Seven Hills, Ohio: Vote Yes on Issue 96

Seven Hills voters deserve facts, not threats about losing their homes. Issue 96 does not authorize property seizures, rezone your neighborhood, or let appointees put whatever they want next door. Those claims confuse a change in the review process with powers the amendment does not grant. The real question is straightforward: should a variance decision require another city decision, or should the next challenge go directly to court? Vote yes. Let the board apply the rules. Let the courts review disputed decisions. What the Board Actually Does The Zoning Board of Appeals, or ZBA, handles variances (exceptions to particular zoning requirements) and certain appeals involving building permits. Issue 96 concerns finality of variance decisions, not every zoning matter. A homeowner might seek a setback variance (permission to build closer to a property boundary) because of an unusual lot. The board must evaluate the request under the applicable rules, not simply approve what someone wants. Its hearings examine the application, plans, testimony, and supporting evidence. The city's application asks owners to explain the property's practical difficulty, why compliance is prevented, and why the variance would not harm neighboring owners or public welfare. The board currently has five city electors (residents qualified to vote), appointed by the mayor and approved by council. Each ward must have representation. Members cannot hold another city office or appointment, hold real estate or broker licenses, or be developers or their agents. Council also has a nonvoting representative. These are existing safeguards, not unchecked power. Why the Change Matters Jay Stewart, a land-use consultant with Stewart Land Use, writes zoning codes and advises communities on variance decisions, administrative appeals, and conflicts of interest. His work concerns how cities regulate property and make defensible zoning decisions. In his written advice about Seven Hills, Stewart warned that council authority over variances increases the potential for politics to enter the process. Instead, we are adopting Ohio Revised Code which is being used by over 90% of the communities in Ohio. Council's job includes writing zoning laws. The board's quasi-judicial role (applying existing law to individual cases) is different. Removing council's second decision reduces an opportunity for electoral pressure to influence a property case. Stewart's advice was to appoint reasonable members, train them, and seek impartial decisions. Appointment alone does not guarantee fairness; sound procedures and court review matter too. The Scare Claims Fail “Appointees can put whatever they want next door.” False. Issue 96 does not hand the board a blank check. It changes who has the final municipal decision (the final decision within city government) on a variance. It does not erase zoning standards or turn a variance into unrestricted development permission. “This opens the door to eminent domain.” False. Eminent domain (government taking private property through a separate legal process) is not a variance. Issue 96 grants no property-taking authority. Connecting this amendment to a forced sale is fearmongering, not an explanation of the ballot. “You lose your appeal.” False. The ballot expressly preserves judicial appeals (court review). People with legal standing (the required legal interest to challenge a decision) can seek review. Final at city hall does not mean beyond challenge. Vote for a Better Process Issue 96 removes council's additional variance decision without removing court review. It keeps the dispute focused on law and evidence rather than another political vote. Our neighborhoods deserve fair, consistent treatment. Vote yes on Issue 96. Keep the rules. Keep the courts. Reject the scare.