The issue of whether property in Lake Township should be rezoned to allow a self-storage facility will go to the ballot.
The Ohio Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of the residents who circulated a petition to allow them to vote on the change.
Bailey Road resident Joe Zemenski, who started the petition, said the court’s decision was “a no-brainer.”
Ted Thomas, Millbury, had asked the court to order the Wood County Board of Elections to uphold a prior protest filed by Thomas and remove a referendum from the ballot, claiming it did not meet certain statutory requirements.
In 2023, Thomas purchased property on Bailey Road in Lake Township that was zoned R-2 residential. The property is an abandoned junkyard and since being zoned for residential purposes in 1963, it had never been used for that purpose.
Thomas wanted to combine the property with one he owns on Woodville Road, which is zoned B-2 general commercial and on which he operates a car wash.
The Lake Township Zoning Commission, and then the Lake Township Trustees on Sept. 19, voted unanimously to approve the rezoning request.
Bailey Road residents protested and circulated a petition to let the voters decide.
What happened next led to the supreme court taking the case.
The rezoning was to become effective in 30 days unless trustees were presented with a petition, signed by no less than 8% of the total votes cast in the township in the 2022 gubernatorial election.
On Oct. 3, before the petition was submitted, new rules went into effect that increased the number of required signatures to 15%.
On Oct. 18, Lake Township resident Jean Garrison presented the petition to township trustees.
Trustees sent the petition to the board of elections, which determined it contained 282 valid signatures, more than 8% but less than 15% of the number required.
At the Dec. 21 board of elections meeting, members certified the referendum and voted unanimously to place it on the ballot.
On Dec. 29, Thomas filed a protest with the board, arguing the petition didn’t satisfy the 15% signature requirement and the petition itself was invalid.
Trustees also passed a resolution to protest the board’s acceptance of the petition.
The election board held a hearing on Jan. 9 at which attorneys for both Thomas and the petitioners argued their case.
Thomas protested that the number of signatures was insufficient, the petition was improperly formatted, signatures were coerced, statements made by the petitioners were false, and there was no notice of the Dec. 21 meeting where the referendum petition was accepted.
After deliberating for 10 minutes, the board affirmed its earlier decision.
Thomas filed a complaint with the Ohio Supreme Court to compel the board of elections to remove the zoning referendum from the March 19 primary elections ballot.
The court ruled Thomas failed to prove the board abused its discretion and disregarded applicable law to certify the referendum for placement on the ballot.
The court also disagreed with Thomas’ argument that the board of elections was required to provide individualized notice to anyone interested in the petition.
Thomas had argued that because the board failed to satisfy this notice requirement, its certification of the referendum for placement on the ballot was invalid.
Revised code does not require such notice be given, according to the court ruling.
The court also ruled that the date of the township’s adoption of the proposed rezoning determined the effective date of the number of signatures required.
Trustees didn’t think the petition was done correctly, and objected to the rules being changed, but the court has issued its ruling, said trustee Chairperson Melanie Bowen-Greenwald.
“If the people want to put it on the ballot, it’s fine,” she said, and added petitioners will have to make a case with voters similar to candidates running for election.
Zemenski pointed out if someone bought a car for $20,000 and it was delivered two weeks later, the buyer wouldn’t be asked to pay $30,000 due to a factory price increase.
“So the residents will decide in March,” Zemenski said. “The families just ask: Would you buy or build a home next to a lit-up commercial storage facility?”
He said homeowner taxes funded the township, which then took those funds to hire a lawyer to bring instant action against the taxpayers.
Bowen-Greenwald said she didn’t understand why residents wanted the property to remain an eyesore rather than have it developed.
