After fielding repeated criticism from residents regarding a federal lawsuit, the Jerome Township Trustees heard a compliment Tuesday night.
“I feel this was the right thing to do,” said resident Barry Adler.
The trustees announced during their most recent meeting that a motion was filed on behalf of the township to dismiss a civil lawsuit filed by a group of property owners and developers.
Stakeholders for several residential developments that were stalled by referendums – The Homestead at Scotts Farm, Rolling Meadows, The Farm at Indian Run and the Jerome Village VN-10 development – are listed as joint plaintiffs.
Together, they claim the township violated their property rights and discriminated against them during the zoning process.
Trustee Chair Megan Sloat emphasized that the motion to dismiss is an effort to uphold residents’ rights to seek a rezoning referendum.
“This board is concerned with the dangerous precedent that could be set by this case ultimately exposing the township to significant monetary liability now and in the future,” Sloat said.
The motion to dismiss states that the plaintiffs claimed zoning is “broken” in the area “simply because they do not like Jerome Township… residents invoking tools of direct democracy.”
It adds that the lawsuit filed against the township is an effort to avoid the results of “legitimate referendums.”
The motion contests four claims made by the plaintiffs in the federal lawsuit filed July 23.
First, according to the motion, the plaintiffs had no protected property interest in the development of their land.
It cites previous Ohio court decisions as evidence that “at no point were plaintiffs entitled to have their property rezoned to (planned development district), even if their rezoning applications were consistent with the comprehensive plan.”
The motion adds that any development plans were contingent upon a rezoning, which is subject to a referendum.
Additionally, the lawsuit frames the reasoning for initiating referendums as “arbitrary and capricious.”
However, the motion to dismiss claims that it was reasonable, as the “number one goal” of the Jerome Township Comprehensive Plan is to “preserve and retain the rural character” of the area.
Beyond this, within the motion to dismiss, township officials argue against the claim that the plaintiffs were subject to unequal treatment of the law.
It states that the plaintiffs were not treated unfairly, as all recent residential rezonings have also been subjected to the referendum process.
“Even viewing the allegations… in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs demonstrates that they were not ‘singled out’ nor were they treated less fairly than those similarly situated,” according to the motion.
The motion also disputes the plaintiff’s claims for declaratory judgment, which would effectively rezone the properties to planned development district.
It claims that “there is no actual controversy,” as rezoning applications were approved by the board of trustees but prevented by a referendum – a process authorized by the Ohio Revised Code.
Lastly, the motion argues that claims of regulatory taking and taking by eminent domain should be dismissed.
Regulatory taking may be found under some circumstances in which a regulation impedes property use and deprives economic benefits, according to the motion. But, it argues that the plaintiffs had no “investment-backed expectations” that the property could be used outside of its current zoning.
“…The plaintiff property owners here were constructively and actually aware when they either purchased or otherwise attempted to sell or develop the land that they were restricted by the (rural residential) zoning regulation,” the motion states.
It adds that, given the history of referendums in the township, the plaintiffs should have reasonably expected that they would be subject to a petition.
“The plaintiffs therefore could not (and did not) purchase or sell the land out of a reasonable reliance that the land would not be subject to such restrictions or referendums,” the motion states.
While the trustees kept their public comments surrounding the motion brief, Sloat said she hopes it is approved and the township can put the matter in the past.
“We are hopeful the motion to dismiss will be granted and the township and the board can turn to addressing the more pressing needs of township residents,” she said.