Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Philbin v. City of Cleveland

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

December 21, 2017

ANDREW P. PHILBIN, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS
v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND, OHIO, ET AL. DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES

         Civil Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-15-851571

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS For Andrew P. Philbin Doron M. Kalir Cleveland-Marshall Civil Litigation Cleveland-Marshall College of Law For Luis S. Sandoval Kenneth J. Kowalski Cleveland-Marshall Civil Litigation Cleveland-Marshall College of Law Also Listed Andrew P. Philbin, pro se Luis S. Sandoval, pro se

          ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEES For the City of Cleveland Barbara A. Langhenry Law Director City of Cleveland BY: Carolyn M. Downey Assistant City Prosecutor For Triban Investment, L.L.C. and Knez Construction, Inc. Gillian Hall

          BEFORE: E.T. Gallagher, J., Keough, A.J., and Jones, J.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, JUDGE.

         {¶1} Appellants, Andrew P. Philbin and Luis S. Sandoval ("appellants"), appeal the dismissal of their administrative appeal. Their sole assignment of error states:

         The trial court erred by dismissing this administrative appeal for lack of standing.

         {¶2} We find no merit to the appeal and affirm.

         I. Facts and Procedural History

         {¶3} Appellants own a home in the historic Ohio City neighborhood of Cleveland, Ohio. In 2015, Triban Investment, L.L.C. ("Triban") applied for zoning variances to construct a six-unit, four-story condominium building on property located at 3703-3707 Clinton Avenue, in Cleveland. The property is located in a B1 zoning district, which limits housing to one or two-family residences under the Cleveland Codified Ordinances ("C.C.O."). Appellants' home is located one block away from the subject property. (Tr. 26.)

         {¶4} In August 2015, the Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals ("the board") held a public hearing on Triban's application. Notice of the public hearing was published as required by law. Sandoval attended the hearing and identified what he viewed as several problems with the proposed construction. In his opinion, the six-unit condominium structure would increase parking difficulties, overburden the sewer system, and adversely affect government services such as garbage collection and snow removal. He also testified that he believed the proposed condominiums would diminish the value of neighboring properties. He stated:

I believe that the granting of the [v]ariances will negatively impact the property values of nearby homes in the long term, including my home because they are in direct contradiction to the 20/20 Plan and existing [ordinances that protect the quality of life of the residents of this area of Cleveland. They prevent unnecessary density from overdevelopment and promote a responsible project that contributes to the integrity and quality of life in the neighborhood.

(Tr. 53.) Philbin, who was unable to attend the meeting due to his employment, sent a letter to the board, which states in relevant part: "I fear that my home value will be diminished by the construction of condominiums in my historic neighborhood." Neither Sandoval, Philbin, nor any other resident, offered expert testimony regarding the impact the proposed condominiums would have on nearby property values.

         {¶5} William Sanderson, an officer of Triban, testified that before Triban applied for the variances, it worked with the city's Landmarks Commission to ensure "that the building is of high quality and high value for the neighborhood" and that it reinforces "the residential characteristics of the neighborhood." (Tr.16.) Sanderson also stated that Triban met with neighbors and that the majority of the neighborhood "block club, " known as the Clifton/Franklin Block Club, voted in favor of the project. (Tr. 17.)

         {¶6} Kerry McCormack, then director of community affairs of Ohio City, Inc. and a resident who lives directly across the street from the proposed condominiums, stated that the Clifton/Franklin Block Club approved Triban's project by a vote of 16 to six. (Tr. 33, 39.) However, a couple of residents who attended the hearing and also live very close to the proposed condominiums expressed concern that some members of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.