Title: E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections

State: ohio

Issuer: Ohio Supreme Court

Document:

EAST OHIO GAS COMPANY v. WOOD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS ET AL. 
[Cite as E. Ohio Gas Co. v. Wood Cty. Bd. of Elections (1998), 83 Ohio St.3d 298.] 
Elections — Writ of prohibition to prevent Wood County Board of Elections from 
submitting a proposed zoning amendment to the electorate at the November 
3 general election granted, when. 
(No. 98-1699 — Submitted September 10, 1998 — Decided September 11, 1998.) 
IN PROHIBITION. 
 
Relator, East Ohio Gas Company (“East Ohio”), owns approximately 1,021 
acres of undeveloped real property in Troy Township, Wood County, Ohio.  In 
1990, the township zoned the property as “A,” Agricultural District.  In 1995, East 
Ohio filed an application with the township’s board of trustees to rezone the 
property to “I,” Industrial District.  The “I” Industrial District is a general industrial 
zoning classification that provides very little township control over the industrial 
development of property within the district.  East Ohio subsequently withdrew its 
application for rezoning due to the concerns of the township trustees and citizens 
over permitting industrial development without significant oversight by the 
township. 
 
In 1996, the township added a “PI” Planned Industrial District zoning 
classification to permit industrial development subject to strict controls over 
certain matters, including traffic, noise, landscaping, building height, and 
architecture. 
 
In February 1998, East Ohio filed an application to rezone the northern 508 
acres of its property.  The application provided: 
 
“Application is submitted herewith requesting that the Zoning Resolution of 
Troy Township be amended  * * * to change the zoning classification of the lands 
described in the attached legal description from ‘A,’ Agricultural to ‘PI,’ Planned 
Industrial District. 
 
2
 
“ * * * 
 
“The request for rezoning is being submitted because * * * [t]he owner of 
the property wishes to make the land available for development as industrial 
property in conformance with the requirements of the PI-Planned Industrial 
District which they feel represents the highest and best use of the property and will 
be a benefit to the Township, County, and State by providing a planned area for 
industrial growth, complimenting [sic] the strong local agricultural economy.  * * * 
” 
 
Because of the previous opposition to East Ohio’s attempt to rezone its 
property as industrial property, East Ohio specifically drafted the foregoing 
petition language to emphasize its intent to seek the planned industrial district 
classification rather than the general industrial district classification. 
 
In April 1998, the Troy Township Trustees approved and adopted East 
Ohio’s application.  Shortly thereafter, certain township citizens circulated a 
petition requesting that the proposed zoning amendment be submitted to the 
township electors for their approval or rejection at the November 3 general 
election.  The circulators filed the petition with the trustees in May 1998.  The 
petition provided the following brief summary of the proposed zoning amendment: 
 
“[T]o ‘change the zoning classification of the lands described in the attached 
legal description from “A”, Agricultural to “PI”, Planned Industrial District.’ 
 
“The reason stated for the application was that ‘The owner wishes to make 
the land available for development as industrial property ....’  [Ellipsis sic.] * * * ” 
 
In July 1998, East Ohio filed a protest under R.C. 3501.39 with respondent, 
Wood County Board of Elections (“board”).  East Ohio requested that the board 
invalidate the referendum petition because: 
 
“The Petition is inaccurate and contains a material omission in that it does 
not state the complete reason for rezoning given by East Ohio in its Application. 
 
3
 
“The Petition is misleading because it creates the impression that East Ohio 
seeks to develop its land without any input or control by Troy Township. 
 
“The Petition is ambiguous because it confuses the reader as to the Petition’s 
purpose and effect. 
 
“Because of these defects, and in light of the prior history regarding East 
Ohio’s development of its land, the Petition would confuse the average person.” 
 
In August 1998, the board held a hearing on East Ohio’s protest.  The board 
denied the protest by a two-to-one vote.  One of the board members noted the 
following in voting to deny the protest: 
 
“We have a long tradition in this board of — I don’t want to say it’s a 
presumption in favor of access to the ballot, but that’s certainly the way we have 
functioned in the past.  This is the toughest one, however,  * * * that I have ever 
seen come before us.   * * * But we have a very strong tradition in this board 
historically, not just these members here, but over 25, 30 years I’m familiar with of 
granting citizen access to the ballot.” 
 
Less than a week after the board’s denial, East Ohio filed this action for a 
writ of prohibition to prevent the board from certifying the sufficiency and validity 
of the referendum petition and from submitting the proposed zoning amendment to 
the electorate at the November 3 general election.  The board filed an answer, 
Mary Ann Miller and Concerned Citizens of Troy Township filed a motion to 
intervene and an answer, and East Ohio filed evidence and a merit brief.  We 
granted the motion to intervene.  Neither the board nor the intervening respondents 
filed a timely merit brief and evidence.1  Pursuant to the expedited election 
schedule set forth in S.Ct.Prac.R. X(9), this cause is now before the court for a 
consideration of the merits. 
__________________ 
 
4
 
Eastman & Smith, Ltd., James L. Rogers, Lane D. Williamson and Matthew 
D. Harper, for relator. 
 
Alan R. Mayberry, Wood County Prosecuting Attorney, and Raymond C. 
Fischer, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for respondent Wood County Board of 
Elections. 
 
Goldberg, Wurster & Hays and Thomas R. Hays, for intervening 
respondents. 
__________________ 
 
Per Curiam.  East Ohio asserts in its various propositions of law that the 
board of elections acted in clear disregard of R.C. 519.12(H) by denying its protest 
and not invalidating the referendum petition.  In 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 
other pertinent law.  State ex rel. Lynch v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 
80 Ohio St.3d 341, 342, 686 N.E.2d 498, 499; see, also, State ex rel. Cooker 
Restaurant Corp. v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio St.3d 302, 
305, 686 N.E.2d 238, 241. 
 
R.C. 519.12(H) provides: 
 
“Such [zoning] amendment adopted by the board [of township trustees] shall 
become effective in thirty days after the date of such adoption unless within thirty 
days after the adoption of the amendment there is presented to the board of 
township trustees a petition  * * * requesting the board of township trustees to 
submit the amendment to the electors of such area for approval or rejection at a 
special election to be held on the day of the next primary or general election.  Each 
part of this petition shall contain the number and the full and correct title, if any, 
of the zoning amendment resolution, motion, or application, furnishing the name 
 
5
by which the amendment is known and a brief summary of its contents.  * * * ”  
(Emphasis added.) 
 
The phrase “brief summary of its contents” refers to the zoning resolution, 
motion, or application passed or approved by the board of township trustees.  R.C. 
519.12(H); State ex rel. O’Beirne v. Geauga Cty. Bd. of Elections (1997), 80 Ohio 
St.3d 176, 179, 685 N.E.2d 502, 505.  The zoning referendum petition summary 
must be accurate and unambiguous.  Id.  Therefore, “[i]f 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.”  Shelly & Sands, Inc. v. Franklin Cty. Bd. of Elections (1984), 12 Ohio 
St.3d 140, 141, 12 OBR 180, 181, 465 N.E.2d 883, 884. 
 
East Ohio contends that the referendum petition’s brief summary was 
misleading, inaccurate, and contained material omissions that would confuse the 
average person because the summary included only part of East Ohio’s stated 
reasons in its zoning amendment application. 
 
East Ohio’s contention has merit because the referendum petition summary 
did not accurately and unambiguously specify the proposed amended zoning.  
While the petition summary initially correctly stated that the subject property 
would be rezoned to the planned industrial district classification, it subsequently 
represented that East Ohio’s stated reason for the proposed zoning amendment was 
to “make the land available for development as industrial property ....”  (Ellipsis 
sic.)  East Ohio’s actual application emphasized that it wished “to make the land 
available for development as industrial property in conformance with the 
requirements of the PI-Planned Industrial District  * * * by providing a planned 
area for industrial growth  * * *.”  (Emphasis added.)  The referendum petition 
summary’s omission of the remainder of East Ohio’s brief sentence specifying the 
reasons for its application conveyed the confusing and mistaken impression that 
 
6
the amendment might be to the general industrial classification rather than the 
planned industrial classification.  “Referendum petitions have been held invalid for 
conveying a confusing or mistaken impression as to the effect of a zoning 
resolution.”  State ex rel. Hamilton v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections (1993), 67 Ohio 
St.3d 556, 562, 621 N.E.2d 391, 395. 
 
The summary is ambiguous because it suggests that the zoning amendment 
is to the general industrial district classification after it states that the area will be 
rezoned to the planned industrial district classification.  This ambiguity results 
from the inclusion of only that portion of East Ohio’s stated reason indicating its 
desire to develop its property for industrial purposes and the omission of the 
remaining portion emphasizing that these industrial uses would be in accordance 
with the planned industrial district requirements, i.e., subject to township oversight 
and control.  The referendum petitioners could have avoided this defect by either 
including the entire sentence of stated reasons from East Ohio’s application, see, 
e.g., O’Beirne, 80 Ohio St.3d at 180, 685 N.E.2d at 505, or excluding that 
sentence.  But by including only the portion of the sentence that referred to East 
Ohio’s wishes to develop the subject property for industrial uses, the referendum 
petitioners appeared to have intended to deceive electors about the zoning 
amendment.  Consequently, the summary did not apprise the average reader of the 
“precise nature of the requested [zoning] change.”  Shelly & Sands, 12 Ohio St.3d 
at 142, 12 OBR at 181, 465 N.E.2d at 885. 
 
Based on the foregoing, the board acted in clear disregard of R.C. 519.12(H) 
and applicable precedent by denying East Ohio’s protest and refusing to invalidate 
the referendum petition.  This result does not, as the board’s protest hearing 
suggests, contravene the duty to liberally construe municipal referendum 
provisions to permit rather than preclude the exercise of the power of referendum.  
 
7
Christy v. Summit Cty. Bd. of Elections (1996), 77 Ohio St.3d 35, 40, 671 N.E.2d 
1, 5.  “[E]ven under the most liberal construction, the record in this case indicates 
that the petitions circulated  * * * were prepared in a manner which failed to meet 
the petition form requirements contained in R.C. 519.12, and that the petitions 
could have substantially misled those persons who signed them.”  Markus v. 
Trumbull Cty. Bd. of Elections (1970), 22 Ohio St.2d 197, 200, 51 O.O.2d 277, 
279, 259 N.E.2d 501, 503.  In fact, if we were to uphold the board’s decision here, 
referendum petitioners would be given carte blanche to use ellipses to alter the 
meaning of proposed zoning amendments.  Accordingly, because the board 
additionally exercised quasi-judicial authority in ruling on East Ohio’s protest and 
East Ohio lacks an adequate legal remedy, we grant the writ of prohibition to 
prevent the board from submitting the zoning amendment to the township electors 
at the November 3 election.  State ex rel. Harbarger v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of 
Elections (1996), 75 Ohio St.3d 44, 45, 661 N.E.2d 699, 700. 
Writ granted. 
 
MOYER, C.J., DOUGLAS, RESNICK and LUNDBERG STRATTON, JJ., concur. 
 
F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., dissent. 
 
COOK, J., not participating. 
FOOTNOTE: 
1. 
Because neither the board nor the intervening respondents filed a timely 
merit brief, we may grant the writ if East Ohio’s brief reasonably appears to sustain 
the writ.  S.Ct.Prac.R. X(11).