Case Title: State ex rel. Gemienhardt v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections

Citation: 2006-Ohio-1666

Docket Number: 20060497

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-04-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Gemienhardt v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-
Ohio-1666.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. GEMIENHARDT v. DELAWARE COUNTY BOARD OF 
ELECTIONS ET AL. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Gemienhardt v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
 109 Ohio St.3d 212, 2006-Ohio-1666.] 
Mandamus — Elections — Township zoning amendment — Compliance with R.C. 
519.12(H) — Board of Elections did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary, 
or unconscionable manner — Writ denied. 
(No. 2006-0497 ─ Submitted March 28, 2006 ─ Decided April 5, 2006.) 
IN MANDAMUS. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election case in which an elector seeks a writ 
of mandamus to compel an elections board and its members to submit a township 
zoning-amendment resolution to the electorate at the May 2, 2006 election. 
Zoning Amendments 
{¶ 2} On September 13, 2005, the Berlin Township Zoning Commission 
proposed certain amendments to the Berlin Township Zoning Resolution and 
forwarded them to the Delaware County Regional Planning Commission for 
review and redrafting.  The planning commission redrafted the proposed zoning 
amendments and journalized them in its September 29, 2005 minutes. 
{¶ 3} The proposed amendments “[i]nsert[ed] zoning text amendments 
to the existing R-3 District and related sections, and * * * add[ed] a new R-4 
district” without rezoning any land.  The planning commission minutes noted the 
following background for the proposed amendments: 
{¶ 4} “1.  Berlin Township has initiated amendments to its 
comprehensive land use plan * * * that will increase future residential densities in 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
areas that will be served by sanitary sewer.  The additional densities are 1.5 units 
per net developable acre and 1.85 units per net developable acre. 
{¶ 5} “2.  To accommodate these densities, the zoning text must be 
amended to allow for Planned Residential Developments [“PRDs”] to overlay the 
appropriate zoning district.  The R-3 is an existing district, with 20,000 square 
foot lots.  A PRD overlay at this density would yield 1.85 units per net 
developable acre.  The R-4 district is written as a new district with 25,000 square 
foot[] lots, which will yield a density of 1.5 units per developable acre when 
overlaid by PRD zoning.” 
{¶ 6} The proposed amendments were to Articles IX, X, and XI of the 
Berlin Township Zoning Resolution. 
{¶ 7} On October 11, 2005, the zoning commission recommended that 
the Berlin Township Board of Trustees adopt the proposed amendments to the 
Berlin Township Comprehensive Plan.  According to Gemienhardt, the zoning 
commission’s recommendation was for the board of trustees to adopt the 
proposed amendments “as journalized in the Minutes of the Regional Planning 
Commission.”  The minutes of the zoning commission’s October 11, 2005 
meeting, however, provided only the following regarding the proposed 
amendments: 
{¶ 8} “Motion BZC 10-11-05-05 by Ron Bullard that we include 
additional densities of 1.5 units per developable acre and 1.85 units per net 
developable acre and, to accommodate these densities and the zoning text to allow 
for Planned Residential Developments to overlay the appropriate zoning district.  
The R-3 is an existing district, with 20,000 square foot lots.  A PRD overlay at 
this density would yield 1.85 units per net developable acre.  The R-4 district is 
written as a new district with 25,000 square foot lots, which will yield a density of 
1.5 units per net developable acre when overlaid by PRD zoning, and that we pass 
these changes reflected on the 9-14-05 Draft 2005 Comprehensive Land Use Plan 
January Term, 2006 
3 
Map to the Trustees with our recommendation that it be approved.  * * * Motion 
passed.” 
{¶ 9} The parties agree, however, that “[n]o other version of the 
amendments, except the version journalized in the Minutes of the Regional 
Planning Commission, are part of the files of the Zoning Commission or the 
Trustees.” 
{¶ 10} On November 28, 2005, the board of trustees passed Berlin 
Township Resolution No. 05-11-42, which adopted the proposed zoning 
amendments with the following language: 
{¶ 11} “Move to accept case #05-009 with recommended modifications 
given to us by the Berlin Zoning Commission to reflect changes in the district and 
density designations on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for R-3 (1.85 
du/acre) and R-4 (1.5 du/acre) as presented.” 
{¶ 12} At the same meeting, the board of trustees amended the 
comprehensive land-use map for Berlin Township to reflect the amendments 
adopted in the resolution.  The board of trustees made one handwritten change to 
the map provided by the planning commission by adding the notation “area 
hatched in black proposed to be 1.5 units/acre.”  This change reflected a request 
by the board of trustees after its October 11, 2005 meeting that certain property be 
designated as permitting a density of 1.5 units per net developable acre instead of 
1.85 units per net developable acre. 
Referendum Petition 
{¶ 13} After the board of trustees adopted the township zoning-
amendment resolution, relator, Rick Gemienhardt, a township elector, obtained a 
copy of the amendments and the map of the area affected by them from the Berlin 
Township Clerk. 
{¶ 14} Gemienhardt filed with the board of trustees a referendum petition 
seeking to submit Berlin Township Resolution No. 05-11-42 to township electors 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
at the May 2, 2006 election.  On each part of the petition, Gemienhardt put the 
title and number of the resolution. 
{¶ 15} Gemienhardt also included the following summary of the zoning 
amendments: 
{¶ 16} “Berlin Township has initiated amendments to its comprehensive 
land use plan that will increase future residential densities in areas that will be 
served by sanitary sewer.  The additional densities are 1.5 per net developable 
acre and 1.85 units per developable acre.  To accommodate these densities 
Resolution #05-11-42 amends the zoning text to allow for Planned Residential 
Developments to overlay the appropriate zoning district.  The R-3 is an existing 
district, with 20,000 square foot lots.  A PRD overlay at this density would yield 
1.85 units per net developable acre.  The R-4 district is a new district with 25,000 
square foot lots, which will yield a density of 1.5 units per net developable acre 
when overlaid by PRD zoning.  The PRD is an existing district with amendments 
to reference the R-3 and R-4 districts.  This referendum petition is applicable to 
the changes made to articles IX-Multi-type Residential District (R-3) and XI-
Planned Residential District (PRD) and to the creation of article X-Multi-type 
Residential District (R-4).  The Comprehensive Land Use Map changes are not 
subject to referendum and are not being submitted to the electors of Berlin 
Township for approval or rejection but are presented for informational purposes 
only.  Highlights of the three (3) amendments are: 
{¶ 17} “Article IX-Multi-type Residential District R-3.  Section 9.01-
Purpose:  The R-3 district is intended to provide for a variety of housing types at a 
density of one unit per 20,000 feet square feet [sic], or approximately 1.85 units 
per net developable acre.  Section 9.02-Application:  The R-3 district is intended 
to be applied to lands recommended on the adopted Berlin Township 
Comprehensive Plan for densities of a maximum of 1.85 units per net developable 
area.  Section 9.03A.-Residential structures of any type, either single family or 
January Term, 2006 
5 
multi-family, including but not limited to detached, semi-detached, attached, 
industrialized units (modular), permanently sited manufactured homes, common 
wall or any reasonable variation on the same theme.  A minimum net lot size of 
twenty thousand (20,000) square feet per dwelling unit shall be required for this 
conditional use. 
{¶ 18} “Article X-Multi-type Residential District R-4.  Section 10.01-
Purpose: The R-4 district is intended to provide for a variety of housing types at a 
density of one unit per 25,000 square feet, or approximately 1.5 units per net 
developable acre.  Section 10.02-Application:  The R-4 district is intended to be 
applied to lands recommended on the adopted Berlin Township Comprehensive 
Plan for densities of a maximum of 1.5 units per net developable area.  Section 
10.03-Permitted Uses:  Within the Multi-Type Residential District (R-4), the 
following permitted uses exist:  (A).  Residential structures of any type, either 
single family or multi-family, including but not limited to detached, semi-
detached, 
attached, 
industrialized 
units 
(modular), 
permanently 
sited 
manufactured homes, common wall or any reasonable variation on the same 
theme.  A minimum net lot size of twenty five thousand (25,000) square feet per 
dwelling unit shall be required for this conditional use. 
{¶ 19} “Article XI-Planned Residential District (PRD).  Section 11.03-
Location of Planned Residential (Open Space) Developments:  Planned 
Residential Development zoning may be overlaid on the FR-1 the R-2, R-3 and R-
4 zones pursuant to a zoning map amendment approved by the township.  Section 
11.05 Design Features-(k.)  The required percent of open space shall be provided.  
The percent of open space varies according to zoning district overlaid; FR-1-40% 
(of gross tract area) open space; R-2, R-3 and R-4-20% (of gross tract area) open 
space. 
{¶ 20} “The text of Resolution 05-11-42 as passed by the Trustees on 
November 28, 2005 is attached hereto.”  (Emphasis sic.)   
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 21} Gemienhardt attached to the referendum petition the full text of the 
proposed zoning amendments as contained in the planning-commission minutes 
and adopted by the board of trustees.  Gemienhardt also attached a copy of the 
map approved by the board of trustees, reflecting the proposed zoning 
amendments.  The map was entitled “Draft 2005 Berlin Township Comprehensive 
Land Use Plan” and included the board of trustees’ notation that an area hatched 
in black was proposed to be 1.5 units per acre. 
{¶ 22} Respondents, the Delaware County Board of Elections and its 
members, determined that the petition contained more than the legally required 
number of valid signatures of qualified Berlin Township electors to place the 
referendum issue on the ballot.  On January 5, 2006, the board of trustees certified 
the petition to the board of elections for placement of the referendum issue on the 
May 2, 2006 election ballot. 
Prosecuting Attorney’s Opinion Letter 
{¶ 23} On January 10, 2006, the director of the elections board requested 
that the Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney give his opinion on whether the 
referendum petition complied with applicable legal requirements. 
{¶ 24} On February 10, 2006, the prosecuting attorney concluded that the 
petition is defective because (1) not all of the petition parts contain the number 
and the full and correct title of the resolution that was the subject of the 
referendum, (2) the brief summary of the resolution is misleading, inaccurate, and 
contains material omissions, (3) the attachment to the petition of the minutes of 
the planning commission is not in fact a copy of Resolution No. 05-11-42, 
although the petition claims it is, and (4) the map attached to the petition is 
confusing and misleading and does not accurately show the areas affected by the 
proposed zoning amendments.  The prosecuting attorney recommended that the 
referendum petition be rejected and that the proposed zoning amendments not be 
placed on the May 2, 2006 election ballot. 
January Term, 2006 
7 
{¶ 25} On February 21, 2006, in reliance upon the prosecuting attorney’s 
opinion, the board of elections voted not to certify the petition and not to place the 
issue on the May 2, 2006 election ballot. 
Protest 
{¶ 26} On February 24, 2006, Gemienhardt filed a protest with the board 
of elections.  On March 7, 2006, the elections board conducted an evidentiary 
hearing on the protest.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the board voted three-to-
one to deny Gemienhardt’s protest and sustain its earlier determination not to 
place the referendum issue on the ballot. 
Mandamus Case 
{¶ 27} On March 9, 2006, Gemienhardt filed this expedited election case 
for a writ of mandamus to compel respondents to certify the petition and submit 
the referendum issue on Berlin Township Resolution No. 05-11-42 to the 
township electors at the May 2, 2006 primary election.1  On March 20, 2006, 
respondents filed an answer and a memorandum in opposition to Gemienhardt’s 
memorandum in support of his complaint.  On March 24, 2006, we denied 
Gemienhardt’s motion for an interim order directing the elections board to put the 
referendum issue on absentee ballots for the May 2, 2006 election pending our 
resolution of this case on the merits.  Gemienhardt timely submitted his merit 
brief and evidence, but the board of elections and its members did not file a merit 
brief and evidence. 
{¶ 28} This cause is now before the court for our decision on the merits. 
Mandamus 
                                                 
1.  In his complaint, Gemienhardt requested in the alternative that the issue be placed on the 
November 7, 2006 election ballot.  Nevertheless, his referendum petition specified the May 2, 
2006 election, and under R.C. 519.12(H), the May 2, 2006 election is the appropriate election.  
See R.C. 519.12(H) (“next primary or general election that occurs at least seventy-five days after 
the petition is filed”). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
{¶ 29} Gemienhardt claims entitlement to a writ of mandamus to compel 
the board of elections and its members to certify the referendum petition and to 
submit Resolution No. 05-11-42 to the township electorate on May 2, 2006.  In 
order to obtain the requested writ of mandamus, Gemienhardt must establish a 
clear legal right to certification of the referendum issue on the May 2, 2006 
election ballot, a corresponding clear legal duty on the part of the board of 
elections to certify the referendum issue, and the lack of an adequate remedy in 
the ordinary course of the law.  See Rust v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of Elections, 108 Ohio 
St.3d 139, 2005-Ohio-5795, 841 N.E.2d 766, ¶ 7.  Given the proximity of the 
May 2 election, Gemienhardt has established that he lacks an adequate remedy in 
the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Canales-Flores v. Lucas Cty. Bd. of 
Elections, 108 Ohio St.3d 129, 2005-Ohio-5642, 841 N.E.2d 757, ¶ 10. 
{¶ 30} For the remaining requirements, “ ‘[i]n extraordinary actions 
challenging the decision of a board of elections, the applicable standard is 
whether the board engaged in fraud, corruption, abuse of discretion, or clear 
disregard of statutes or pertinent law.’ ”  State ex rel. Stevens v. Geauga Cty. Bd. 
of Elections (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 223, 226, 736 N.E.2d 882, quoting State ex rel. 
Valore v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections (1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 144, 145, 718 
N.E.2d 415.  Gemienhardt does not allege fraud or corruption, so the dispositive 
issue is whether the board of elections and its members abused their discretion or 
clearly disregarded applicable law by accepting the prosecuting attorney’s 
recommendation and denying Gemienhardt’s protest.  “An abuse of discretion 
implies an unreasonable, arbitrary, or unconscionable attitude.”  State ex rel. 
Cooker Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio 
St.3d 302, 305, 686 N.E.2d 238. 
Number and Full and Correct Title of 
Zoning-Amendment Resolution 
January Term, 2006 
9 
{¶ 31} Respondents claim that the referendum petition violates the R.C. 
519.12(H) requirement that “[e]ach part of this [referendum] petition shall contain 
the number and the full and correct title, if any, of the zoning amendment 
resolution * * * ” because the title and number of Berlin Township Zoning 
Resolution No. 05-11-42 appears on only the first page of the part-petitions 
instead of on each page. 
{¶ 32} In interpreting R.C. 519.12(H), our paramount concern is 
legislative intent.  State ex rel. Asti v. Ohio Dept. of Youth Servs., 107 Ohio St.3d 
262, 2005-Ohio-6432, 838 N.E.2d 658, ¶ 22.  “To discern this intent, we first 
consider the statutory language, reading words and phrases in context and 
construing them in accordance with rules of grammar and common usage.”  State 
ex rel. Choices for South-Western City Schools v. Anthony, 108 Ohio St.3d 1, 
2005-Ohio-5362, 840 N.E.2d 582, ¶ 40. 
{¶ 33} Reading the applicable words in context, we find it evident that 
“part” is not synonymous with “page.”  A “part” is “one of the equal or unequal 
portions into which something is divided.”  Webster’s Third New International 
Dictionary (1986) 1645.  A “page,” on the other hand, is “one of the leaves of a” 
publication or “a single side of one of these leaves.”  Id. at 1620. 
{¶ 34} In a petition for a referendum of a township zoning-amendment 
resolution, a part or part-petition refers to each petition circulated for signatures 
and includes the name and number of the proposed zoning amendment, a 
summary of the amendment, a request to submit the amendment to the township 
electors at an election, spaces for elector signatures, and a statement of an elector 
circulating the part-petition.  See R.C. 519.12(H), which includes a form for the 
petition; R.C. 303.12(H) (providing similar requirements for referendum petitions 
on county rural-zoning-amendment resolutions); Section 1g, Article II, Ohio 
Constitution (describing comparable requirements for each part of statewide 
initiative and referendum petitions). 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
{¶ 35} Nothing in the plain language of R.C. 519.12(H) or in precedent 
construing this statutory provision supports the board’s view that each page of a 
petition, including attachments, must contain the number and full and correct title 
of the zoning-amendment resolution.  In fact, if the board’s conclusion were 
correct, then the R.C. 519.12(H) requirement that a “brief summary” of the 
contents of the resolution appear in each part of the petition would also 
necessitate repeating the summary on each page of each part-petition, including 
any attachments.  The General Assembly could not have intended this 
unreasonable result.  State ex rel. Webb v. Bliss, 99 Ohio St.3d 166, 2003-Ohio-
3049, 789 N.E.2d 1102, ¶ 22 (court will not approve construction of election 
statutes that would produce an absurd result). 
{¶ 36} Therefore, insofar as the board of elections relied on this ground 
when it denied Gemienhardt’s protest, it clearly disregarded R.C. 519.12(H).  
Gemienhardt’s referendum petition complied with the number-and-title 
requirement of R.C. 519.12(H). 
Brief Summary and Additional Language 
{¶ 37} Respondents also concluded that the referendum petition’s “brief 
summary” of the resolution is defective.  Under R.C. 519.12(H), each part of a 
petition seeking a referendum on a township zoning amendment must also contain 
a “brief summary” of the contents of the amendment. 
{¶ 38} “The phrase ‘brief summary of its contents’ refers to the zoning 
resolution passed by the township trustees.”  State ex rel. O’Beirne v. Geauga 
Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 176, 179, 685 N.E.2d 502.  Under the 
applicable test, “[t]he summary must be accurate and unambiguous; otherwise, the 
petition is invalid and the subject resolution will not be submitted for vote.”  S.I. 
Dev. & Constr., L.L.C. v. Medina Cty. Bd. of Elections, 100 Ohio St.3d 272, 
2003-Ohio-5791, 798 N.E.2d 587, ¶ 17.  Therefore, “[i]f the summary is 
misleading, inaccurate, or contains material omissions which would confuse the 
January Term, 2006 
11 
average person, the petition is invalid and may not form the basis for submission 
to a vote.”  Shelly & Sands, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1984), 12 Ohio 
St.3d 140, 141, 12 OBR 180, 465 N.E.2d 883, citing Markus v. Trumbull Cty. Bd. 
of Elections (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 197, 202, 51 O.O.2d 277, 259 N.E.2d 501.  
The overriding “purpose of requiring a summary is ‘to present fairly and 
accurately the question or issue to be decided in order to assure a free, intelligent 
and informed decision by the persons to whom it is presented.’ ”  State ex rel. 
Hamilton v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections (1993), 67 Ohio St.3d 556, 559, 621 
N.E.2d 391, quoting Nunneker v. Murdock (1983), 9 Ohio App.3d 73, 77, 9 OBR 
93, 458 N.E.2d 431. 
{¶ 39} The board of elections asserts that Gemienhardt’s summary is 
deficient because (1) it is misleading in that it summarizes the actual textual 
changes of the zoning amendments instead of Resolution No. 05-11-42; (2) it is 
incomplete and therefore inaccurate because it refers to only a few of the textual 
amendments actually approved by the resolution; (3) the summary is misleading 
and contains inaccuracies and material omissions in that the brief summary states 
the permitted density in the R-3 zoning district upon the effective date of the 
amendments, but omits the existing permitted density; (4) the summary 
inaccurately states that the text of the resolution is attached to the petition when it 
is not; and (5) the September 29, 2005 minutes of the regional planning 
commission attached to the petition do not fairly and accurately present the 
question or issue to the petition signers. 
Summarizing Zoning-Amendment Resolution 
in Language other than that Provided in Resolution 
{¶ 40} Addressing these contentions in order, we hold that a summary 
need not use the same language as the resolution it is summarizing.  We readily 
acknowledge that “when a referendum petition’s summary of a resolution 
contains substantially the same wording as the resolution itself, we have held that 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
the summary complies with the statutory requirement.”  State ex rel. McCord v. 
Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-Ohio-4758, 835 
N.E.2d 336, ¶ 43.  Consequently, “[w]e will not penalize the township electors’ 
attempt to exercise their right of referendum [by] summarizing the resolution with 
substantially the same wording as the resolution itself.”  State ex rel. C.V. Perry & 
Co. v. Licking Cty. Bd. of Elections (2002), 94 Ohio St.3d 442, 445, 764 N.E.2d 
411. 
{¶ 41} In so holding, however, we have never held that summaries are 
restricted to the wording of the resolution. In fact, we have recognized that on rare 
occasions, the resolution itself might not be readily understandable.  See, e.g., 
O’Beirne, 80 Ohio St.3d at 180, 685 N.E.2d 502 (noting that resolution containing 
approximately 40 pages of incorporated exhibits was not readily understandable). 
{¶ 42} Therefore, the mere fact that Gemienhardt did not use the language 
of the resolution to summarize it does not render the summary defective.  In fact, 
his summary provides more information about the proposed zoning amendments 
than does the resolution itself. 
Omitting Some of the Zoning Amendments 
{¶ 43} By choosing to summarize the resolution in language other than 
that employed by the board of township trustees, Gemienhardt’s additional 
language had to satisfy the applicable test in R.C. 519.12(H).  That is, the 
summary cannot be misleading, inaccurate, or contain material omissions that will 
confuse the average person.  McCord, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-Ohio-4758, 835 
N.E.2d 336, ¶ 45-46. 
{¶ 44} The summary here contains material omissions that could have 
conveyed the mistaken impression to petition signers that only the zoning 
amendments specified by Gemienhardt in the summary were of major 
significance to township electors.  The actual number of zoning amendments is 13 
─ eight amendments to Article IX, one amendment (with six subsections) adding 
January Term, 2006 
13 
Article X to create a new R-4 (multi-type residential district) zoning 
classification, and four amendments to Article XI.  In his summary of these 
amendments, Gemienhardt specified only six of the 13 amendments. 
{¶ 45} Among the amendments that Gemienhardt does not summarize are 
the addition of certain land uses in the amended R-3 zoning classification, i.e., 
religious land uses, public buildings, adult-family homes, child day care, and 
common-access-driveway subdivision.  In addition, Gemienhardt does not 
summarize three sections of the amendment creating and defining the new R-4 
zoning classification, i.e., the conditional uses, prohibited uses, and 
developmental standards, and he leaves out much of a section detailing the 
permitted uses. 
{¶ 46} By describing the amendments he included in the summary as 
“[h]ighlights,” Gemienhardt implied that the omitted amendments were not as 
important, even though this impression might not have been accurate.  See 
Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, supra, at 1068, defining 
“highlight” as “an event, detail, topic, or accomplishment of major significance or 
special interest.”  Manifestly, the omission of permitted, conditional, and 
prohibited uses and developmental standards in a zoning amendment could 
reasonably be considered material.  To be sure, these matters could not be 
considered to be, as Gemienhardt claimed at the board’s protest hearing, mere 
“housekeeping” matters.  Although Gemienhardt certainly attached the full text of 
these amendments to his petition, petition signers could have justifiably relied 
upon his summary language instead of wading through the ten pages of attached 
regional-planning-commission minutes before deciding whether to sign the 
petition. 
Existing Density in R-3 Zoning District 
{¶ 47} The board of elections also determined that the summary was 
misleading because it omitted the existing permitted density in the R-3 zoning 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
district.  Although Gemienhardt acknowledged in his summary that the 
preeminent effect of the amendments would be “to increase future residential 
densities,” and his summary noted that a PRD overlay of the existing R-3 district 
would yield a density of 1.85 units per net developable acre, his summary did not 
specify the existing density of the R-3 zoning before the overlay permitted by the 
proposed amendment.  He specified only that the existing R-3 zoning had 20,000 
square-feet lots. 
{¶ 48} But as a review of the pertinent legislative and administrative 
records establishes, nothing in the text of the amendments contained in the 
regional-planning-commission minutes, the actions taken by the zoning 
commission, or the board of trustees’ resolution sets forth the density of the 
existing R-3 zoning district, either.  Gemienhardt did not need to add something 
to his summary of the zoning-amendment resolution that was contained in neither 
the resolution nor the amendments adopted thereby. 
False Statement Concerning Attachment of 
Text of Resolution No. 05-11-42 
and Attachment of Regional-Planning-Commission Minutes 
{¶ 49} The summary inaccurately states, “The text of Resolution 05-11-42 
as passed by the Trustees on November 28, 2005 is attached hereto.”  
Gemienhardt concedes that it was his “intent * * * to incorporate the text of the 
amendments by cross-referencing the text of Resolution 05-11-42 at the end of the 
summary.” 
{¶ 50} The November 28, 2005 resolution, however, was not attached to 
the petition.  Instead, Gemienhardt attached ten pages of the amendments 
contained in the September 29, 2005 regional-planning-commission minutes. 
{¶ 51} By not attaching the text of Resolution No. 05-11-42, Gemienhardt 
could have misled petition signers into believing that the planning-commission 
minutes constituted the actual resolution, which they did not. 
January Term, 2006 
15 
{¶ 52} Moreover, by instead attaching the planning-commission minutes, 
Gemienhardt’s petition could have confused petition signers concerning the 
relationship between the trustees’ resolution and the planning commission’s 
minutes, which are dated approximately two months earlier.  In fact, the board of 
trustees adopted recommended changes to the density of certain property in the 
affected area that were not reflected in the action by the planning commission and 
that occurred after the initial action by the zoning commission.  In addition, at the 
protest hearing, Gemienhardt’s counsel apologized that the attached planning-
commission minutes could be “so confusing” to the elections-board members. 
Brief-Summary Requirement:  Conclusion 
{¶ 53} Based on the foregoing, because the summary was inaccurate and 
contained material omissions that could have misled or confused petition signers 
about the precise nature and effect of the township zoning-amendment resolution, 
the board of elections and its members did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary, or 
unconscionable manner in concluding that the petition summary did not satisfy 
the brief-summary requirement of R.C. 519.12(H). 
Appropriate Map 
{¶ 54} The board of elections also concluded that the map attached to the 
referendum petition is misleading and confusing because it is described as a 
“draft,” the summary states that the map changes were not subject to referendum, 
and the map does not explain which property would be subject to the proposed R-
4 zoning designation. 
{¶ 55} R.C. 519.12(H) requires that the referendum petition be 
“accompanied by an appropriate map of the area affected by the zoning proposal.”  
“A map accompanying a referendum petition [is] considered appropriate or 
suitable for purposes of R.C. 519.12(H) if it does not mislead the average person 
about the area affected by the zoning resolution.”  McCord, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 
2005-Ohio-4758, 835 N.E.2d 336, ¶ 63. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
16 
{¶ 56} Notwithstanding the board’s conclusion to the contrary, the map 
used by Gemienhardt is appropriate.  The map was specifically approved by the 
board of township trustees to reflect the zoning amendments approved by the 
board in Resolution No. 05-11-42.  Just as we will not penalize township electors 
seeking a referendum for summarizing the resolution with substantially the same 
wording as the resolution itself, State ex rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
109 Ohio St.3d 63, 2006-Ohio-1292, 846 N.E.2d 8, ¶ 29, we will also refrain from 
penalizing these electors for attaching a map that has been approved by the board 
of trustees as accurately depicting the zoning amendments.  Consequently, 
township electors seeking to exercise their right of referendum need not attach a 
map that is more accurate than the map approved by the board of trustees. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 57} Based on the foregoing, the board of elections neither abused its 
discretion nor clearly disregarded applicable law by denying Gemienhardt’s 
protest, refusing to certify the petition, and not placing the issue on the May 2, 
2006 election ballot.  Gemienhardt’s petition did not comply with the brief-
summary requirement of R.C. 519.12(H), because his summary was inaccurate 
and contained material omissions that could have misled or confused petition 
signers about the precise nature and effect of Resolution No. 05-11-42.  See S.I. 
Dev. & Constr., 100 Ohio St.3d 272, 2003-Ohio-5791, 798 N.E.2d 587, ¶ 17; 
Shelly & Sands, Inc., 12 Ohio St.3d at 141, 12 OBR 180, 465 N.E.2d 883.  
Although the brief-summary requirement of R.C. 519.12(H) is liberally construed 
in favor of the right of referendum, Gemienhardt is still required to strictly 
comply with that requirement.  McCord, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-Ohio-4758, 
835 N.E.2d 336, ¶ 37-38.  Gemienhardt’s petition did not do so.  Accordingly, we 
deny the writ. 
Writ denied. 
January Term, 2006 
17 
 
MOYER, C.J., PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, O’DONNELL 
and LANZINGER, JJ., concur. 
 
RESNICK, J., not participating. 
__________________ 
 
McTigue Law Group, Donald J. McTigue, Mark A. McGinnis, and Robert 
A. Beattey, for relator. 
 
David A. Yost, Delaware County Prosecuting Attorney, and Christopher 
D. Betts, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondents. 
______________________