Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/05/2017

Home

. l t November 25, 2016 1 Volume 10 1 Issue 22 Zoning Bulletin : r The Background/Facts: Paul and Mary Jacquemin (the "Jacquemins") 1=. owned two parcels of land in Jerome Township (the "Township") in Union County (the"County").Arthur and Elizabeth Wesner(the "Wesners") owned r one parcel of land in the Township.In late 2015,the Schottenstein Real Estate Group filed a rezoning application for the three parcels of land owned by the Jacquemins and the Wesners.In furtherance of a proposed Mixed Use Planned Development on those parcels, the rezoning application sought to rezone the parcels from U-1 Rural District to P.U.D. Planned Unit Development. The Township's Board of Trustees (the "Board") approved the rezoning applica- tion in an adopted Township Zoning Resolution(the"Zoning Resolution"). Subsequently, opponents of the Zoning Resolution delivered a referendum petition on the Zoning Resolution to the Township. The Jacquemins and Wesners filed protests of the petition with the County Board of Elections(the "BOE").They contended that the referendum summary was invalid because it contained six omissions and three errors.The BOE voted to deny the protests and to place the referendum issue on the November 8, 2016 general election ballet. The Jacquemins then filed an action, asking the Supreme Court of Ohio to issue a writ of mandamus preventing the referendum regarding the Zoning Resolution from appearing on the ballot. DECISION:Writ granted. The Supreme Court of Ohio granted the writ of mandamus preventing the referendum regarding the Zoning Resolution from appearing on the November general election ballot. In its decision, the court explained that Ohio statutory law—R.C. 519.12(H)—requires that each part of a petition seeking a referendum on a township zoning resolution contain "a brief summary" of the resolution's contents.The main purpose of such a summary,explained the court,"is to pre- sent the question or issues to be decided fairly and accurately,so as to ensure that voters can make a free, intelligent, and informed decision."For that rea- son, noted the court, "the petition summary must be accurate and unambiguous.""If the summary is misleading,inaccurate or contains material omissions which would confuse the average person,the petition is invalid and may not form the basis for submission to a vote. " Here, the court found that one of the Jacquemins' arguments about inac- curacies in the summary had merit.The referendum petition summary stated that the nearest intersection to the parcels that were rezoned under the Zoning Referendum was "Hyland-Croy Road and SR 161-Post Road."However, the court found that the closest intersection was actually Hyland-Croy Road and Park Mill Drive.While that error may have seemed minor on its face, a sepa- rate big-box retail use, which had involved a contentious zoning change,e, was near the Post Road intersection with Hyland-Croy Road.The court found that "[b]y misidentifying the nearest intersection as one that is near property that is already being developed for big-box retail use,the petition summary may have poisoned would-be signers against the new development, which is more than a quarter mile away from the intersection identified in the summary.At the very least, it suggests to a would-be signer that the developments would nearly overlap each other."Having found the petition summary to be mislead- 6 ©2016 Thomson Reuters