Case Title: State ex rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections

Citation: 2006-Ohio-1292

Docket Number: 20060418

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2006-03-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 109 Ohio St.3d 63, 2006-Ohio-
1292.] 
 
 
THE STATE EX REL. BROWN ET AL. v. BUTLER COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS. 
[Cite as State ex rel. Brown v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections, 
109 Ohio St.3d 63, 2006-Ohio-1292.] 
Writ of prohibition denied — Summary of zoning amendment in referendum 
petition accurately described the resolution — Map attached to 
referendum petition was not misleading — Board of elections did not act 
in an arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner in denying 
protest and placing the resolution on the May 2, 2006 ballot. 
(No. 2006-0418 ─ Submitted March 15, 2006 ─ Decided March 22, 2006.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
____________________ 
 
Per Curiam. 
{¶ 1} This is an expedited election case in which relators request a writ 
of prohibition to prevent a board of elections from submitting a county zoning 
amendment to the electorate on May 2, 2006. 
Relators 
{¶ 2} Relators Evelyn A. Brown, Hazel Brown, Darrell E. Brown, Margy 
B. Beckner, John W. Brown, and James G. Inman own certain property in Ross 
Township, Butler County, Ohio.  Relator Red Pine Properties, L.L.C. (“Red 
Pine”) has agreed to purchase the property from the owners in order to develop it.  
Relator Andrew J. Temmel is a member of Red Pine. 
Request for Zoning Amendment and Administrative Proceedings 
{¶ 3} On August 8, 2005, Red Pine requested that the property be 
rezoned from A-1 (agricultural district) and R-2 (single-family-residence district) 
to R-PUD (residential─planned-unit-development district).  On September 13, 
2005, the Butler County Planning Commission recommended that Red Pine’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
request be approved subject to six specified conditions.  On October 10, 2005, the 
Butler County Rural Zoning Commission recommended approval of Red Pine’s 
zoning request subject to 11 stated conditions. 
Resolution No. 05-11-2321 
{¶ 4} On November 28, 2005, the Butler County Board of 
Commissioners approved the recommendation of the zoning commission and 
passed Resolution No. 05-11-2321, which provides: 
{¶ 5} “WHEREAS, by advertisement, a public hearing to amend the 
Butler County Rural Zoning Resolution was held on November 28, 2005 on the 
application of Red Pine Properties (case RZC 05-10), to redistrict the following 
described property in Ross Township from A-1 (Agricultural District) and R-2 
(Single Family Residence District) to R-PUD (Residential─Planned Unit 
Development District): 
{¶ 6} “[Property Description] 
{¶ 7} “* * * 
{¶ 8} “WHEREAS, the Butler County Rural Zoning Commission 
recommended said map amendment be approved at a public hearing held in 
conjunction therewith on September 19, 2005; and 
{¶ 9} “WHEREAS, the Board of Butler County Commissioners concurs 
with the findings of the * * * Butler County Rural Zoning Commission that said 
amendment is an appropriate use of the land. 
{¶ 10} “THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Commission approves 
the request for case RZC 05-10 based on the aforementioned reasons.” 
Referendum Petition 
{¶ 11} In December 2005, certain Ross Township electors submitted to 
the Butler County Board of Commissioners a petition for a referendum on 
Resolution No. 05-11-2321 pursuant to R.C. 303.12(H).  The petitioners 
January Term, 2006 
3 
 
requested that the zoning amendment be submitted to township electors at the 
May 2, 2006 election. 
{¶ 12} The petition contained the following summary of the zoning 
amendment: 
{¶ 13} “A proposal to amend the Butler County Rural Zoning Resolution 
on the application of Red Pine Properties (case RZC 05-10), to redistrict the 
property described in the attached Resolution No. 05-11-2321 in Ross Township 
from A-1 (Agricultural District) and R-2 (Single Family Residence District) to R-
PUD (Residential─Planned Unit Development District). 
{¶ 14} “A legal description of the property is contained in the full text of 
Resolution No. 05-11-2321 attached hereto.” 
{¶ 15} As specified in the petition, a copy of the complete text of 
Resolution No. 05-11-2321 was attached.  The petition also included a map 
showing the affected property.  According to the Clerk of the Butler County 
Board of Commissioners, the map used by the referendum petitioners was 
attached to Resolution No. 05-11-2321 in the board’s records.  When the 
referendum petitioners asked her for a copy of the resolution, she included the 
map attached to the resolution. 
Protest and Hearing 
{¶ 16} On January 10, 2006, Red Pine filed a protest against the petition 
with respondent, Butler County Board of Elections.  Red Pine claimed that the 
petition was invalid because the summary of the resolution and the map were 
ambiguous and misleading. 
{¶ 17} On February 13, 2006, the board of elections held a hearing on Red 
Pine’s protest.  At the hearing, Red Pine’s representative testified that the map 
used by the referendum petitioners had been used in zoning meetings and that the 
planning commission had produced the map to identify the area.  A referendum 
petitioner testified that although the map was not required, it was included with 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
the petition to help petition signers determine the location of the affected 
property.  The petitioner further testified that he had obtained the map from either 
the board of elections or some other county office and that Red Pine had put the 
map on a display board at the zoning meetings.  Red Pine’s representative also 
testified that the map provided a basic understanding of where the proposed 
development is located. 
{¶ 18} At the conclusion of the hearing, the board of elections denied Red 
Pine’s protest.  The board of elections concluded that the petition satisfied the 
statutory brief-summary requirement because the summary was “basically 
identical to the resolution.”  The board of elections further concluded that the map 
was not misleading, because “it generally accurately portrays the area of the 
proposed change.”  The board thus accepted the petition and placed Resolution 
No. 05-11-2321 on the May 2, 2006 election ballot. 
Expedited Election Case 
{¶ 19} On February 27, 2006, relators filed this expedited election case 
seeking a writ of prohibition to prevent the board of elections from submitting 
Resolution No. 05-11-2321 to the Ross Township electors at the May 2, 2006 
election.  On March 7, 2006, the board of elections submitted an answer.  
Evidence and briefs were filed pursuant to the accelerated schedule for expedited 
election matters in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9). 
{¶ 20} This cause is now before the court for a decision on the merits. 
Prohibition 
{¶ 21} Relators claim that they are entitled to a writ of prohibition to 
prevent the board of elections from submitting Resolution No. 05-11-2321 to the 
township electorate on May 2, 2006.  In order to be entitled to the requested writ 
of prohibition, relators must establish that (1) the board of elections is about to 
exercise quasi-judicial power, (2) the exercise of that power is unauthorized by 
law, and (3) denying the writ will result in injury for which no other adequate 
January Term, 2006 
5 
 
remedy exists in the ordinary course of law.  State ex rel. Choices for South-
Western City Schools v. Anthony, 108 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5362, 840 N.E.2d 
582, ¶ 29. 
{¶ 22} Relators have established the first and third requirements for the 
writ.  The board of elections exercised quasi-judicial authority by denying Red 
Pine’s protest after conducting a hearing that included sworn testimony.  See 
Tatman v. Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Elections, 102 Ohio St.3d 425, 2004-Ohio-3701, 
811 N.E.2d 1130, ¶ 14 (“even if the board already exercised its quasi-judicial 
power by denying [the] protest, relief in prohibition is still available to prevent the 
placement of names or issues on a ballot, as long as the election has not yet been 
held”).  In addition, given the closeness of the election date in this expedited 
election case, relators lack an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.  
See, e.g., State ex rel. Thurn v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1995), 72 Ohio 
St.3d 289, 291-292, 649 N.E.2d 1205; State ex rel. Smart v. McKinley (1980), 64 
Ohio St.2d 5, 6, 18 O.O.3d 128, 412 N.E.2d 393. 
{¶ 23} Therefore, the dispositive issue for relators’ prohibition claim is 
whether the board of elections’ act of denying Red Pine’s protest and submitting 
the resolution to the electorate was unauthorized by law.  In extraordinary actions 
contesting a board of elections decision, we must determine whether the board 
acted fraudulently or corruptly, abused its discretion, or clearly disregarded 
applicable law.  Choices for South-Western City Schools, 108 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-
Ohio-5362, 840 N.E.2d 582, ¶ 32.  There is no allegation of fraud or corruption 
here, and thus, relators must establish that the board of elections abused its 
discretion or clearly disregarded applicable law by denying Red Pine’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. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
{¶ 24} Relators assert that the board of elections abused its discretion and 
clearly disregarded applicable law by denying Red Pine’s protest, because the 
referendum petition did not comply with the brief-summary requirement of R.C. 
303.12(H) and the map attached to the petition was misleading and inaccurate and 
contained material omissions. 
R.C. 303.12(H) 
Brief-Summary Requirement 
{¶ 25} R.C. 303.12(H) requires that each part of a 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 proposal is known and 
a brief summary of its contents.”  (Emphasis added.) 
{¶ 26} “Where an application for rezoning has been amended during the 
legislative process, the phrase, ‘brief summary of its contents’ necessarily refers 
to the proposal to amend the zoning resolution as adopted by the resolution of the 
board of county commissioners.”  State ex rel. Rife v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (1994), 70 Ohio St.3d 632, 634, 640 N.E.2d 522, citing Olen Corp. v. 
Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1988), 43 Ohio App.3d 189, 194, 541 N.E.2d 80; 
see, also, State ex rel. O’Beirne v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio 
St.3d 176, 179, 685 N.E.2d 502, construing the identical R.C. 519.12(H) brief-
summary requirement for referenda on township zoning amendments (“The 
phrase ‘brief summary of its contents’ refers to the zoning resolution passed by 
the township trustees”).  “The summary [required by R.C. 519.12(H)] 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, citing State ex rel. Hamilton v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections (1993), 67 Ohio 
St.3d 556, 559, 621 N.E.2d 391. 
January Term, 2006 
7 
 
{¶ 27} Relators assert that the summary contained in the referendum 
petition was defective because it did not include the conditions specified by the 
zoning and planning commissions. 
{¶ 28} Relators’ assertion lacks merit.  As we recently held, “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, even when the summary fails to include a statement regarding the 
meaning of zoning classifications, the purpose of the zoning change, or the uses 
specified in the development plan approved by the resolution.”  State ex rel. 
McCord v. Delaware Cty. Bd. of Elections, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-Ohio-4758, 
835 N.E.2d 336, ¶ 43.  That is, “[i]nclusion of the full text of the amendment * * * 
generally satisfies the [statutory] ‘brief summary’ requirement.”  O’Beirne, 80 
Ohio St.3d at 180, 685 N.E.2d 502. 
{¶ 29} The summary in the referendum petition accurately described 
Resolution No. 05-11-2321 in the same language used by the board of county 
commissioners in adopting the resolution.  The petitioners also attached the full 
text of the resolution to their petition.  The resolution contained none of the items 
that relators claim are indispensable to a complete understanding of the zoning 
amendment.  “We will not penalize the township electors’ attempt to exercise 
their right of referendum for 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. 
{¶ 30} Relators erroneously rely on McCord, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 2005-
Ohio-4758, 835 N.E.2d 336, to assert that the summary is defective.  In McCord, 
we emphasized that the referendum petition did “not simply summarize [the 
zoning-amendment resolution] in the same words used in the resolution,” but 
included additional language attempting to summarize the zoning application.  Id. 
at ¶ 44.  The additional language was held to be misleading because it suggested 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
that only the uses included in the summary were included in the new resolution.  
Id. at ¶ 57 (“Citizens could have avoided this deception by either including all of 
the material proposed uses set forth in the development agreement or excluding 
all of the uses.  Petition signers may have been misled by Citizens’ choice of a 
middle ground, noting only the previous proposed uses and omitting the new 
proposed uses”).  Because the petitioners here did not include any additional, 
deceptive language to their summary of the zoning-amendment resolution, 
McCord is readily distinguishable.  In fact, at the board’s protest hearing, relators’ 
counsel admitted that McCord was factually distinguishable and that C.V. Perry ─ 
in which we denied a defective-summary claim because the summary in the 
referendum petition accurately reflected the language of the resolution ─ was 
factually “almost directly on point.” 
{¶ 31} Other cases that relators cite in support of their claim are similarly 
distinguishable.  Cf., e.g., O’Beirne, 80 Ohio St.3d at 180-181, 685 N.E.2d 502 
(referendum petition on township zoning-amendment resolution violated brief-
summary requirement because summary added misleading language to the 
petition that was not included in the resolution and summary omitted material 
information that had been part of the resolution); E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Wood Cty. 
Bd. of Elections (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 298, 301-302, 699 N.E.2d 916 (referendum 
petition on township zoning amendment violated brief-summary requirement by 
adding language that was not contained in the resolution and that was ambiguous 
and deceptive). 
{¶ 32} Based on the foregoing, we hold that the board of elections neither 
abused its discretion nor disregarded applicable law by determining that the 
referendum petition complied with the brief-summary requirement of R.C. 
303.12(H).  The summary adequately informed electors of the precise nature of 
the zoning change from A-1 and R-2 to R-PUD. 
Map 
January Term, 2006 
9 
 
{¶ 33} Relators next claim that the map attached to the referendum 
petition failed to accurately identify the property at issue, failed to describe the 
current zoning of certain property, and failed to describe that some of the property 
is designated as open space.  Relators further claim that the map is confusing and 
misleading and omits material information.  They contend that a map they 
submitted as part of their rezoning request is much more descriptive than the map 
used by the referendum petitioners. 
{¶ 34} As the board of elections noted and the parties acknowledge, 
unlike R.C. 519.12(H), regarding referenda on township zoning amendments, 
R.C. 303.12(H) contains no requirement that “an appropriate map of the area 
affected by the zoning proposal” accompany a referendum petition challenging a 
county zoning amendment. 
{¶ 35} Therefore, the map is akin to additional material, which will not 
invalidate the petition unless it is misleading.  Cf. McCord, 106 Ohio St.3d 346, 
2005-Ohio-4758, 835 N.E.2d 336, ¶ 63 (“A map accompanying a referendum 
petition should be 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”). 
{¶ 36} The map used by the referendum petitioners accurately outlines the 
area affected by the zoning amendment in Resolution No. 05-11-2321.  There was 
testimony at the board’s protest hearing that the map was used in zoning meetings 
by the planning department, the board of elections, and even Red Pine.  In 
addition, a Red Pine representative testified that the map provided a basic 
understanding of the affected property to township electors.  Finally, the map was 
attached to the resolution in the board of county commissioners’ record of that 
resolution.  Under these circumstances, the board of elections did not act in an 
arbitrary, unconscionable, or unreasonable manner in concluding that the map was 
not misleading to the average person. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
{¶ 37} We need not decide the board’s additional contention that laches 
bars relators’ prohibition claim, because our holding renders it moot.  See, e.g., 
State ex rel. Essig v. Blackwell, 103 Ohio St.3d 481, 2004-Ohio-5586, 817 N.E.2d 
5, ¶ 33, citing State ex rel. Becker v. Eastlake (2001), 93 Ohio St.3d 502, 507, 756 
N.E.2d 1228, and State ex rel. Barton v. Butler Cty. Bd. of Elections (1988), 39 
Ohio St.3d 291, 292, 530 N.E.2d 871. 
Conclusion 
{¶ 38} Based on the foregoing, the board of elections acted properly in 
denying Red Pine’s protest and placing Resolution No. 05-11-2321 on the May 2, 
2006 election ballot.  Our holding is consistent with our duty to liberally construe 
referendum provisions to permit the exercise of the power.  See S.I. Dev. & 
Constr., 100 Ohio St.3d 272, 2003-Ohio-5791, 798 N.E.2d 587, ¶ 22.  Therefore, 
we deny the writ.1 
Writ denied. 
 
MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, O’CONNOR, 
O’DONNELL and LANZINGER, JJ., concur.  
__________________ 
 
Aronoff, Rosen & Hunt, Stanley J. Aronoff, Richard A. Paolo, and Kevin 
L. Swick, for relators. 
 
Robin N. Piper, Butler County Prosecuting Attorney, and Roger S. Gates, 
Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent. 
______________________ 
                                                 
1.  We deny relators’ request for oral argument because they advance no argument in support of 
their request, and the parties’ briefs are sufficient to resolve this case.  See, e.g., Choices for 
South-Western City Schools, 108 Ohio St.3d 1, 2005-Ohio-5362, 840 N.E.2d 582, ¶ 56.