University Circle, Inc. v. City of Cleveland
Ohio Supreme Court
1Per curiam
Appellant contends that the Court of Appeals misconstrued the zoning provisions pertinent to this controversy and that a variance from the board of zoning appeals is not required prior to the proposed construction. Appellant' urges further that the construction of a parking lot is an “accessory use” to the operation of a hospital.
Cleveland zoning ordinance No. 1205-58, effective August 10, 1958, as found in Section 5.11020101 of the zoning code defines “accessory parking space” as:*
“Accessory parking space shall be an area open or enclosed, of not less than one. hundred eighty (180) square…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- City of Pepper Pike v. LandskronerOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
- Kordick Plumbing and Heating Company v. SarconeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1971
- Talarico v. ConklingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
- Taft v. Zoning Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1949
3Cited by30 opinions
- Henley v. City of Youngstown Board of Zoning AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
- Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
- Saunders v. Clark County Zoning DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- Mishr v. Board of Zoning AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1996
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.