment, or the htffity:of~ng:~t~ l::eeon~gure the ap~ments, the cou~ could not <br />conclude Hef~i acq~ed a~;ii ~>~d~'~sement over Sug~tz's property. <br />~ee al~o: Carrollsbu~g v.. Aa~s~,::~91 A.2d 54 (2002). <br />see also: Joyner v. S!OI~ Me~o~al~o,p~tal, 826 A.2d 362 (200~). <br /> <br />Signs ~ New sign p~td~e~n0t, r~mre removal of old s~gn <br />Ci~ m** to for, e r~oval ,f <br />C~tat~on: P~o~a~ Too~ G~o~p [~c. v. Ct~ of Stlverton Board of Zoning <br />Appeals, Cou~ of A~eab ~ Oh]o, ~ lst App. D~st., Hamtlton Coun¢ No. C- <br />040232 (2004) j. ; [ ~. . ~ <br />OHIO (12/30/04) ~ h 20~; Pe~o~nce Tool Group Inc. filed an application <br />with ~he Ci~ of Silve~on:B~ 0~Z0ffing Appeals to construct a billbo~d sign <br /> <br /> Peffomance reqU~steda V~0fice~ indicating it wished to replace an e~st- <br />ing sign with a l~ge,,~"ffi-v~si6n'.~ b~bo~d. During the heating, Peffo~ance <br />~dicated it intended~,o temov~e~4~sting sign before constructing the <br />vision sign; ~e bo~ ~t~4; ~e, 9¢ance and issued a pemt for the Con-- <br />stmction of the new g,n. ~ ~ ,~ :~ <br /> The pemit didn't cont~ a e0n~ition requiring Performance to remove <br />it~ existing billbo~d sign ;as~a~pr~eqdsite for constructing the new tri- <br />ws~o~ slg~. '. :~ ; <br />Peffomance beg~ e°na~ct~ng;~e new sign. Soon altered& Silve~on's <br />building comssi°n{~ ordered P~o~ce to remove ~e old si~ before build- <br />ing the new one. ;~ : <br />Peffomance sue~ a,d ~e~c°~:~led in its favor. <br />The city appealed~ ~gu~g ~0~anCe's representations before the bo~d <br />concermng~ the remo~ of ~e?~st!ag s~n hlsely znduced the bo~d to ~ssue <br />thepe~t. :, ' ~ :; :~ · <br /> <br /> The city s ~gum~t wa :W¢ ut edt. <br /> It was unclear hoO Peffo~afice'~ representations could have induced the <br />board to o~t ~e removal r~qU~m~ from the pemt if the bo~d had deemed <br />removal a cmcml pr~eqms~te ~o~ t~constmct~on of the new s~gn. <br /> Moreoger, had;t~*: b° iOcmeO the remova~ requkement in the print, <br />Performance would ¢~ave Md~t[~}0~po~unity to challenge the restriction at <br /> <br />~ 200~ Quinla~ P~bl~s~m~ ~. Any ~r~_~fiOn;~ ~roh~le~. Foc mom information please call (617) 5~a-ooa8. <br /> <br />145 <br /> <br /> <br />