2021 Ohio 2943
Ohio2021Background
- Liberty Township adopted an amendment (POD 18(D)) rezoning 17 parcels (~190 acres) to create a planned-overlay/planned-unit development; the township approved an amended version after public hearings and 36 modifications were read into the record.
- Property owner/developer Clarkshaw sought the POD 18(D) overlay; opponents circulated a referendum petition (relator Donaldson) to place the amendment on the November 2021 ballot.
- Each part-petition contained a "brief summary" that generally described adding an overlay and referenced an attached map, but no map was attached and the summary omitted the location and the specific zoning/use changes. The summary language was drawn from public-hearing notices and zoning-commission materials, not from the township’s adopted resolution.
- Clarkshaw protested the petition to the Delaware County Board of Elections alleging the summary failed to identify the property, describe the township resolution, and include modifications made before passage. The board held a hearing, sustained the protest, and decertified the petition.
- Donaldson sought a writ of mandamus from the Ohio Supreme Court to compel placement of the referendum on the ballot. The Court denied the writ, holding the board did not abuse its discretion or disregard clearly applicable law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Donaldson) | Defendant's Argument (Board / Clarkshaw) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition satisfied R.C. 519.12(H)'s requirement of a "brief summary of its contents" | Summary was adequate; it matched the language used in township hearing notices and zoning-commission materials | Summary failed to identify location or describe the present zoning and the specific change; thus it did not fairly inform signers | Held: Summary was deficient for omitting location and the nature of the zoning change; board did not abuse discretion |
| Whether public-hearing notices or zoning-commission language can substitute for summarizing the township's adopted amendment | Because petition language matched hearing notices / commission resolution, it should be sufficient | The statute requires a summary of the zoning amendment as adopted by the trustees; prior notices/recommendations are not the adopted amendment | Held: Reliance on hearing notices/commission resolution is insufficient; summary must reflect the trustees' enacted amendment |
| Whether a map or attachment was required with each part-petition | Board improperly expected a map; there is no statutory map requirement | A map (or other attachment) could have supplied the missing, material location information | Held: No statutory requirement to attach a map, but the absence of any location description rendered the printed summary deficient; attachments can satisfy summary if they provide material information |
| Whether alleged defects in the township's enactment (e.g., initiation under R.C. 519.021, discrepancies in application) render the amendment void and thus invalidate the board's protest decision | The amendment (or application) was void/defective, so the petition should not be subject to protest or should be treated as sufficient | Boards of elections may determine petition validity but are not forums to litigate the legality of the underlying ordinance/ enactment | Held: Challenges to the legality of the township's enactment are not a proper basis to overturn the board's protest determination here; the court limited review to whether the board abused discretion or disregarded law in sustaining the protest |
Key Cases Cited
- E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, 699 N.E.2d 916 (Ohio 1998) ("brief summary" refers to the amendment passed by trustees)
- Tam O'Shanter Co. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 86 N.E.3d 332 (Ohio 2017) (statutory methods to initiate township amendments; summary must reflect trustees' action)
- State ex rel. Barney v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 147 N.E.3d 595 (Ohio 2019) (R.C. 519.12(H) requires a brief summary of the contents of the enacted amendment)
- State ex rel. O'Beirne v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 685 N.E.2d 502 (Ohio 1997) (omission of present zoning/use is material)
- State ex rel. Gemienhardt v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 846 N.E.2d 1223 (Ohio 2006) (material omissions invalidate petition)
- S.I. Dev. & Constr., L.L.C. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 798 N.E.2d 587 (Ohio 2003) (summary must be accurate and unambiguous)
- State ex rel. Rife v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 640 N.E.2d 522 (Ohio 1994) (summary must accurately describe property subject to rezoning)
- State ex rel. Hamilton v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections, 621 N.E.2d 391 (Ohio 1993) (purpose of summary is to present the issue fairly and accurately to signers)
- State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 835 N.E.2d 336 (Ohio 2005) (when petition wording matches the enacted resolution, summary may comply)
- State ex rel. Columbia Reserve, Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 855 N.E.2d 815 (Ohio 2006) (no statutory requirement that a map be attached to a referendum petition)