Consolidated Management, Inc. v. City of Cleveland
Ohio Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtHolmes, J.
The issue before us centers on the statutory construction of certain provisions of the Cleveland zoning code and whether a variance was properly issued pursuant to such provisions. The lower courts, in construing the code, upheld the granting of appellees’ variance without requiring evidence of unreasonable hardship or practical difficulty to the property in question. We disagree with this interpretation and, therefore, reverse the lower court’s decision.
A variance is intended to permit amelioration of strict compliance of the zoning ordinance in individual cases. It is designed to afford…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1926
- Schomaeker v. First National Bank of OttawaOhio Supreme Court · 1981
- C. Miller Chevrolet, Inc. v. City of Willoughby HillsOhio Supreme Court · 1974
- Fox v. Shriver-AllisonOhio Court of Appeals · 1971
- State Ex Rel. City Ice & Fuel Co. v. StegnerOhio Supreme Court · 1929
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by55 opinions
- Kisil v. City of SanduskyOhio Supreme Court · 1984
- Franchise Developers, Inc. v. City of CincinnatiOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Duncan v. Village of MiddlefieldOhio Supreme Court · 1986
- Set Products, Inc. v. Bainbridge Township Board of Zoning AppealsOhio Supreme Court · 1987
- Kurtock v. Cleveland Bd. of Zoning AppealsOhio Court of Appeals · 2014
50 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.