Hillside Creed Farms v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Elections (Slip Opinion), 2021 Ohio 3214

Background

Hillside Creek Farms, LLC owns a 42.05-acre parcel in Mad River Township and sought rezoning from A-1/R-1 to PD‑R for a single-family subdivision (Rezoning Case Z-2021-05).
The Clark County Board of County Commissioners adopted an amended rezoning application (captioned in the resolution as "Resolution 2021-0433").
Petitioners filed county-referendum part-petitions on Secretary of State Form 6‑N identifying the proposal as “Resolution 2021-0433 / Rezoning Case Z-2021-05” and giving a brief description of the rezoning and property location.
Hillside and Shaw protested to the Clark County Board of Elections, arguing the petitions failed R.C. 303.12(H) because they omitted (1) the full and correct title of the application, (2) the name by which the amendment is known, and (3) material terms of the amended application in the summary.
After a hearing the board of elections unanimously denied the protest and placed the referendum on the November 2021 ballot; relators sought a writ of prohibition in the Ohio Supreme Court, which denied the writ.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the petition omitted the full-and-correct title of the rezoning application	Hillside: the application’s title included ‘Hillside Creek Farms,’ so the petition’s title was incomplete	Board: the rezoning application form contained no title; the owner name is not a title and no title was required	Court: No abuse of discretion — the application contained no discernable title, so petition need not include one
Whether the petition used the name by which the amendment is known	Hillside: others referred to the proposal as ‘Hillside Creek Farms’ so the petition should have used that name	Board: the promulgating entity (commissioners) identified the amendment by case number ‘Z-2021-05,’ which is the controlling name	Court: No abuse of discretion — the commissioners’ minutes show the amendment was known as Case Z-2021-05
Whether the petition’s summary omitted material terms such that it misled voters	Hillside: the summary omitted six substantive commitments (buffer trees, increased lot sizes/open space, cemetery preservation, architectural diversity, HOA maintenance responsibilities, stormwater improvements) that materially changed the amendment	Board: the summary identified the property, present zoning, and precise nature of the change; the alleged omissions are immaterial	Court: No abuse of discretion — summary satisfied R.C. 303.12(H); omissions were not material and the summary apprised voters of location, current zoning, and proposed change

Key Cases Cited

State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-Ohio-4758, 835 N.E.2d 336 (treats board review standard and recognizes summary that substantially tracks the resolution can comply)
State ex rel. Tam O’Shanter Co. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 151 Ohio St.3d 134, 2017-Ohio-8167, 86 N.E.3d 332 (explains statutory requirements for petitions when a property-owner application initiates rezoning and role of titles)
State ex rel. Quinn v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 152 Ohio St.3d 568, 2018-Ohio-966, 99 N.E.3d 362 (requires strict compliance with petition-content requirements)
State ex rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 63, 2006-Ohio-1292, 846 N.E.2d 8 (interprets R.C. zoning-referendum petition requirements)
State ex rel. O’Beirne v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 80 Ohio St.3d 176, 685 N.E.2d 502 (the brief summary must be of the resolution approved by the commissioners)
S.I. Dev. & Constr. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 100 Ohio St.3d 272, 2003-Ohio-5791, 798 N.E.2d 587 (summary must be accurate and unambiguous)
State ex rel. C.V. Perry & Co. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections, 94 Ohio St.3d 442, 764 N.E.2d 411 (the summary requirement refers to the commissioners’ resolution)
State ex rel. Miller Diversified Holdings, L.L.C. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 260, 2009-Ohio-4980, 915 N.E.2d 1187 (a misleading, inaccurate, or materially omissive summary invalidates a petition)
Shelly & Sands, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 12 Ohio St.3d 140, 465 N.E.2d 883 (summary must apprize reader of present zoning and nature of requested change)