The Court ruled that Lucas County residents will not vote on a zoning referendum because an inaccurate map of the area to be rezoned was submitted. Residents in a Lucas County township will not vote on a zoning referendum concerning a vehicle towing lot because an inaccurate map of the area to be rezoned was submitted, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.
In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court found opponents of the Spencer Township rezoning did not strictly comply with a state law requiring zoning referendum proposals to be “accompanied by an appropriate map of an area affected by the zoning proposal.” The purpose of the provision is to prevent misleading people into signing petitions about the area that has been rezoned, the Court noted.
The decision affirmed a ruling by the Lucas County Board of Elections to deny placing the issue on the ballot. The board found the map circulated by the rezoning opponents depicted the nine-acre area the landowner asked the township to rezone. The township only agreed to rezone about four acres.
The zoning opponents argued that the map they circulated was given to them by the township and met legal requirements. The Court today stated it is unclear whether opponents asked for a map reflecting only four acres approved for rezoning.
In October 2023, Jeff Davis applied to Spencer Township Board of Trustees for a zoning change for nine acres. The change would allow Davis’ business to use property for tow lot and vehicle storage. In February 2024, trustees approved resolution to rezone smaller portion than requested. Resolution described area being rezoned.
Shawn Valentine, former Spencer Township trustee, and others circulated petitions for referendum overturning zoning change. Under R.C. 519.12(H), opponents must collect signatures from registered voters equaling at least 15% who voted in last governor’s race and include map showing affected area.
Opponents submitted petitions in March 2024; trustees certified valid signatures and requested issue be placed on Nov. 5 general election ballot.
In July 2024, Davis filed protest with board of elections arguing against ballot issue; board agreed focusing on accompanying map’s appropriateness under R.C. 519.12(H).
Valentine sought writ of mandamus from Supreme Court ordering board place referendum on ballot; case expedited due election matter.
Opinion noted in 2006 decision court required strict compliance including appropriate map not misleading average person about affected area; neither Valentine nor board explained exact size but accepted estimate around four acres.
Valentine cited Gemienhardt v. Delaware Cty Bd Elections (2006) stating if trustees approve specific map reflecting amendments, no penalty using it; however court found no evidence trustees approved nine-acre map or informed Valentine it reflected approved rezoning.
Court concluded without appropriate map submission board entitled reject referendum.