Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Lakewood v. Calanni
Citation: 2012 Ohio 699Docket: 96844
Court: Ohio Court of Appeals; February 22, 2012; Ohio; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
Charles Calanni appealed his conviction for failing to comply with a correction notice from the City of Lakewood regarding his automobile service station. The notice, issued on November 2, 2010, cited inadequate parking spaces as a violation of an approved parking plan from 1984. After Calanni's continued non-compliance, a citation was issued on December 14, 2010, for failing to comply with building violations under Lakewood Codified Ordinances (L.C.O.) 1306.99. Calanni did not appeal the notice to the Board of Zoning Appeals and was subsequently found guilty at trial on April 29, 2011. Calanni raised two assignments of error on appeal, one claiming that the retroactive application of L.C.O. Chapter 1143 violated his due process rights. However, the court determined that the City did not retroactively apply the ordinance; rather, it enforced compliance with a unique parking layout approved in 1984. Calanni failed to correct the violation or file an administrative appeal. The court affirmed the conviction, clarifying that the citation referenced L.C.O. Chapter 1143 but the conviction was based on the violation of L.C.O. 1306.99, which penalizes non-compliance with notices for abating code violations. Defendant previously argued against his conviction for failing to comply with a notice of violation regarding repairing vehicles on the sidewalk, which was affirmed by the court. The court noted that the defendant waived the right to challenge the merits of the notice by not appealing. The court also clarified that L.C.O. Chapter 1143 was not retroactively applied to the defendant's property, leading to the overruling of his first assignment of error. In the second assignment of error, the defendant claimed he was wrongfully found guilty of a citation related to a lawful use of his property at the time his business was established. However, the court determined that the defendant misunderstood the basis of his conviction, which was not under L.C.O. Chapter 1143. Evidence indicated that the defendant's approved parking scheme allowed a maximum of eight vehicles, yet he had at least twelve parked, which was never lawful. The court referenced a precedent establishing that nonconforming use applies only to properties lawfully used before new zoning ordinances. Consequently, the court upheld the conviction for failure to comply and overruled the second assignment of error. The judgment was affirmed, with the appellee entitled to recover costs. The case was remanded to the trial court for execution of the sentence, and any bail pending appeal was terminated, with a certified copy of the entry serving as the mandate.