Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010

Home

November 10, 20091 Volu!TIe 31 No. 21 Zoning Bulletin in denying their protests. The state law requirement that referendum petitions contain a "brief summary" of the contents of zoning'resolu- tion required such summary be: "accurate and unam.biguous." Oth- erwise the referen<;lum petition would be found invalid. Although,' in this case, the surpmary of the conditions of the rezoning was "not in the precise language of the condition specified in the [zoning] resolu- tions," the court found that the petitions were valid. This was because the court found that "the language used by the petitioners accurately surnmarize[d] the specified condition and would not mislead or con- fuse the average person." The court next addressed Miller and McCarthy's claim that the referendum petitions were invalid because they contained the wrong acreage for the. rezoned parcels. The court said that referendum pe- titions that "convey a confusing or mistaken impression of a zoning resolution by significantly overestimating the acreage rezoned by the resolution" are invalid. Referendum petitions that only slightly mis- state acreage, however, are valid. The court concluded that the refer- endum'petition on the Wolf parcel was invalid because it "significantly overestimat[ed] the acreage affected by the rezoning," thus misleading or confusing the average voter as to the affect of the rezone. Here, the referendum petition concerning the zoning amendment relating to the Wolf parcel incorrectly referred to two parcels, totaling approximately 72 acres. In fact the zoning amendment applied only to one 41-acre parcel. The court further concluded that the referendum petition on the other two parcels were valid. Those petitions misstated the acreage rezoned for each parcel by approximately one acre. Such a "minimal misstatement in acreage [was] insufficient to preclude a referendum on the zoning amendment." See also: State ex reI. Finkbeiner v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 122 Ohio St. 3d 462, 2009-0hio-3657, 912 N.E.2d 573 (2009). See also: State ex reI. O'Beirne v. Geauga Cty. Bd~ of Elections, 80 Ohio St. 3d 176, 1997-0hio-348, 685 N.E.2d 502 (1997). See also: Stutzman v. Madison Cty. Bd. of Elections, 93 Ohio St. 3d, 511, 2001-0hio-1624, 757 N.E.2d 297 (2001). Case Note: The court also concluded that Miller and McCarthy had established the third requirement necessary for them to be en- titled to the writ of prohibition that they requested as to the Wolf referendum petition. Because of the proximity of the November 3, 2009 election, Miller and McCarthy lacked an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law to challenge the validity of the Wolf referendum petition on the acreage issue. The court thus granted a writ of prohibition to prevent the BOE from submitting the Wolf ' rezoning to the township electorate for a vote. 10 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 38 .~ ( ') (~~''; ( ) .......-'"