Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/05/2003

Home

May 10, 2003 -- Page 5 Signs -- Variance denied for billboard construction Was there an unnecessary hardship? : OHIO (04/10/03) -- American Outdoor Advertising sought a variance to con- struct a billboard. It had leased land abutting U.S. Route 33, a highway. American received permits from the Ohio Department of Transportation allowing.con- struction of a billboard up to 25 feet from the highway. However, the permit was conditioned upon local approval. The Jerome Township zoning inspector informed American it. could not issue a permit because the minimum setback from U.S. Route 33 was 200 feet. American asked the board of zoning appeals for a variance allowing construc- tion with a 50-foot setback. American claimed they needed the variance because proposed buildings surrounding the area would otherwise block'the billboard from view. The BZA denied American's request, and American appealed. The lower court upheld the BZA decision; finding it was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. American appealed again. DECISION: Judgment affirmed. The lower court correctly upheld the BZA decision. . _. The'party seeking a' variance had the burden of proving' whether there was unnecessary hardship if the ordinance was literally enforced. Under state law, this same standard applied to both use and .area variances. Unnecessary hardship o_ccurred when there was no economically feasible permitted use of the property because of characteristics unique to the property. Evidence had to prove the property was unsuitable to any of the permitted uses as zoned. And, a hardship the Iandowners. imposed upon themselves was not "unnecessary." There was nothing unique about the land that prevented a permitted use of the property. The area was zoned as light manufacturing and could be used as such. In addition, the land was large enough to accommodate a billboard with a 200-foot setback, or a smaller sign, which would be perraitted under the ordinance. Further, American only submitted evidence abutters filed site plans for pro- posed construction of building closer than 200 feet from the highway, which could partially block a billboard. However, the proposed buildings had not yet been constructed, and American provided no evidence the current buildings would block the sign's visibility. Therefore, the BZA's decision was not unreasonable. Citaiton: Appeal of American Outdoor Advertising from the Decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals of Jerome Township, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 3rd App. Dist., Union Co., No. 14-02~27 (2003). see also: Duncan v. MiddlefieId, 491 N.E. 2d. 692 (1986). see also: Dsuban v. Union Township Board of'Zoning Appeals, 748 N.E. 2d 597 (2000) 443