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.

Simpson v. City of Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals

Court of Appeals of Ohio, Eighth District, Cuyahoga

December 26, 2019

JACQUELINE SIMPSON, ET AL., Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF CLEVELAND BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees. [Appeal by Jeanne Carney-Hagan Plaintiff-Appellant.]

         JUDGMENT: AFFIRMED

          Administrative Appeal from the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CV-18-893247

          Nee Law Firm, L.L.C., Matthew M. Nee, and Leigh S. Prugh, for appellant.

          Barbara A. Henry, Director of Law, and Carolyn M. Downey, Assistant Director of Law, for appellee City of Cleveland.

          Mansour Gavin, L.P.A., John W. Monroe, Tracey S. McGurk, and Kathryn E. Webber, for appellee Dieter Sumerauer.

          JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION

          ANITA LASTER MAYS, JUDGE

         {¶1} Defendant-appellant Jeanne Carney-Hagan ("Carney-Hagan") appeals the trial court's decision to affirm the Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals' ("the BZA") decision to grant a variance to their neighbor, plaintiff-appellee, Dieter Sumerauer ("Sumerauer"). Pursuant to App.R. 3(B), we have consolidated the two appeals for the purpose of disposition, as they contain the same facts and issues. We affirm the trial court's decision in both appeals.

         I. Facts and Procedural History

         {¶ 2} When Sumerauer purchased his home, it did not include a garage on the property. Consequently, Sumerauer applied for a zoning variance to permit construction of a new building on his property that included a 3-car garage with a second floor study and living suite. The new building would consist of approximately 2, 100 additional square footage. The previous garage[1] did not violate any setback requirements and did not require a variance. However, the proposed structure required a variance due to its height. The new structure required a setback of 31 feet. The additional living space pushed the garage within five feet of the property line.

         {¶ 3} The BZA held a hearing on Sumerauer's variance request. Sumerauer argued that he needed approval for the variance because it was difficult to comply with the current building code due to the irregular shape of the lot. Sumerauer acknowledged that he could build the garage on the opposite side of the house within code regulations, but it would block views of the lake on his street.

         {¶ 4} Several neighbors opposed the variance arguing:

1. The massive addition/suite was not consistent with single-family residence zoning because it was the equivalent of a new dwelling * * * a second dwelling, on a home that is zoned for single family;
2. There was no practical difficulty requiring the construction of such a large, multi-room addition with a substantially larger, 3-car garage, rather than simply re-building a smaller garage as originally configured;
3. There was no practical difficulty that required the new addition to be located on the south side of the house, when Sumerauer admitted it could be built on the north side without violating any code restrictions;
4. There was no practical difficulty because current conditions did not interfere with any beneficial use of the house, which Sumerauer purchased and has been fully able to live in;
5. Construction of a 2-story addition within 5 feet of the property line would destroy the privacy in neighbors backyards and interfere with their enjoyment of their own property;
6. Construction of a 2-story addition within 5 feet of the property line would block lakeshore views of the neighbors, interfering with enjoyment and reducing the value of the neighboring properties;
7. Crowding a 6, 000-plus square foot residence into a 15, 000 square foot lot would interfere with the character and beauty of that neighborhood, the large green spaces in the back, that were not crowding people in there.

         Additionally, Sumeraurer's architectural drawings demonstrated that the proposed addition would only be five feet away from combustible materials, thus openly raising ...


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.