For nearly a hundred years, Ohio law has held that ”[s]tatutes or ordinances…which impose restrictions upon the use, management, control, or alienation of private property, will be strictly construed, and their scope cannot be extended to include limitations not therein clearly prescribed….”
Fortunately for the homeowners in this zoning appeal, the term “porch” is not “clearly prescribed” or defined in the Danbury (Ottawa County) Zoning Regulations. It was therefore unreasonable, arbitraty, or capricious for the Board of Zoning Appeals to deny a variance for a non-conforming “porch,” and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in so holding.
The case is Cavileer v. Danbury Township (6th Dist.), 2009-Ohio-5616 [PDF].
This post was written by Jeffrey M. Nye.
