Laserfiche WebLink
. ~3) <br />Conditions Any Vegetative Control Ordinance Must Meet <br />The Supreme Court of the State of Ohio has upheld very broad rights for <br />the use, appearance, and impact of commercial property and owners upon <br />adjacent properties and their owners. <br />1. Residential property owners should not have fewer <br />rights and priyile~es concerning the use, appearance, <br />and impact of their property upon their neighbors <br />than commercial property owners simply because of <br />residency. <br />There must be recognition of the fact that aesthetic appreciation of <br />vegetative "beauty" is not uniform; that individuals have rights to exist <br />within their concepts of "beauty". Any ordinance must therefore be <br />sufficiently broad to cover the range of "aesthetics". <br />1. Examples of styles of vegetative beauty <br />A. Agriculturally productive, controlled, <br />commercial, e.g. farms, greenhouses, nurseries. <br />B. Highly formal, exotic, e.g. Rockefeller <br />Greenhouse, Cleveland Botanical Gardens, <br />Schoepfle Gardens. <br />C. Large expances of mown grass, e.g. golf <br />courses. <br />D. Totally natural, e.g. various wilderness <br />areas in the U.S. <br />E. Managed natural, e.g. Cleveland Metroparks, <br />Lorain and Lake County Metroparks. <br />F. No vegetation, e.g. Blacktop, concrete, <br />gravel,e.g. commercial property. <br />2. It is recognized that most residences have some <br />combination of the above. <br />Property size should not be the determining factor of how someone may <br />choose to landscape their private residential property. <br /> <br />_ ~~._ ._ _ n~ . , . . ,, .n , .,. _. <br />