Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />Variance-City claims variance needed to keep tw.o <br />driveways! garages <br /> <br />Homeowner had promised to remove old driveway when . <br />permission was granted to build new one <br /> <br />Citation: Krol v. Seven Hills City Council, 2007-0hio-4049, 2007 WL <br />2269465 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. Cuyahoga County 2007) <br /> <br />OHIO (08/09/07)-Krol owned a home with an attached garage in the <br />city of Seven Hills. He applied to theciry for a variance to build a sec- <br />ond, lLTlattached garage on his property. <br />A hearing was held, and Krol claimed that he needed a variance due <br />to the hardship created by the small size of the existin.g garage. Impor- <br />tantly, Krol told the city that he eventually would remove the existing <br />driveway and turn the existillg garage into handicapped-accessible liv- <br />,ing space for his wife, who had multiple sclerosis. <br />The board voted to approve the variances, and Krol built the sec- <br />ond garage but failed to remove the existing driveway or convert the <br />garage into living space as he had told the board. The building com- <br />missioner subsequently informed Krbl by letter that he was in viola- <br />tion of the terms of his variance. Krol responded, also by letter, saying <br />that his wife's health had deteriorated. The commissioner advised Krol <br />to apply to the board for another variance to keep both driveways and <br />both garages. <br />Krol applied for the second variance, and another hearing was held. <br />A neighbor attended the meetic1.g, aJ.'l.d she testified that Krol's character- . <br />ization of the hardship caused by his wife's disability was exaggerated. <br />In addition, she told the board that the second garage had resulted in <br />"double traffic and double noise." <br />The board denied the variance request, and Krol appealed the denial <br />to court. The lower court found in favor of the city without a trial, and <br />Krol appealed again. <br /> <br />Decision: Reversed. <br /> <br />Krol argued that the board's denial of the second variance amounted <br />to an unlawful revocation of the :first variance. The appeals court found <br />that this argument had merit. <br />At the hearing for the initial variance, Krol was granted a variance <br />because he was able to show that a hardship existed. The record showed <br />that he made no promises as to when the existing driveway and garage <br />would be removed, and there was no condition placed on the variance <br />with regard to his completing the work on a timetable. <br /> <br />10 <br /> <br />56 <br />