Case Title: Hillside Creek Farms v. Clark County Board of Elections

Citation: 2021-Ohio-3214

Docket Number: 2021-1102

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2021-09-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Hillside Creek Farms v. Clark Cty. Bd. of Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3214.] 
 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an 
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested to 
promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 
South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other 
formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before 
the opinion is published. 
 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2021-OHIO-3214 
THE STATE EX REL. HILLSIDE CREEK FARMS, L.L.C., ET AL., v. CLARK 
COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Hillside Creek Farms v. Clark Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, Slip Opinion No. 2021-Ohio-3214.] 
Prohibition—Writ of prohibition sought to compel the board of elections to remove 
a referendum on a zoning amendment from the November 2021 ballot—
Board of elections did not abuse its discretion or fail to follow clearly 
established law by denying a protest to a zoning-referendum petition, 
because the petition complied with the requirements set forth in R.C. 
303.12(H)—Writ denied.  
(No. 2021-1102—Submitted September 15, 2021—Decided September 16, 2021.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
{¶ 1} In this expedited election case, relators, Hillside Creek Farms, L.L.C. 
(“Hillside”), and Gerald L. Shaw,1 seek a writ of prohibition to bar respondent, the 
Clark County Board of Elections, from placing a referendum on the November 
2021 election ballot.  For the reasons set forth herein, we deny the writ. 
I. BACKGROUND 
{¶ 2} This case concerns a 42.05-acre parcel of real property located on 
Stine Road in Mad River Township, Clark County.  Hillside is the titled owner of 
the property, which is currently zoned agricultural and rural residential. 
{¶ 3} On April 5, 2021, Hillside filed an application to rezone the property 
to a Planned District–Residential classification.  The application was assigned case 
No. Z-2021-05.  On May 5, the Clark County Planning Commission voted to 
recommend denial of the rezoning request to the Clark County Rural Zoning 
Commission.  On May 13, the Rural Zoning Commission voted to table the 
rezoning request and to ask Hillside to respond to eight of its recommendations for 
the rezoning proposal. 
{¶ 4} On June 3, Hillside filed an amended rezoning application.  On June 
28, the Clark County Board of County Commissioners approved the amended 
rezoning application.  The board of county commissioners’ resolution consists of a 
six-page document, captioned “Resolution 2021-0433,” which contains the minutes 
of the June 3 meeting. 
{¶ 5} On or about July 21, a petition was filed with the board of county 
commissioners requesting a ballot referendum on the Hillside rezoning resolution.  
Each part-petition was on Secretary of State Form No. 6-N, “Petition for a County 
Zoning Referendum.”  On each part-petition in the space for the “[n]ame and 
number of the proposal, if any,” the petitioners wrote “Resolution 2021-0433 
 
1. Shaw is a qualified elector who resides in Mad River Township. 
January Term, 2021 
 
3
Rezoning Case Z-2021-05.”  The petitioners provided the following summary of 
the proposal on each part-petition: 
 
Rezoning case Z-2021-05 being approximately 42.05 acres located 
at 6766 Stine Road, to rezone from A-1 (Agricultural District) and 
R-1 (Rural Residence District) to PD-R (Planned District 
Residential) for a 162 lot single-family subdivision. 
 
The commissioners voted to send the petition to the board of elections. 
{¶ 6} In early August, Hillside and Shaw filed a protest against the zoning-
referendum petition.  In their protest letter, Hillside and Shaw raised three 
objections to the petition: (1) the petition fails to include the full and correct title of 
the zoning application in violation of R.C. 303.12(H), (2) the petition fails to 
include the name by which the zoning amendment is known in violation of R.C. 
303.12(H), and (3) the petition’s summary of the zoning amendment contains 
several material omissions that could mislead or confuse the average person in 
violation of R.C. 303.12(H).  With respect to the third objection, Hillside and Shaw 
spelled out six commitments that Hillside had allegedly made that were part of the 
application as approved and that they contend should have been included in the 
petition’s summary. 
{¶ 7} The board of elections held a protest hearing on September 2.  At the 
close of the hearing, the board-of-elections members voted unanimously to deny 
the protest and place the referendum on the November ballot. 
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 
{¶ 8} Hillside and Shaw filed a complaint for a writ of prohibition in this 
court on September 7.  The parties have submitted evidence and merit briefing in 
accordance with the expedited schedule.  See ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2021-Ohio-3082, 
___ N.E.3d ___. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
III. LEGAL ANALYSIS 
A. The standard of review and the elements of prohibition 
{¶ 9} To obtain a writ of prohibition in an election case, the relators must 
show that (1) the board of elections exercised quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise 
of that power was unauthorized by law, and (3) the relators have no adequate 
remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. McCord v. Delaware Cty. 
Bd. of Elections, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-Ohio-4758, 835 N.E.2d 336, ¶ 27.  If 
all three elements are proved, then a writ of prohibition will issue.  Georgetown v. 
Brown Cty. Bd. of Elections, 158 Ohio St. 3d 4, 2019-Ohio-3915, 139 N.E.3d 852, 
¶ 16. 
{¶ 10} When reviewing the decision of a county board of elections, the 
standard is whether the board engaged in fraud or corruption, abused its discretion, 
or acted in clear disregard of applicable legal provisions.  McCord at ¶ 30.  Hillside 
and Shaw do not allege fraud or corruption.  Rather, they contend that the board of 
elections abused its discretion or failed to follow clearly established law in placing 
the zoning referendum on the November ballot. 
{¶ 11} The board of elections concedes that the first and third elements of 
the prohibition analysis are not in dispute.  “Quasi-judicial authority is the power 
to hear and determine controversies between the public and individuals that require 
a hearing resembling a judicial trial.”  State ex rel. Wright v. Registrar, Ohio BMV, 
87 Ohio St.3d 184, 186, 718 N.E.2d 908 (1999).  A board of elections exercises 
quasi-judicial authority when it decides a protest after conducting a mandatory 
hearing that includes sworn testimony.  State ex rel. Barney v. Union Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 159 Ohio St.3d 50, 2019-Ohio-4277, 147 N.E.3d 595, ¶ 12.  “R.C. 
3501.39(A) requires a board of elections to conduct a quasi-judicial hearing on a 
petition protest.”  Id.  And due to the proximity of the November 2 election, Hillside 
and Shaw lack an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  See State ex 
rel. Yeager v. Richland Cty. Bd. of Elections, 136 Ohio St.3d 327, 2013-Ohio-3682, 
January Term, 2021 
 
5
995 N.E.2d 228, ¶ 16.  The sole issue, therefore, is whether the board of elections’ 
decision to approve the zoning referendum for placement on the ballot was 
authorized by law. 
B. The statutory requirements for a zoning-referendum petition 
{¶ 12} R.C. 303.12(H) requires that each part-petition seeking a referendum 
on a county zoning amendment “shall contain the number and the full and correct 
title, if any, of the zoning amendment resolution, motion, or application, furnishing 
the name by which the amendment is known and a brief summary of its contents.”  
See State ex rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 63, 2006-
Ohio-1292, 846 N.E.2d 8, ¶ 25.  The language of R.C. 303.12(H) for county zoning-
referendum petitions is identical to that of R.C. 519.12(H), which governs township 
zoning-referendum petitions, so we have relied on precedent involving either or 
both sections when resolving zoning-referendum petition challenges.  See, e.g., 
State ex rel. Donaldson v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 
2021-Ohio-2943, ___ N.E.3d ___, ¶ 14.  A petition must strictly comply with these 
requirements.  State ex rel. Quinn v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 152 Ohio St.3d 
568, 2018-Ohio-966, 99 N.E.3d 362, ¶ 30.  In their protest to the board of elections, 
Hillside and Shaw asserted that the zoning-referendum petition did not comply with 
these mandatory elements. 
1. Did the petition satisfy the “full-and-correct-title” requirement? 
{¶ 13} The part-petitions identified the title of the application as 
“Resolution 2021-0433 Rezoning Case Z-2021-05.”  Hillside and Shaw contend 
that the part-petitions did not include the full title, because the phrase “Hillside 
Creek Farms” is part of the title. 
{¶ 14} A zoning amendment may be initiated in one of three ways: by 
resolution, by motion, or by application.  R.C. 303.12(A)(1).  “[I]n a case involving 
a zoning-amendment application by a property owner (such as this), the statute 
imposes four distinct requirements concerning the content of a referendum 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
petition.”  State ex rel. Tam O’Shanter Co. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Elections, 151 Ohio 
St.3d 134, 2017-Ohio-8167, 86 N.E.3d 332, ¶ 19.  One requirement is that the 
zoning-referendum petition contain the full and correct title of the application.  Id. 
{¶ 15} However, a rezoning application is not required to have a title, as 
evidenced by the fact that R.C. 303.12(H) calls for the inclusion of the correct title 
“if any.”  (Emphasis added.)  Hillside did not designate a title on its application.  
The phrase “Hillside Creek Farms” does not appear on the application form itself, 
except in the blanks identifying the name of the property owner.  Because there is 
no title on the rezoning application, the zoning-referendum petition was not 
required to include a title.  See Tam O’Shanter, at ¶ 27 (“Because [the] application 
includes no discernable title, no title could be included in the referendum petition”). 
{¶ 16} Hillside responds that it included its rezoning application form 
within a larger package.  The cover page indicated that the package was “Submitted 
for: Hillside Creek Farms.”  (Boldface sic.)  But that phrase is ambiguous at best: 
Was the proposal submitted “for” (meaning “in furtherance of”) a project called 
Hillside Creek Farms, or was it submitted “for” (meaning “on behalf of”) the 
property owner named Hillside Creek Farms?  Hillside also argues that the phrase 
“Hillside Creek Farms” appeared throughout the documents attached to the 
application.  But Hillside distinguishes between the application, which is a discrete 
form, and the supporting documentation.  Hillside cites no authority for the 
proposition that a referendum proponent must discern a title from the supporting 
documentation. 
{¶ 17} In addition, Hillside notes that the phrase appears in the minutes of 
the various boards and commissions that considered the rezoning application.  For 
example, the May 13 minutes of the Rural Zoning Commission introduce the topic 
of the application under the following heading: 
 
January Term, 2021 
 
7
Rezoning Case #Z-2021-05 ~ Property Owner/ Applicant: 
Hillside Creek Farms LLC; Agent: Gary Smith, G2 Planning & 
Design ~ Location: 6766 Stine Rd., Mad River Twp. ~ Request: 
Rezone 42.05 acres from A-1 and R-1 to PD-R for a 170-lot 
single-family subdivision. 
 
(Boldface and underlining sic.)  But even if the Rural Zoning Commission intended 
this entire paragraph to be a title—which is not at all clear from the minutes—that 
fact would be irrelevant.  The application—not the boards or commissions that 
consider the application—determines the title. 
{¶ 18} Finally, and most critically, Hillside relies on the testimony of Gary 
Smith at the protest hearing.  Smith and his company served as lead consultant for 
Hillside and prepared the rezoning application and amended application.  Smith 
testified that in his opinion, “[t]he first page is really the title page of the 
application.”  Given that the cover page does not clearly identify “Hillside Creek 
Farms” as the title of the application, we conclude that the board of elections did 
not abuse its discretion or fail to follow clearly established law by disregarding this 
testimony. 
{¶ 19} The rezoning application itself contains no title; therefore the board 
of elections did not abuse its discretion or fail to follow clearly established law 
when it declined to invalidate the zoning-referendum petition on this basis. 
2. Did the petition include “the name by which the amendment is known”? 
{¶ 20} The next requirement of R.C. 303.12(H) is that the zoning-
referendum petition include “the name by which the amendment is known.”  The 
full and correct title, discussed in the previous section, is different from “the name 
by which the amendment is known.”  Tam O’Shanter, 151 Ohio St.3d 134, 2017-
Ohio-8167, 86 N.E.3d 332, at ¶ 23.  The way to establish the “name by which the 
amendment is known” is to examine “evidence that shows how the [board of county 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
8
commissioners]—the promulgating entity—identified the zoning amendment.”  
(Emphasis added.)  Id. at ¶ 31.  In plain terms, the name requirement is determined 
by what the commissioners called the zoning-amendment proposal, not what they 
called the legislative vehicle that would enact the proposal.  See Quinn, 152 Ohio 
St.3d 568, 2018-Ohio-966, 99 N.E.3d 362, at ¶ 33. 
{¶ 21} The caption of the minutes that became the board of county 
commissioners’ official resolution indicates that the board was conducting a 
“Public Hearing for Rezoning Case Z-2021-05 filed by Hillside Creek Farms LLC 
in Mad River Township.”  Here, the intent to refer to the application as “Case Z-
2021-05” and not as “Hillside Creek Farms” is clear for two reasons.  First, the 
caption refers to “Hillside Creek Farms LLC,” which can only mean the entity that 
is the property owner and not the project that is the subject of the rezoning request.  
And second, the very next paragraph, which is the actual text of the minutes, repeats 
the reference to “case Z-2021-05,” with no mention of Hillside Creek Farms. 
{¶ 22} The zoning-referendum part-petitions properly identified the 
rezoning application as “Case Z-2021-05.”  Hillside proffers a newspaper article 
and the testimony given by Smith to suggest that other people referred to the 
rezoning application as “Hillside Creek Farms.”  But the only requirement that the 
Revised Code imposes is to use the name by which the zoning amendment—i.e., 
the rezoning application—is known to the body adopting it.  Tam O’Shanter at  
¶ 31. 
{¶ 23} We hold that the board of elections did not abuse its discretion or fail 
to follow clearly established law when it declined to invalidate the zoning-
referendum petition on this basis. 
3. Did the petition include “a brief summary of the contents”? 
{¶ 24} On June 3, Hillside filed an amended rezoning application.  Hillside 
alleges that the amended application contained material changes in response to 
public concerns and that by adopting the application “as presented,” the board 
January Term, 2021 
 
9
signaled the significance of those amendments to its decision.  Therefore, the 
absence of each term from the zoning-referendum-petition summary is, in 
Hillside’s view, a material omission. 
a. Omission No. 1: An agreement to place a “buffer zone” of trees along the 
property’s border with a neighboring development 
{¶ 25} The amended rezoning application added a condition requiring the 
developer to “install a landscape screen between the proposed homes and the 
existing homes as indicated on the landscape plans, Exhibit G4.” 
b. Omission No. 2: An agreement to increase the amount 
of open space in the development by increasing the minimum lot size and 
minimum side setbacks 
{¶ 26} The amended rezoning application changed the dimensions of the 
project.  For example, it reduced the number of single-family homes in the 
development from 170 to 162, and it increased the minimum lot width from 50 feet 
to 52 feet. 
c. Omission No. 3: An agreement to preserve a historic cemetery 
on the property 
{¶ 27} The amended rezoning application added a commitment that the 
Hillside Creek Farms Homeowners Association would mow and maintain the 
existing cemetery and that Hillside would install a marker at the cemetery entrance 
and a fence around the cemetery. 
d. Omission No. 4: An agreement to ensure “architectural diversity” 
in the development 
{¶ 28} Section 1.09(C) of the amended rezoning application reads:  
 
Architectural Diversity: To promote architectural diversity 
throughout the community, no single-family house may be 
constructed on any lot directly across the street from a house with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
10 
the same front elevation or color, or on any lot directly adjacent a 
house with the same front elevation or color. 
 
(Underlining sic.) 
e. Omission No. 5: An agreement to require the development’s 
homeowners association to be responsible for maintaining 
the common open space, the cemetery, and the stormwater basins 
{¶ 29} Section 1.12 of the amended rezoning application provides that 
“[t]he common open space, cemetery, and stormwater basins, shall be owned and 
maintained by a Homeowners Association for the development.” 
f. Omission No. 6: Efforts to reduce flooding and drainage issues 
caused by a neighboring housing development 
{¶ 30} Smith testified that in response to flooding concerns, the developer 
increased the size of the storm drains to accommodate additional water flow. 
{¶ 31} R.C. 303.12(H) requires each part-petition to contain a brief 
summary of the zoning resolution approved by the board of county commissioners.  
See State ex rel. O’Beirne v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections, 80 Ohio St.3d 176, 179, 
685 N.E.2d 502 (1997).  The summary must be “accurate and unambiguous.”  S.I. 
Dev. & Constr. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 100 Ohio St.3d 272, 2003-Ohio-
5791, 798 N.E.2d 587, ¶ 17.  “ ‘If the summary is misleading, inaccurate, or 
contains material omissions which would confuse the average person, the petition 
is invalid and may not form the basis for submission to a vote.’ ”  State ex rel. Miller 
Diversified Holdings, L.L.C. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections, 123 Ohio St.3d 260, 
2009-Ohio-4980, 915 N.E.2d 1187, ¶ 25, quoting Shelly & Sands, Inc. v. Franklin 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 12 Ohio St.3d 140, 141, 465 N.E.2d 883 (1984). 
{¶ 32} The “brief summary” requirement refers to the resolution approved 
by the board of county commissioners.  State ex rel. C.V. Perry & Co. v. Licking 
Cty. Bd. of Elections, 94 Ohio St.3d 442, 444-445, 764 N.E.2d 411 (2002).  And 
January Term, 2021 
 
11 
“when a referendum petition’s summary of a resolution contains substantially the 
same wording as the resolution itself,” the summary complies with the statutory 
requirement.  McCord, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-Ohio-4758, 835 N.E.2d 336, at 
¶ 43.  We hold that the board of elections did not abuse its discretion or fail to 
follow clearly established law when it concluded that the alleged omissions were 
immaterial. 
{¶ 33} We recently identified the type of information that a valid summary 
must include in order to give prospective voters a fair understanding of the measure.  
First, the summary must identify the location of the relevant property.  State ex rel. 
Donaldson v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, __ Ohio St.3d __, 2021-Ohio-2943, 
__ N.E.3d __, ¶ 14.  And second, the summary must “ ‘apprise the reader of the 
present zoning status of the land and the precise nature of the requested change.’ ”  
Id. at ¶ 15, quoting Shelly & Sands, Inc. at 142; see also O’Beirne at 181 (holding 
that the present use and zoning of the property is material information).  The 
petition in this case included all this information. 
{¶ 34} Hillside contends that the six aforementioned items are material not 
because they lie at the heart of the proposal, but because they remedy the concerns 
that have made the project controversial.  But it is not the responsibility of the 
referendum’s advocates to educate themselves about the history of the proposal, 
much less reflect that history in their summary.  Their responsibility is to accurately 
reflect the zoning amendment, and the board of elections did not abuse its discretion 
or fail to follow clearly established law when it concluded that the petition in this 
case satisfied that obligation. 
{¶ 35} For these reasons, we deny the writ of prohibition. 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY, STEWART, 
and BRUNNER, JJ., concur. 
_________________ 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
12 
McTigue & Colombo, L.L.C., and J. Corey Colombo, Donald J. McTigue, 
and Derek S. Clinger, for relators. 
Daniel P. Driscoll, Clark County Prosecuting Attorney, and Andrew P. 
Pickering, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 
_________________