2021 Ohio 3535
Ohio2021Background:
- 139.34-acre Plain City (Jerome Township, Union County) tract owned by Scott trusts; T-Bill Development contracted to buy and sought rezoning to a planned-development district (PD) to allow ~248 single-family lots.
- Jerome Township approved the rezoning on May 5, 2021 (Resolution No. 21-051), incorporating certain regulation text and a May 5 conceptual site plan as attachments.
- Petitioners filed a zoning-referendum petition (June 1) with a statutorily required brief summary and exhibits; trustees certified the petition and the Union County Board of Elections certified sufficient signatures (July 13).
- Relators (developer and landowners) protested to the county BOE arguing the petition failed R.C. 519.12(H)’s map and brief-summary requirements (including alleged omission of the full zoning application and poor-quality maps); BOE held a hearing Sept. 1 and unanimously denied the protest.
- Relators sought writs of prohibition and mandamus in the Ohio Supreme Court to remove the referendum from the Nov. 2, 2021 ballot; the Court denied the writs, finding no abuse of discretion or clear legal error by the BOE.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an appropriate map was filed with the township when the petition was filed | Fiscal-officer certification shows petitioners did not file a map with trustees | Certification only lists materials certified to BOE; no requirement to circulate a map; petitioner testified maps were filed | Relators failed to prove no map was filed; BOE did not abuse discretion |
| Whether the petition’s “brief summary” satisfied R.C. 519.12(H) | Summary omitted material information and was misleading | Summary identified parcels, location, present zoning, and the requested change (PD for ~248 homes); fairly apprised signers | Summary adequate; met statutory-purpose standard; BOE did not err |
| Whether omission of the full 70+-page zoning application from circulated part-petitions invalidates the petition (relying on O’Beirne) | Failure to attach full application rendered the summary misleading and petition invalid | The full application was not incorporated into the township resolution here, unlike O’Beirne; omission therefore not fatal | O’Beirne distinguishable; omission of non-incorporated application does not invalidate petition |
| Whether attached maps’ poor quality / referral to zoning dept rendered the summary misleading | Small/faded 8.5×11 maps and the line “available by request” confused signers and hid material changes | Attached maps were legible; no evidence signers were misled; referral to zoning office for more info does not make summary inaccurate | Maps were adequate and referral not confusing; BOE did not clearly disregard law |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 835 N.E.2d 336 (2005) (requires strict compliance with map requirement for township zoning referenda)
- State ex rel. Quinn v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 99 N.E.3d 362 (2018) (summary requirement in R.C. 519.12(H) requires strict compliance)
- E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, 699 N.E.2d 916 (1998) ("brief summary" refers to the zoning resolution/application)
- Shelly & Sands, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections, 465 N.E.2d 883 (1984) (summary must apprise reader of present zoning and precise requested change)
- State ex rel. Columbia Reserve, Ltd. v. Lorain Cty. Bd. of Elections, 855 N.E.2d 815 (2006) (no requirement that a map be circulated with signature-gathering part-petitions)
- State ex rel. O'Beirne v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 685 N.E.2d 502 (1997) (failure to include an exhibit incorporated into the adopted resolution can be fatal)
- State ex rel. Gemienhardt v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 846 N.E.2d 1223 (2006) (material omissions that would confuse average reader can invalidate a petition)
- State ex rel. Jacquemin v. Union Cty. Bd. of Elections, 67 N.E.3d 759 (2016) (court will overturn BOE only for fraud, abuse of discretion, or clear disregard of law)
- State ex rel. Nauth v. Dirham, 163 N.E.3d 526 (2020) (elements for mandamus: clear right, clear duty, and no adequate remedy)