Mr. McClain agreed, and shared that the veteran ID cards will help all veterans obtain valid and available services.

Mayor Duncan thanked Mr. McClain for his service, and for taking the time to present this information.

Mrs. Michelle Tucker, 49 Ivanhoe Avenue, asked if the food truck policy is still under consideration.

Mayor Duncan shared that the previous ordinance will be rescinded based on citizen feedback. A new ordinance will be given a first reading at tonight’s meeting that will provide limits on food trucks.

Mrs. Tucker shared that there are also two boy scouts from Troop 101 in the audience working on their communications merit badge.

City Council welcomed the two boy scouts.

A copy of the ordinance, having been placed on the desks of each member of Council prior to introduction, was read by title.

Vice Mayor Byington explained that this is an ordinance to update the decision standards used by the Oakwood Planning Commission and Board of Zoning Appeals to evaluate zoning variances. It has been recommended by the City Law Director to align Oakwood’s variance standards with Ohio Supreme Court case law.

As required by law, amendments to the text of the zoning ordinance require two public hearings. The first was held before the Planning Commission on June 6, 2018, and resulted in a unanimous recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission. The second public hearing will take place tonight.

Vice Mayor Byington asked Mayor Duncan to open the public hearing. Mayor Duncan did so, and asked Law Director Rob Jacques to make a staff report.

Mr. Jacques referenced a PowerPoint presentation and explained that he will discuss related Ohio Supreme Court decisions and proposed changes to the Oakwood ordinance.

Mr. Jacques shared that there were two Ohio Supreme Court cases where variance standards were evaluated: Kisil v. Sandusky and Duncan v. Middlefield.

Kisil v. Sandusky established two main points of variance law. The first is that there is a distinction between a use variance and an area variance. Mr. Jacques noted that the Oakwood Code does not permit use variances but does permit area variances. The second point is that there are two different standards to be applied: an “unnecessary hardship standard”, which applies to use variances, and “practical difficulties”, a lesser standard that applies to area variances.

Duncan v. Middlefield concluded that ultimately, variances are intended to be a relief-valve for avoiding an “unconstitutional as applied” challenge. Variances help prevent the argument that the Zoning Code is being applied in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner. As a result, the decision provides seven factors to consider in an effort to help guide the Planning Commission/Board of Zoning Appeals’ determination of what is or is not reasonable for a particular property, and no single factor can control the decision. Mr. Jacques shared that the current Oakwood variance standards state that the applicant needs to meet each criteria.

The seven factors are: 1) Whether property 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