Faith Walk Fellowship Church (“Faith Walk”) owns a single-family residence in a single-family residential district of Cleveland, Ohio (“the City”). As churches are permitted uses in single-family residential districts, Faith Walk sought a variance to use the residence as a church, and to install a gravel parking lot for six vehicles on an adjacent, vacant lot. The City denied Faith Walk’s application on several grounds: (1) the proposed use did not conform to setback requirements; (2) accessory off-street parking spaces must be paved; and (3) Faith Walk failed to incorporate as a means of screening the proposed parking spaces. The Cleveland Board of Zoning Appeals (“the Board”) then conducted a hearing on Faith Walk’s appeal.
At the hearing, the Board reached several conclusions. First, that Faith Walk would not suffer an unreasonable hardship if refused a variance “since [it is] not denied any use of the property not also denied other owners in that district similarly situated[.]” Second, “[t]he proposed change to the one family house would be an adverse impact upon neighboring property owners with the limitations for parking and additional traffic that would accompany the assembly use.” Third, that to establish a use for a church in the midst of what are predominantly one-family homes “would be inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood.” Finally, the Board found that refusing the variance would not result in unreasonable hardship because Faith Walk would not be denied any use of the property not also denied to other similarly situated owners. Faith Walk subsequently filed suit, and the Court of Common Pleas affirmed the decision of the Board.
If you have questions about the zoning issues surrounding turning a home into a church, one of our experienced religious land use attorneys would be happy to speak with you. Please contact us.Speak With An Attorney
On appeal, Faith Walk argued that the trial court erred by affirming decision of the Cleveland Zoning Board of Appeals. Specifically, it insisted that the board improperly focused on whether a church should be a permitted use. Rather, Faith Walk’s argument was that because a church is a permitted use for a one-family district, the only question the Board should have considered is whether Faith Walk would have practical difficulties in using the house as a church unless the variance was granted.
In its opinion, the appellate court noted that Cleveland Codified Ordinance 337.02(f)(1) permits “[t]he following buildings and uses, if not located less than fifteen (15) feet from any adjoining premises in a Residence District not used for a similar purpose: (1) churches and other places of worship, but nor including funeral chapels or mortuary chapels[.]” The court agreed that Faith Walk, had all other prerequisites been met, did not need permission from the City to convert an existing one-family house into a church. The court explained: “When a zoning code permits a certain use for a property, the property owner requires no further approval from the zoning authority to convert land to a permitted use.” However, Faith Walk did not satisfy the necessary prerequisites to establishing its right to convert the house into a church, because the house that Faith Walk sought to convert was less than 15 feet from the adjoining premises.
Nevertheless, Faith Walk maintained that the board should have construed the words “adjoining premises” to mean the house situated on the adjoining lot, located more than 15 feet from Faith Walk’s house, and not the adjoining lot itself. According to the court, the plain and ordinary meaning of the word “premises” is used in various statutes to mean both the land and the structures on the land. For example, R.C. 5739.01(K) defines the work “premises” for tax code purposes as including “any real property or portion thereof[.]” Similarly, R.C. 2925.01(P) states that an offense is committed within the vicinity of a school when “the offender commits the offense on school premises, in a school building, or within one thousand feet of the boundaries of any school premises . . . .” In both statutes, the word “premises” is used to indicate not only structures and dwellings, but the lands on which those structures and dwellings are located. Therefore, the appellate court held that the trial court did not err by finding that the house Faith Walk wished to use as a church was less than 15 feet from any adjoining premises.
Because Faith Walk did not satisfy the necessary prerequisites to establish its right to convert the house into a church, to proceed, it needed to obtain an area variance from the City. Unlike the more stringent “use” variance, an “area” variance will be granted upon a showing of “practical difficulties rather than unnecessary hardship.” Boice v. Ottawa Hills, 999 N.E.2d 649, 652 (Ohio 2013). In Cleveland, Codified Ordinance 329.03(b) limits the Board’s authority to grant an area variance to specific cases where the following conditions are shown:
The burden to prove the three conditions set forth in Cleveland Codified Ordinance 329.03(b) is on the party seeking the variance, and the failure to establish all three conditions require the board to deny the requested variance. See Consol. Mgt., Inc. v. Cleveland, 452 N.E.2d 1287 (Ohio 1983). Thus, the appellate court addressed two separate issues with regard to the area variance: first, whether Faith Walk would have practical difficulty in using the house as a church without the requested variance; and second, whether it would have practical difficulty operating a church without the addition of six, off-street parking spaces.
With regards to the first issue, Faith Walk argued the Board should have considered whether the denial of an area variance would have caused Faith Walk practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship in operating the house as a church, not whether it suffered any hardship because the house could continue to be used as a residence. In response, the court stated: “
A defining aspect of area variances is that the practical difficulties-undue hardship standard refers to the characteristics of the land, not conditions personal to the owner of the land. In other words, Faith Walk had to show that the 15-foot setback requirement does not refer to conditions personal to it as the owner of the land in question but rather refers to the conditions especially affecting the lot in question.
The court found no evidence that Faith Walk could not erect on the property a church that conformed to the setback requirements. The fact that it could not use the existing structure on the land for use as a church was a condition personal to Faith Walk, not the property. Moreover, the existing conforming use of the property as a single-family residence in a single-family residential district showed that the characteristics of the land did not demonstrate practical difficulty in complying with the zoning ordinance, as the land could be, and had long been, put to use as a single-family residence. Therefore, Faith Walk’s difficulties with the 15-foot setback requirement were personal to its preferred way to use the land, and not the property itself. Thus, the practical difficulties-undue hardship criteria were not met.
Because Faith Walk’s need to build an unpaved, off-street accessory parking lot was based on it being able to use the house as a church, the church concluded that Faith Walk’s need for a variance for this purpose was moot, as that need no longer existed. However, the court noted that, even if the matter of a variance for an unpaved, off-street accessory parking lot continued to exist, it found no error with respect to the board’s conclusions. In Duncan v. Middlefield, 491 N.E.2d 692 (Ohio 1986), the Ohio Supreme Court set forth the following, nonexclusive list of factors to be considered and weighed when determining whether a property owner has encountered practical difficulties in the use of property:
However, the court ultimately found that Faith Walk’s argument that the Board’s application of the Duncan factors and its findings rejecting the claim of practical difficulties were erroneous, was factual in nature, and thus beyond the appellate court’s scope of review. Consequently, the court affirmed the decision of the trial court.
Dalton & Tomich, PLC is the national leader in successfully helping churches, other religious institutions and their insurers defend their rights in land use and zoning matters under RLUIPA, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. We have helped clients win cases against municipalities and other local government bodies from coast to coast, with experience serving both as general counsel and special litigation counsel.
In 2015, Hope Rising Community Church experienced extreme opposition, the kind that would force it to close its doors and leave behind the families and youth it was so passionate about reaching. As the lead pastor I felt helpless, inferior and as if I had no […]Read More
Dalton & Tomich’s assistance in our RLUIPA matter has paved the way for our church to continue serving the community and for new churches in the area to thrive in the future. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts for your stand for religious […]Read More
The Urban Church will be forever grateful to Dalton & Tomich plc for navigating it through a difficult land use issue. Let them give you honest and caring advice because that’s exactly what they’ll do.Read More
Dalton & Tomich, PLC defended a complicated case at a church we insure. Not only is the firm professional, they understand how church business runs and work well within church leadership.Read More
Dalton & Tomich, PLC helped us immensely in the areas of litigation and negotiation! Their professionalism and understanding of church policy helped our church be victorious in a modern day religious land use battle. RLUIPA Religious Land Use Case: Lighthouse Community Church of GodRead More
Dalton & Tomich, PLC serves as General Counsel for the 144 churches within the Church of God in Michigan. The firm provides the legal expertise we need in dealing with the issues that arise during the course of fulfilling our ministry.Read More
I met Dan Dalton during a dark time for our church. He was recommended as the leading RLUIPA attorney in the nation. He demonstrated wisdom, expertise, a gentle nature, a calming inter-relational skill, genuineness, and a humble demeanor, while at the same time, being sharp, […]Read More
Mr. Dalton’s expertise and experience helped us through a very difficult legal journey, ultimately achieving a favorable outcome. His personal interest in helping our church went “above and beyond” just the call of duty. His understanding of both legal and spiritual matters seems to uniquely […]Read More