Youngstown Daily Legal News

Supreme Court of Ohio: Powell wins zoning ordinance ballot dispute

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: February 24, 2017

The Ohio Supreme Court recently rejected an effort to compel the Powell City Council to place a referendum regarding a zoning ordinance on the May 2017 ballot.

In a per curiam opinion, the high court unanimously held that Eric Ebersole, who sought the writ of mandamus that would have compelled the city to take the zoning issue to the polls, "sought the wrong legal relief in the wrong court."

The case arose out of efforts to develop 8.75 acres of land adjoining Beech Ridge Drive in Powell.

In 2015, Arlington Homes submitted a development plan for the property to Powell.

The plan envisioned a residential development to be called Harper's Pointe consisting of 47 single-family condominium homes.

The plan also requested a change in zoning classification to "planned residential."

In the spring of 2015, the Powell City Council adopted an ordinance approving the plan and amending the city zoning map.

The voters of Powell, however, rejected the ordinance in an election that November.

The following year, Arlington Homes submitted a second development plan, this time calling for 48 single-family homes on the same acreage.

The zoning commission then insisted that the land should be rezoned to a "downtown residence district" instead of a "planned residential" classification.

The council approved the rezoning ordinance, but when the matter came up for a vote, the motion to amend the ordinance to add language sending the matter to the ballot failed by a 5-2 vote.

"Ebersole contacted the city's law director on at least two occasions, urging him to seek a writ of mandamus to compel the council to place the new ordinance on the ballot," the high court's case summary states. "When that effort was unsuccessful, Ebersole commenced the present mandamus action."

In its analysis of the issue, the Supreme Court justices noted that the parties had cast the issue as a dispute over whether the second ordinance would simply re-enact the first, rejected ordinance.

"We need not decide that question, however, because there is a preliminary matter that is dispositive: Ebersole has sought the wrong legal relief in the wrong court," the supreme court held.

The justices ruled that Ebersole's proper course of action would be to challenge the second ordinance by way of a suit for declaratory judgment, "a form of relief this court has no original jurisdiction to grant."

"In reaching this conclusion, we offer no opinion as to whether a complaint for declaratory judgment would have merit," the court wrote. "Our decision is limited to the holding that Ebersole is not entitled to a writ of mandamus because, under the charter, the city has no clear legal duty to place the matter on the ballot."

In his concurring opinion, Justice Terrence O'Donnell clarified that the first ordinance proposed a full development plan and was rejected by voters. The second ordinance was simply a rezoning proposal.

"And while it may be true that Arlington Homes hopes to construct 48 single-family homes on the same 8.75 acres and to call that new development Harper's Pointe, that fact is irrelevant to the analysis here, because (the second ordinance) did not enact, much less re-enact, any development plan for the property," O'Donnell wrote. "Accordingly, in my view, the city council complied with the Powell City Charter when it enacted Ordinance 2016-44, and it had no clear legal duty to refer this matter to the electors of Powell."

The case is cited State ex rel. Ebersole v. City Council of Powell, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-509.

[Back]