Laserfiche WebLink
z.g. <br /> <br />June 25, 2005 -- Page 7 <br /> <br /> Variance -- Business owner claims economic hardship <br /> Argues he must open tattoo and piercing business to stay solvent <br /> Citation: Moulagiannis v. City of Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals, Court <br /> of Appeals of Ohio, 8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga County, No. 84922 (2005) <br /> <br /> OHIO (05/05/05) ~ Moulagiannis filed an application for a change of use for <br /> his building to add a tattoo and body piercing shop to his existing ·retail busi- <br /> ness. The city denied his application, finding tattooing and body piercing <br /> services were not permitted in the local retail business district. <br /> Moulagiannis appealed and·applied for a variance. The board of zoning <br /> appeals ultimately denied the variance application. <br />Moulagiannis sued, and the court ruled in favor of the board. <br />Moulagiannis appealed, arguing his property was entitled to a variance <br />because, of substantial hardship. <br />DECISION: A ~rmed. <br /> Moulagiannis could not claim a hardship. <br /> Moulagiannis argued prior to his tenancy, th~' premise~'~had been vacant for <br />eight years and that he unsuccessfully had attempted to make economically <br />viable uses of the premises as a coffee shop, bakery, and barbershop. Addition- <br />ally, he argued without the variance, he would lose business and not be able to <br />recoup his investment in remodeling and restoring the premises. <br /> This evidence did not rise to the level of a substantial deprivation of prop- <br />erty rights. Moulagiannis was the current lessee of the property and still had <br />the use of the premises for his retail business selling tattoo supplies and body <br />piercing jewelry. Furthermore, the financial hardship that Moulagiannis suf- <br />fered was brought on by his own actions. <br /> Moulagiannis remodeled the premises with the intent of transforming it into <br />a tattoo and body piercing shop with full knowledge of the zoning res'tr/ctions. <br />Now, he could not apply for a zoning variance based on this self-created eco- <br />nomic hardship. <br />see also: Lamar Outdoor Advertising'v. City of Dayton Board of Zoning <br />Appeals,' 2002 Ohio 3159 (2002). <br />see also: Henley v. City of Youngstown Board of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio <br />St. 3d i42 (2000). <br /> <br />For subscription <br /> <br />2005 Ouinlan PuOlishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please carl (617) 542-0048. <br /> <br />107 <br /> <br /> <br />