The Board of Zoning Appeals is granted the power and responsibility to hear and decide the following matters:
(a) The Board of Zoning Appeals shall hear and decide upon all matters relating to the interpretation of the requirements of the Zoning Code. This shall include matters of interpretation of the text of the Zoning Code as well as boundaries of zoning districts as they appear on the zoning map. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall be mindful of the indicated purposes and intent of all requirements within this chapter when interpreting the requirements of the Zoning Code.
(b) The Board of Zoning Appeals shall hear requests for variances to allow deviation from the strict application of the dimensional requirements within a given zoning district. In no case shall the granting of a variance allow any type of change of use. The Board of Zoning Appeals shall only have the authority to hear and decide upon requests for variances from measurable development requirements such as yard dimensions, height limitations, lot sizes, number of parking spaces required, etc. The Board of Zoning Appeals may only grant such variances when it finds that a practical difficulty exists using the following factors:
Specifically, the standards the Board of Zoning Appeals, will apply to an application for an area variance, i.e., seeking relief from the strict letter of area, height, setback and other similar requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance, to determine whether there are practical difficulties as follows:
(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 (i.e. water, sewer, refuse disposal, etc.);
(5) Whether the property owner purchased the property with the knowledge of the zoning restriction;
(6) Whether the property owner’s predicament can feasiblely 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. (See Duncan v. Middlefield [1986], 23 Ohio St. 3d 83)
(Ord. 2000-0-03. Passed 3-13-00.)