Agenda - Planning Commission - 05/03/2007

Home

Zoning Bulletin Handicapped Discrimination-Nonprofit serving handicapped children claims township, individuals discriminated against its business Neighbors held meetings and complained about noise, traffic Citation: Eagles Nest Ranch & Academy v. Bloom Tp. Bd. of Trustees, 2007 WL 650485 (S.D. Ohio 2007) OHIO (02/26/07)-Eagles Nest Ranch and Academy was a working farm and ranch that also operated a nonprofit organization that pro- vided "equine therapy" and rehabilitative services for handicapped children in Bloom Township. The relationship between Eagles Nest and its neighbors in the township was described as "contentious." Two property owners in particular, Mitchell and Ora bella, voiced their opposition to the ranch repeatedly, citing noise and traffic con- cerns. Mitchell and Orabella submitted complaints to the township, and Mitchell allegedly organized and held a meeting at his house to discuss shutting down the ranch. In 2005, the township asked the court for a temporary restraining order against Eagle's Nest, claiming that there was increased noise from a motorcyle racing event held at the ranch in violation of the zoning ordinance. Statements from Mitchell and Orabella, among others, were submitted in support of the request. The township asked the court for a separate restraining order later that same year; ultimately, both requests were denied. However, while the second request was being decided, Eagle's Nest had to cancel a fund- raising dinner it had planned. Subsequently, Eagle's Nest sued the township--along with Mitch- ell, Orabella, and one other private citizen-for allegedly engaging in a "pattern and practice of discrimination against handicapped persons" in violation of state law. Eagle's Nest also claimed that the zoning ordi- nance was enforced arbitrarily and discriminatorily. Mitchell and Orabella asked the court to dismiss all claims against them, arguing that their actions were protected by the First Amendment. Decision: Claims against Mitchell and Orabella dismissed. When a party asked the court to dismiss a claim, the moving parting had to show that it had an actionable claim and that the court could grant some kind of relief based on its claims. Here, Eagle's Nest claimed that Mitchell and Orabella had: "voiced opposition to the use of the Eagles Nest Ranch & Academy for its intended stated non-profit pur- pose of providing services to juveniles with disabilities," held neighbor- hood meetings in opposition to Eagle's Nest, and filed complaints about alleged zoning violations. 10 48