Seven Hills voters narrowly approved a city-sponsored charter amendment on Election Day that reshapes how the suburb handles zoning variance decisions, giving the zoning board of appeals the final word without sign-off from any other municipal body. Issue 96 passed with 2,864 votes in favor to 2,475 against, a 53.64% to 46.36% split.
The final unofficial tally came from the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections, as reported by Cleveland.com. The amendment makes the zoning board's decision the final determination on any variance, cutting out the need for approval from another municipal body once the board rules.
What Counts as a Variance in Seven Hills
Seven Hills City Council President Phillip Kiriazis said the change was meant to clarify and streamline the decision-making process for variance requests within the city. He noted that zoning variances can touch on property setbacks, building dimensions, additions and other exceptions to local zoning requirements — the kind of granular property disputes that often land before the board.
The amendment changes who has the last word on a variance, but not the board’s appointment structure. Seven Hills’ board has five city electors, appointed by the mayor and confirmed by a council majority, with at least one member from each ward. A council member also attends as a nonvoting ex officio member and reports the board’s work to council, under the city’s board rules.
Kiriazis also acknowledged the measure's messaging problem heading into the vote. He said some voters might not understand the practical change being proposed, adding that the ballot language did not clearly communicate how the zoning board of appeals process actually works.
Mayor Flagged Confusion Risk Before the Vote
That concern wasn't limited to the council president. Seven Hills Mayor Anthony D. Biasiotta was worried before Election Day that confusing ballot language for Issue 96 could trip up residents, going so far as to say failure was a real possibility. Ahead of the vote, Biasiotta had also stressed that the amendment would not touch the city's zoning use law, which he said would remain in the hands of the electorate.
The measure's roots go back to mid-October, when the proposal was first put before voters as a charter amendment that would make the zoning board's decision the final determination on any variance. That framing held through to Election Day, and ultimately through to passage, despite the warnings about voter confusion.
The Legal Backdrop
Ohio law gives municipalities broad latitude to structure these kinds of boards. Under Ohio Revised Code Section 713.11, a municipal legislative authority may create an administrative board and delegate it specific powers, including hearing certain appeals and permitting exceptions or variations from district zoning regulations. That statute establishes the general authority behind arrangements like Seven Hills' zoning board, though it does not spell out the details of this particular amendment.
The board’s final say would still leave a route to court. Ohio law generally allows final decisions by local administrative boards to be reviewed by the county Common Pleas Court. A judge may affirm or reverse a decision, or send it back, if it is legally flawed or unsupported by the record. Issue 96 therefore removes a layer of municipal review, not the state-law avenue for judicial review.
