Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/01/2003

Home

316 Page 6 -- April 10, 2003 Appeals -- Abutters object to planned unit development Sent a facsimile of their appeal to the city instead of original OHIO (02/20/03) -- On July 12, 2000, the developer filed an application for a "planned unit development," call/ng for residential construction in an area that abutted property owned by the Hansons. The Hansons appeared at the public hearings on the project to oppose the granting of conditional use permits and variances that would be required. After considering the proposal, the city granted approval of the permits and vari- ances. The Hansons drafted a notice of appeal and fried it with the court of com- mon pleas. They also sent by facsimile the same notice to the clerk of the city council and the board of zoning appeals. The facsimiles were actually sent to the city prior to the court filing, and the city acknowledged receiving the fac- similes. Later, the city also received certified mail copies within the 30-day period for filing an appeal. The city asked the court for judgment, claiming the facsimile and copies of the notice were not "origSnal" as required by statute, Further, the city main- rained the "facsimile" was, by definition, a copy. The court granted judgment to the city. The Hansons appealed, claiming both the facsimile and the certified mail delivery were sufficient notices of appeal. DECISION: Reversed and remanded. The Hansons' appeal should not have been dismissed. The city did not argue the Hansons failed to file notice on time. They ar- gued the Hansons failed to f'fie the "original" notice of appeal with the city, taus, not complying with the statute. The court noted, while procedural requirements were a vital component of a properly functioning judicial system, 'lit [wa]s ridiculous, to base a dismissal upon the petty gripes raised here." Doing so, as in this case, would be patently unfair. Also, there was no statement in the statute concerning the method of delivery. Here, the city presented no legitimate reason why either mode of delivery was insufficient. Citation: Hanson v. City of Shaker Heights, Court of Appeals of Ohio, 8th App. Dist., Cuyahoga Co., No. 81359 (2003). see also: Dudukovich v. Lorain Metropolitan Housing Authority, Browse our website 389 N..~.2d 1113 (]979). www. zoningbulletin.com see also: Young ~sraeI of Beachwood v. Beachwood, 740 N.E. 2d 349 (2000).