Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010

Home

(0 () ',---/.- () ..,~ Zoning Bulletin November 10, 2009/ Volume 31 No. 21 Thereafter, certain township residents sought to have the rezoning of each of the parcels go to the township electors for a vote. Those residents circulated referendum petitions and submitted them to the Board. The Board certified the petitions to township's board of elec- tions (the "BOE"). The BOE voted to certify the referendum petiti6ns to the November 3, 2009, general election ballot. Miller and McCarthy challenged the referendum petitions by filing a protest with the BOE. They claimed the petitions were invalid because, among other things, they: (1) "buried 1n dense text, or otherwise con- tained... an inaccurate and misleading summary" of one of the condi- tions of the rezoning; and (2) contained the wrong acreage for each rezoned parcel. The BOE denied Miller and McCarthy's protest. Miller and McCarthy then filed with the Supreme Court of Ohio an expedited election action for a writ of prohibition to prevent the BOE from submitting the resolutions to a vote at the November 3, 2009, general election. DECISION: Writ granted in part and denied in part. The Supreme Court of Ohio concluded that Miller and McCarthy had established that they were entitled to the requested writ of prohibi- tion regarding one of the referendum petitions (on the resolution of the rezoning of the Wolf parcel). This was because the referendum petition on the resolution of the rezoning of the Wolf parcel significantly over- estimated the acreage affected by the rezone. The court also concluded, however, that Miller and McCarthy had not established such entitle- ment as to the other two petitions (on the resolutions rezoning the De- Christopher and Neiderhouse parcels). The court explained that for Miller and McCarthy to be entitled to each of the writs of prohibition that they requested, they had to estab- lish that: (i) the BOE was about to exercise quasi-judicial power; (2) the exercise of that power was unauthorized by law; and (3) denying the writ would result in injury for which no adequate remedy existed in the ordinary course of law. The court found that Miller and McCar- thy had established the first of those requirements: The BOE was exer- cising quasi-judicial power when it corisidered Miller and McCarthy's protests. As to the second of the requirements, Miller and McCarthy had to show that the BOE "abused its discretion or clearly disregarded the applicable law by denying their protest and certifying the resolu- tions rezoning the parcels for a vote .... " For the third requirement, Miller and McCarthy had to show there was a' "lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." The court first address~d Miller and McCarthy's claim that the ref- erendum petitions failed to accurately summarize the conditions of the rezoning. As to this claim, the court concluded that Miller and Mc- Carthy had failed to establish that the BOE had abused its discretion @ 2009 Thomson Reuters' 9 37