Opinion

Gordon v. City of Green

  • 113 Ohio App. 3d 729
  • 682 N.E.2d 1
Court
Ohio Court of Appeals
Filed
Aug 28, 1996
Status
Published
Author
Baird
On the bench
Reece, Baird, Mahoney, Ninth
Cited by
2 cases

The opinion

Baird, Presiding Judge,

dissenting.

As stated in the majority opinion, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that the construction of additional kennels would not be an expansion of a nonconforming use that would require them to obtain a variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals. This court today holds that they must seek such a variance before they are eligible for a court order saying that they are not required to seek it.

The plaintiffs are not seeking some sort of declaration that they are entitled to a variance; they are, rather, seeking an order determining that they do not have to ask for one. To require that they must ask for one prior to being eligible for a declaration that they need not ask for one, is, it seems to me, inappropriate.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.