Legal Opinion

University Circle, Inc. v. City of Cleveland

Ohio Supreme Court

Decided December 6, 1978No. 78-335PublishedCited by 30 opinions

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

  1. City of Pepper Pike v. LandskronerOhio Court of Appeals · 1977
  2. Kordick Plumbing and Heating Company v. SarconeSupreme Court of Iowa · 1971
  3. Talarico v. ConklingSupreme Court of Connecticut · 1975
  4. Taft v. Zoning Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1949

3Cited by30 opinions

  1. Henley v. City of Youngstown Board of Zoning AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  2. Cleveland Clinic Found. v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning Appeals (Slip Opinion)Ohio Supreme Court · 2014
  3. Henley v. Youngstown Bd. of Zoning AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 2000
  4. Saunders v. Clark County Zoning DepartmentOhio Supreme Court · 1981
  5. Mishr v. Board of Zoning AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1996

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API