PERRYSBURG – Erring in favor of the public’s right to a referendum, the State Supreme Court will allow a
vote on two of three resolutions to rezone certain properties south of U.S. 20 in the township.
In a 6-1 vote, the court decided Monday to grant a partial writ of prohibition to developers that would
keep the Wood County Board of Elections from submitting a referendum on denser residential zoning for
one of three rural parcels – the 41-acre Wolf property – to voters in the general election.
However, the writ still allows referendum petitions related to the rezoning of the nearby Neiderhouse and
DeChristopher parcels to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot. They also have been rezoned to allowed denser
residential development.
All three parcels together total about 180 acres in the area of Neiderhouse and Thompson roads.
"This holding is consistent with our duties recognizing that ‘the constitutional right of citizens
to referendum is of paramount of importance,’" the justices wrote in a majority opinion, citing the
case of Ohio Gen. Assembly v. Brunner.
Miller Diversified Holdings and McCarthy Builders had argued against the validity of the petitions, each
signed by more than 500 residents in opposition to rezoning of the properties where developers have
planned to build a subdivision.
Kurt Miller, of Miller Holdings, said his party felt legitimate complaints were made about the other
petitions but said he was satisfied the court found merit in the Wolf complaint.
"With the court’s decision on the Wolf property, at this point it would be zoned to the residential
and so we would be able to march forward and develop the property as it’s zoned," he said.
Max Rayle, who was appointed to represent the elections board, said the board also had some concerns
about the Wolf petition. But, he said, the board felt the burden of addressing errors in the petition
may lay with the township or the developers.
"I fully understand their decision, as does the board," Rayle said.
Bob Mack, board of trustees chairman, said after the ruling that the township was "glad to have a
clear resolution from the court."
The trustees have contended that the omission of conditions to protect landowners in the rezoned areas
from annexation could have been misleading to people who signed the petitions.
Lynn Hunter, a Neiderhouse Road resident who helped organize the referendum effort, said descriptions of
the properties were pulled from language used in the original resolutions and that people circulating
the petitions verbally described where the parcels were located when asked.
"The threat of annexation has been there for numerous years, so everybody’s fully aware," she
said.
Hunter said hundreds of residents who signed the petitions could more fairly make a zoning decision in
the best interest of the affected landowners than other entities.
"We are very pleased," Hunter said of the ruling. "We’re very excited and just hope that
we win" in November.
The developers argued to the court that the petitions were invalid because language about annexation
protections were imprecise, buried or contained inaccurate or misleading information. But the court
found that the petition language, while not precise, accurately summarized the specified condition.
The court found merit in the complaint that people could be misled or confused by one of the petitions
that incorrectly described the 41-acre Wolf property as two parcels totaling 72 acres.
The court saw only slight misstatements about the 41-acre Neiderhouse Property and the 98-acre
DeChristopher property, which were insufficient to preclude a referendum.
The court did not consider new claims that were not raised initially with the board of elections.
Justice Evelyn Stratton, in the dissenting opinion, would have denied the writ completely.
In late 2007, the trustees had approved rezoning of the three properties, with Trustee Craig LaHote
abstaining on the DeChristopher parcel. The decision paved the way for the developers, through Velocity
Development LLC, to proceed with building a subdivision in the newly rezoned area.
By January of 2008, residents submitted petitions to the township, seeking to put the rezoning of the
parcels to a public vote in that year’s election.
The township, however, rejected the petitions as invalid and inaccurate in March.
After petition circulators filed for a writ to require the township to certify the petitions to the Wood
County Board of Elections, the Sixth District Court of Appeals issued decisions this year that
restricted township authority to only review petitions for facial defects.
The board of elections soon after certified the petitions to appear on this year’s general election
ballot. The body denied a protest from the developers in August and the rezoning referendum issues
remained on schedule for the November ballot.
A Sept. 1 complaint from the developers’ attorney placed the case with the Ohio Supreme Court.
