OH Appeal Court Holds “Practical Difficulties” Standard for Area Variances was Properly Considered in the Denial of a Variance Application

This post was authored by Matthew Loeser, Esq.

Appellants, Burlington Coat Factory of Texas, Inc. and Howland Commons, LLC requested a variance with respect to a Burlington Coat Factory location in Howland Township. Appellants requested an additional 50% increase in allowable signage space to increase the size of Burlington’s sign due to its distance from the main roadway. The Howland Township Board of Zoning Appeals denied the application for a variance, and the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas affirmed this denial based on the factoring analysis detailed in Duncan v. Middlefield, 23 Ohio St.3d 83 (1986). Pursuant to the “practical difficulties” standard for area variances, as outlined in Duncan by the Ohio Supreme Court:

The factors to be considered and weighed in determining whether a property owner seeking an area variance has encountered practical difficulties in the use of his property include, but are not limited to: (1) whether the property in question will yield a reasonable return or whether there can be any beneficial use of the property without the variance; (2) whether the variance is substantial; (3) whether the essential character of the neighborhood would be substantially altered or whether adjoining properties would suffer a substantial detriment as a result of the variance; (4) whether the variance would adversely affect the delivery of governmental services (e.g., water, sewer, garbage); (5) whether the property owner purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning restriction; (6) whether the property owner’s predicament feasibly can be obviated through some method other than a variance; (7) whether the spirit and intent behind the zoning requirement would be observed and substantial justice done by granting the variance.

Here, the trial court’s judgment entry indicated that it considered the Board’s findings under the Duncan analysis and concluded that “in the limited capacity this appeal provides according to the statute, the Court cannot find the decision was unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the proper evidence.” Thus, the court held, based on a review of the transcript and evidence presented during the hearing, that the trial court did not err in concluding that the facts supported Appellee’s decision by a preponderance of the evidence. Accordingly, the judgment of the Trumbull County Court of Common Pleas was affirmed.

Burlington Coat Factory of Texas v Howland Township Board of Zoning Appeals, 2019 WL 2341204 (OH App. 6/3/2019)