Case Title: State ex rel. Ebersole v. City Council of Powell

Citation: 2017-Ohio-509

Docket Number: 2016-1701

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2017-02-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State 
ex rel. Ebersole v. City Council of Powell, Slip Opinion No. 2017-Ohio-509.] 
 
 
 
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. 2017-OHIO-509 
THE STATE EX REL. EBERSOLE v. CITY COUNCIL OF POWELL ET AL. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as State ex rel. Ebersole v. City Council of Powell, Slip Opinion 
No. 2017-Ohio-509.] 
Elections—Mandamus—Writ sought to compel city council to place a referendum 
on the ballot—Writ denied. 
(No. 2016-1701—Submitted February 9, 2017—Decided February 14, 2017.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} Relator, Brian Ebersole, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel 
respondent Powell City Council to place a referendum on the May 2017 ballot.  We 
deny the writ. 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
2
Background 
{¶ 2} This case arises out of efforts to develop 8.75 acres of land adjoining 
Beech Ridge Drive in Powell, Ohio.  On or about April 24, 2015, Arlington Homes1 
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 of zoning classification for 
the property from “R-Residential and Planned Commercial” to “Planned 
Residential-PR.” 
{¶ 3} On May 19, 2015, the Powell City Council adopted Ordinance 2015-
18, approving the plan and amending the zoning map from “PC, Planned 
Commercial District and R, Residence District” to “PR, Planned Residence 
District.” 
{¶ 4} In November 2015, the voters of Powell rejected Ordinance 2015-18 
in a referendum election. 
{¶ 5} On or about July 26, 2016, Arlington Homes submitted a second 
development plan for Harper’s Pointe.  This time, the plan called for the 
construction of 48 single-family homes on the same 8.75 acres.  Arlington Homes’ 
new application again sought to rezone the property as Planned Residential-PR but 
the zoning commission insisted instead that the land should be rezoned to DR, 
Downtown Residence District. 
{¶ 6} On November 1, 2016, Ordinance 2016-44—rezoning the property 
from Planned Commercial and Residence Districts to Downtown Residence 
District—came before the Powell City Council for a second reading.  The city’s 
law director clarified for the council that the only matter up for consideration was 
the proposed rezoning and that the council was not voting on the proposed 
                                                 
1 Arlington Homes is the trade name for Len Pivar Builder, Inc., one of the intervening respondents 
in this case. 
 
January Term, 2017 
 
3
development plan at that time.  The council formally voted to clarify that the 
development plan was not part of the document under consideration and then 
approved Ordinance 2016-44. 
Legal issue and procedural development 
{¶ 7} The Powell City Charter, Article VI, Section 6.06(B) provides that 
“[o]rdinances rejected or repealed by an electoral vote shall not be re-enacted, in 
whole or in part, except by an electoral vote.”  During the November 1 council 
meeting at which Ordinance 2016-44 was adopted, Councilman Tom Counts 
expressed concern about violating the charter: 
 
I was concerned at the last Council meeting about what our 
obligations would be if we were to find this Ordinance to be similar 
in whole or in part [to the prior Ordinance] because our Charter says 
that if it is similar it needs to be voted on by the residents.  I believe 
that we as a Council need to have a discussion about whether we 
believe that this Ordinance is different than the other ordinance.  I 
had asked our Law Director to prepare a proposed amendment 
ordinance which not only has the existing language in it but that it 
has language which sends it to the ballot.  * * *  If this Council were 
to approve this Ordinance, it would have to be based on the fact that 
they believe that this Ordinance is somehow different than the old 
ordinance. 
 
The motion to amend the ordinance to add language sending the matter to the ballot 
failed by a 5-2 vote. 
{¶ 8} 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 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
4
ordinance on the ballot.  When that effort was unsuccessful, Ebersole commenced 
the present mandamus action. 
{¶ 9} Powell filed a motion to dismiss, which we denied.  ___ Ohio St.3d 
___, 2017-Ohio-143, ___ N.E.3d ___.  We also granted the motion of Len Pivar 
Builder, Inc., d.b.a. Arlington Homes, and LS Powell 2470, L.L.C., the owner of 
the real property in issue, to intervene as respondents.  Id.  The matter is now fully 
briefed. 
Standard for mandamus relief 
{¶ 10} To be entitled to a writ of mandamus, a relator must establish, by 
clear and convincing evidence, (1) a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) a 
clear legal duty on the part of the respondent to provide it, and (3) the lack of an 
adequate remedy in the ordinary course of the law.  State ex rel. Waters v. Spaeth, 
131 Ohio St.3d 55, 2012-Ohio-69, 960 N.E.2d 452, ¶ 6. 
Legal analysis 
{¶ 11} The parties have cast this case as a dispute over whether Ordinance 
2016-44 reenacts Ordinance 2015-18.  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. 
{¶ 12} The precise language in Powell City Charter, Article VI, Section 
6.06(B) provides that “[o]rdinances rejected or repealed by an electoral vote shall 
not be re-enacted, in whole or in part, except by an electoral vote.”  Ebersole 
construes this language as mandating an automatic referendum if the city council 
reenacts a measure previously rejected through referendum.  We construe Section 
6.06(B) differently. 
{¶ 13} Section 6.06(B) is an affirmative limitation on the power of the city 
council.  The only way to achieve a reenactment, after a rejection at the ballot box, 
is through a ballot initiative approved by the voters.  Under this reading, a reenacted 
ordinance that was not approved by initiative is void ab initio, not conditionally 
January Term, 2017 
 
5
valid but subject to referendum.  Ebersole’s proper course of action, therefore, is to 
challenge the validity of Ordinance 2016-44 by way of a suit for declaratory 
judgment, a form of relief this court has no original jurisdiction to grant.  State ex 
rel. Ministerial Day Care Assn. v. Zelman, 100 Ohio St.3d 347, 2003-Ohio-6447, 
800 N.E.2d 21, ¶ 22. 
{¶ 14} In reaching this conclusion, we offer no opinion as to whether a 
complaint for declaratory judgment would have merit.  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. 
Writ denied. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, O’NEILL, FISCHER, and DEWINE, 
JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, J., concurs separately. 
_________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., concurring separately. 
{¶ 15} The Powell City Charter, Article VI, Section 6.06(B) provides that 
“[o]rdinances rejected or repealed by an electoral vote shall not be re-enacted, in 
whole or in part, except by an electoral vote.”  The subject of this case is two 
ordinances, the second of which has been challenged by Ebersole, who suggests 
that it should have been submitted to voters pursuant to the Powell City Charter. 
{¶ 16} Ordinance 2015-18 rezoned 8.75 acres of land adjoining Beech 
Ridge Drive in Powell, Ohio, from “PC, Planned Commercial District and R, 
Residence District” to “PR, Planned Residence District.”  It also approved a plan 
for the construction of 47 single-family condominium homes in a residential 
development to be called Harper’s Pointe.  Powell voters rejected this ordinance in 
a referendum election. 
{¶ 17} In contrast, Ordinance 2016-44 only rezoned this property from “PC, 
Planned Commercial District and R, Residence District” to “DR, Downtown 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
 
6
Residence District.”  Importantly, this ordinance did not approve any development 
plan for the property. 
{¶ 18} “Re-enact” means “to enact (as a law) again.”  Webster’s Third New 
International Dictionary 1907 (1993).  It is manifest that the city council did not 
re-enact (in whole or in part) the ordinance rezoning the property to a planned 
residence district, which the electors rejected by referendum, because it enacted a 
new ordinance rezoning the property to downtown residence district.  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 Ordinance 2016-44 did not enact, much less 
re-enact, any development plan for the property. 
{¶ 19} 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.  For this reason, I would deny the writ of 
mandamus. 
_________________ 
Brian Ebersole, pro se. 
Frost Brown Todd, L.L.C., Eugene L. Hollins, Katherine Klingelhafer, and 
Yazan S. Ashrawi, for respondent. 
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, L.L.P., Joseph R. Miller, Christopher L. 
Ingram, and Kara M. Mundy, for intervening respondents. 
_________________