McCloud v. Woodmansee
| Decision Date | 23 May 1956 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 34537,34541,s. 34537 |
| Citation | 165 Ohio St. 271,135 N.E.2d 316 |
| Parties | , 59 O.O. 361 McCLOUD, Appellee, v. WOODMANSEE, Bldg. Com'r, Appellant, et al. McCLOUD, Appellee, v. WOODMANSEE, Bldg. Com'r; Herrick, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Paul H. Torbet, Director of Law, Cleveland, for appellant in cause No. 34537.
Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Thomas J. Quigley and Charles M. Driggs, Cleveland, for appellant in cause No. 34541.
Clyne, Kane, Ray & Talty, Cleveland, for appellee.
Section 3 of the zoning ordinance, titled 'Classification of Uses,' provides for class U1 uses, single-family dwellings; class U2 uses, two-family dwellings; and class U3 uses, apartment houses, community center building, hotel, church, library, hospital or sanitarium, etc.
Section 6 provides: 'In a class U3 district, no building or premises shall be used and no building shall be erected which is arranged, intended or designed to be used except for class U1, U2 or U3 use.'
Section 7, titled 'Accessory Uses in Residence Districts,' provides in part:
Section 11, titled 'Use District Exceptions,' provides in part:
'(1) The City Planning and Zoning Commission may in the event of property being allotted which is undeveloped, and in other specific cases, after public notice and hearing and subject to such conditions and safeguards as the City Planning and Zoning Commission may establish, determine and interpret the application of the use district regulations herein established, which permission shall be confirmed by resolution of the council before becoming effective as follows:
'(a) Permit the extension of a building or use into a more restricted district immediately adjacent thereto but not more than fifty (50) feet beyond the boundary line of the district in which such building or use is authorized.
'* * *
'(c) Permit in a use district any use deemed by the City Planning and Zoning Commission in general keeping with the uses authorized in such district.'
Plaintiff contends that the type of use contemplated by Herrick is not permitted under the ordinance, and that the allowance of such use would be without authority and a gross abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Defendants contend that the contemplated use is included under the term, 'hospital,' as used in section 3 of the ordinance, or is permitted under paragraph (c) of section 11, above quoted.
It is not necessary to determine whether the term, 'hospital,' as...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Schlagheck v. Winterfeld
...Properties, Inc., v. Gottfried, 163 Ohio St. 469, 127 N.E.2d 371 (referring to delegation of legislative power); McCloud v. Woodmansee, 165 Ohio St. 271, 274, 135 N.E.2d 316; Yorkavitz v. Bd. of Tp. Trustees of Columbia Tp., 166 Ohio St. 349, 142 N.E.2d 655; Curtiss v. City of Cleveland, 16......
-
State ex rel. Flittner v. Baldwin
...St. 325, 85 N.E.2d 554; Village of Glouster v. Public Utilities Commission, 155 Ohio St. 162, 163, 97 N.E.2d 658; McCloud v. Woodmansee, 165 Ohio St. 271, 135 N.E.2d 316; Section 143.27, Revised Code; 9 Ohio Jurisprudence (2d), 446, Section The Civil Service Commission of the city of Toledo......
-
Schomaeker v. First Nat. Bank of Ottawa
...in any district. State ex rel. Davis Investment Co. v. Columbus (1963), 175 Ohio St. 337, 194 N.E.2d 859; McCloud v. Woodmansee (1956), 165 Ohio St. 271, 135 N.E.2d 316. The zoning ordinance of the village of Ottawa does not differentiate between use and area variances. Section 402.3 of suc......
-
Marjorie Webster Jun. C., I. v. District of Col. B. of Z. A.
...406 Pa. 465, 178 A.2d 578 (1962); Monforte v. Zoning Board of Review, 93 R.I. 447, 176 A.2d 726 (1962); McCloud v. Woodmansee, 165 Ohio St. 271, 59 Ohio Op. 361, 135 N.E.2d 316 (1956). See also 3 A. Anderson, American Law of Zoning § 15.09 3. That section of the Zoning Regulations reads: 31......