2019 Ohio 849
Ohio2019Background
- John and Sherry Federle own property in Wayne Township and applied in 2018 to have a Village-Transition Planned Unit Development (VT-PUD) applied to their land; Federle completed a rezoning application and submitted a PUD proposal document.
- Wayne Township trustees adopted Resolution 2018-31 approving rezoning the Federles’ parcels from R-1 to VT-PUD; a resident timely filed a petition for referendum on that resolution and the board of elections certified the petition.
- Federle protested to the Warren County Board of Elections, arguing the 2018 action was administrative (approval under preexisting PUD zoning) and thus not subject to referendum because the property had already been rezoned as part of a 2015 VT-PUD overlay adoption.
- After an R.C. 3501.39 hearing with sworn testimony, the board rejected Federle’s protest and certified the referendum for the ballot; Federles then sought writs in this court (prohibition to keep the measure off the ballot and mandamus to compel sustaining the protest).
- The central factual/legal dispute was whether the 2015 adoption of VT-PUD regulations had rezoned the subject property as a PUD (making the 2018 action merely administrative) or whether the 2018 resolution effected a rezoning subject to referendum.
Issues
| Issue | Federle's Argument | Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the board abused its discretion by denying Federle’s protest and placing the referendum on the ballot | The 2015 VT-PUD adoption rezoned the overlay district (including Federle’s parcel), so the 2018 action merely approved development under existing PUD standards and is not subject to referendum | The 2018 resolution rezoned Federle’s property from R-1 to VT-PUD; the board should not second-guess the township trustees and properly certified the petition after hearing | Denied: Federles failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that the board abused its discretion or clearly disregarded law in denying the protest |
| Whether the 2018 action was legislative (rezoning, subject to referendum) or administrative (site-plan approval not subject to referendum) | The 2018 action was administrative because the property had already been rezoned in 2015 | The 2018 action effected a rezoning (or at least was reasonably understood as rezoning) and therefore was subject to referendum | Held: Court could not find by clear and convincing evidence that the board erred; resolution treated as rezoning for referendum purposes |
| Whether prohibition is appropriate to prevent certification of the referendum | Prohibition appropriate because board’s quasi-judicial act was allegedly unlawful and no adequate remedy existed before the election | Board had authority to adjudicate protest; no clear evidence of unlawful exercise | Denied: first and third elements satisfied but relators failed to prove unlawful exercise by clear and convincing evidence |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel the board to sustain the protest | Mandamus should issue to declare the petition legally insufficient and remove the referendum from the ballot | Mandamus is not the correct remedy; the claim seeks declaratory/injunctive relief outside this court’s mandamus jurisdiction | Denied: claim for declaratory/injunctive relief beyond this court’s mandamus jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Tam O’Shanter Co. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 151 Ohio St.3d 134 (procedural standards for extraordinary writs against boards of elections)
- State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 106 Ohio St.3d 346 (board exercises quasi-judicial power at protest hearings; election timing can make ordinary remedies inadequate)
- State ex rel. Zonders v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 69 Ohio St.3d 5 (distinguishing rezoning/legislative acts subject to referendum from administrative approvals under existing PUD zoning)
- State ex rel. Ebersole v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 140 Ohio St.3d 487 (board must withhold referenda that are administrative and not subject to referendum)
- State ex rel. Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections, 80 Ohio St.3d 302 (scope of protest hearing may properly be limited to objections in the written protest)