2011 Ohio 3468
Ohio Ct. App.2011Background
- Buckley appeals the City of Solon's denial of his variance requests for a second backyard storage/‘tree house’ structure and a height variance.
- The structure was built in 1999; a base was added in 2006; the top portion is 16 feet high and used for storage.
- Solon Codified Ordinance 1287.06(1)(B) and (1)(B)(3) limit residential accessory structures to one built up to 12 feet in height and cap total rear-yard coverage at 25%.
- City Planning Commission denied Buckley’s variance applications in August 2009 after multiple meetings and negotiations with Buckley and neighbors.
- Buckley appealed the decision first to Solon City Council and then sought relief via an administrative appeal under R.C. Chapter 2506; the Common Pleas Court affirmed the City’s decision.
- Buckley challenges, on several theories, whether the record was properly expandible, whether the structure’s use qualifies as a pre-existing non-conforming use, and whether the City correctly applied practical-difficulty and other variance standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court should have expanded the record | Buckley sought expansion for constitutional/factual issues and missing record items. | Record expansion not warranted; transcript sufficient under R.C. 2506.03. | Trial court did not abuse discretion; record expansion denied. |
| Whether Buckley’s property is protected as a non-conforming use | Structures predated the ordinances and were grandfathered. | No pre-existing non-conforming use established; ordinances restricted two structures. | Second assignment overruled; no non-conforming use protection. |
| Whether the City correctly applied the practical-difficulties test | Buckley needed more than mere sentimental value and two structures are necessary. | No practical difficulties shown; use was storage rather than permissible use. | Buckley failed to show practical difficulties; City correctly applied test. |
| Whether the City’s zoning application was constitutional as applied | Ordinances were unconstitutional as applied to Buckley’s property. | Ordinances are presumed valid; Buckley did not show arbitrariness or irrationality. | Constitutionality upheld; no arbitrary or invalid application found. |
| Whether the City relied on aesthetics improperly | Denial was driven by aesthetics rather than health, safety, morals, or general welfare. | Aesthetics may be considered; City’s reliance was not arbitrary or capricious. | Decision not reversed; aesthetics properly weighed under zoning authority. |
| Whether the City’s decision was supported by substantial reliable evidence | Record deficiency undermines the preponderance standard. | Transcript ample; no gaps requiring relief. | City’s denial supported by preponderance of reliable, probative evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. City of Cleveland, 66 Ohio St.2d 93 (1981) (zoning ordinances presumed valid; health, safety, morals and general welfare link)
- Duncan v. Middlefield, 23 Ohio St.3d 83 (1986) (practical difficulties test factors for area variances)
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 90 Ohio St.3d 142 (2000) (scope of review in R.C. 2506 appeals; abuse of discretion standard)
- Ambler Realty Co. v. Euclid, 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (police powers; due process and legitimate public purpose in zoning)
- Set Prods., Inc. v. Bainbridge Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 31 Ohio St.3d 260 (1987) (unnecessary hardship and variance standards for use of property)