§ 7. Decisions of the Board


Latest version.
  • The board's ruling in a case will follow a standardized format, proscribed below.

    Housing Board of Appeals
    Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

    Case No.______

    1. Type of Appeal: Indicate one of the following

    • Suspension of Physical and Financial Vacated Building Maintenance License (VBML) Requirements for up to a two year period

    • Indefinite suspension of Physical and Financial VBML Requirements

    • Suspension of Vacated Building Maintenance License Fees Only

    • Community Reinvestment Area (CRA) Appeal of Tax Abatement Decision or Revocation Decision

    • Revocation of a Previous Waiver

    • Extension of Suspension of VBML Requirements

    • Other: any dispute by persons aggrieved by notices of violation, decisions, or orders of the Department of Community Development, issued by Code Officials from the Division of Property Maintenance Inspections, or decisions of a housing officer that fall within the jurisdiction of the Housing Board of Appeals.

    2. If Appeal is for Code Violation or Interpretation Issue Other Than A VBML Waiver: Affirm or negate.

    • The property values in and around the subject property will not be adversely affected should the appeal be granted; and

    • The exception is consistent with the intent and purpose of the Cincinnati Building Code and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare; or

    • There has been a misinterpretation of the Cincinnati Building Code by the City official or enforcement officer issuing the decision; or

    • A variance from the applicable section of the Cincinnati Building Code, administration thereof, or any rule or regulation made hereunder, in the specific case, will not be contrary to the public interest and a literal enforcement of such provisions will result in undue hardship.

    3. If VBML Appeal: Affirm or negate the following.

    A. The Appellant is a for profit or non-profit entity and:

    • A legitimate and viable development plan exists for the property

    • Full compliance with the VBML will be an undue burden on the plan, and

    • The building will not be a serious hazard to firefighters, police or emergency personnel upon entry in time of emergency; and

    • The building and premises will not be a significant negative factor reducing property values in the area; and

    • The building or parts of the building are not deemed a threat to collapse, and the building is maintained safe and secure against entry by trespassers; and

    • The building is secured from the elements in a manner that will not cause the further deterioration of an historic structure;

    • OR

    B. The Appellant is a non-profit redevelopment corporation, and:

    • The building is in a land banked status; and

    • The building will not be a serious hazard to firefighters, police or emergency personnel upon entry in time of emergency; and

    • The building and premises will not be a significant negative factor reducing property values in the area; and

    • The building or parts of the building are not deemed a threat to collapse, and the building is maintained safe and secure against entry by trespassers; and

    • The building is secured from the elements in a manner that will not cause the further deterioration of an historic structure;

    C. The Appellant is a for-profit or non-profit entity and:

    • Part of the building is legally occupied, leaving part of the premises vacant and represents no threat to public safety or the safety of occupants, and partial occupancy is consistent with encouraging neighborhood development; and

    • The building will not be a serious hazard to firefighters, police or emergency personnel upon entry in time of emergency; and

    • The building and premises will not be a significant negative factor reducing property values in the area; and

    • The building or parts of the building are not deemed a threat to collapse, and the building is maintained safe and secure against entry by trespassers; and

    • The building is secured from the elements in a manner that will not cause the further deterioration of an historic structure;

    D. The Appellant is a for-profit or non-profit entity and;

    • The building is a historic landmark, a contributing structure within an historic district, or is otherwise shown to be of historic significance; and

    • Immediate development is shown to be infeasible and the Appellant is preserving the building for future development; and

    • The building will not be a serious hazard to firefighters, police or emergency personnel upon entry in time of emergency; and

    • The building and premises will not be a significant negative factor reducing property values in the area; and

    • The building or parts of the building are not deemed a threat to collapse, and the building is maintained safe and secure against entry by trespassers; and

    • The building is secured from the elements in a manner that will not cause the further deterioration of an historic structure;

    4. Terms of Suspension of VBML Requirements.

    A. The board may grant up to a two year suspension of VBML requirements if suspension is found appropriate under the criteria in Sec. 3(A) or 3(B) of these Rules of Procedure.

    B. The board may grant up to an additional three year suspension of VBML requirements if suspension has been previously determined to be appropriate under the criteria in Sec. 3(A) or 3(B) and the initial, maximum two year suspension has elapsed, and:

    • The building has been consistently maintained during the previous two year suspension of VBML requirements to prevent deterioration and danger to the public; and

    • The owner has made diligent efforts to develop the property but has been unable to complete plans for reasonable cause; and

    • Granting an additional suspension of VBML requirements will be consistent with encouraging development; OR

    • The building is in a land banked status and remains properly maintained.

    C. The board may grant an indefinite suspension of VBML requirements if:

    • The building is in substantial compliance with all of the minimum standards of safety and structural integrity set forth in Sec. 1101-79.4; and

    • Part of the building is legally occupied, leaving part of the premises vacant and represents no threat to public safety or the safety of occupants, and partial occupancy is consistent with encouraging neighborhood development; or

    • The building is an historic landmark, a contributing structure within an historic district, or is otherwise shown to be of historic significance; and immediate development is shown to be infeasible, and the owner is preserving the building for future development.

    • If granted an indefinite suspension under this section, the owner may be subject to bi-annual review.

    D. The board may grant an indefinite suspension of all or part of VBML fees, both past and present, upon finding:

    • The owner has transferred the property or is under contract to do so to a bona fide third party, and:

    • The new owner appears to be eligible for suspension of VBML requirements, and:

    • Granting indefinite suspension of fees will further the goal of development and neighborhood revitalization and will not conflict with the purpose and intent of the VBML ordinance; OR

    • An owner, past owner, or other person held liable for VBML fees and the condition of the premises can demonstrate a compelling reason why non-compliance with VBML requirements has been caused by the acts or omissions of a bona fide third party that exerts control over the property, such as but not limited to a bank that has filed foreclosure proceedings but has failed to take title to the property. Under such circumstances, the board may suspend the liability of the Appellant without suspending liability of other liable parties.

    If Appeal is for the Denial or Revocation of a Tax Abatement: Affirm or negate the following.

    • Appellant meets the intent and purpose of rules of property maintenance in community reinvestment areas; and

    • Granting or reinstating a tax incentive, or overruling a decision of a Housing Officer is consistent with sections 3735.65 to 3735.69 of the Ohio Revised Code.

    Additional Findings or Notes:

    WHEREFORE: (State whether or not appeal is granted and, if so, under what conditions and for what period of time.)

    /s/                                       
         Board Chair.

       

    Date:_________________