Jerome Township resident Marilyn Valois, pictured at the podium at center, speaks to the Board of Trustees during a public hearing Monday regarding a consent decree between the township and a number of property owners and developers. Valois was among more than a dozen speakers opposed to the settlement. No speakers were in favor. (Journal-Tribune photo by Kayleen Petrovia)
A lengthy legal battle between Jerome Township and several developers and property owners was effectively settled Monday night, resulting in the approval of four residential developments.
In a 2-1 vote, the Board of Trustees approved a consent decree that will rezone the properties affiliated with the Homestead at Scotts Farm, Rolling Meadows, the Farm at Indian Run and Jerome Village Neighborhood 10 (VN-10) to Planned Development Districts. Trustee Megan Sloat dissented.
The preliminary development plans for each of the neighborhoods will also be approved “without referendum or appeal,” according to the consent decree.
During a public hearing Monday, many residents asked the trustees how the settlement could avoid the results of separate referendum votes that struck down the rezoning of each property.
“I really don’t understand why we’re here because we, the citizens, voted,” said Crottinger Road resident Matthew Friend.
The Ohio Revised Code allows townships to overrule the decision of a referendum election through a court-approved agreement.
Regardless of the legality of the trustees’ actions, more than a dozen residents told members of the board that accepting the consent decree would not reflect the voices of those they represent.
“This is a cry from your residents,” said Lynda Chapman, a McKitrick Road resident.
Throughout their comments, speakers reiterated concerns shared throughout the initial zoning applications for each development.
They included concerns surrounding water runoff near former landfills; destruction of trees and other natural features; additional traffic and damage to existing roads; overcrowding of schools; a strain on public safety services and difficulty passing associated levies.
“Why would any trustee vote to add to the community’s growing pains?” asked Hill Road resident Lucinda Burian.
Several residents emphasized that they are not opposed to development entirely but want to manage the pace at which it is happening.
“I’m not naïve enough to think Jerome Township is not going to grow but we need to do it in a way that preserves our rural community,” said Taylor Road resident Christy Russell.
Aside from the effect new developments will immediately have on the area, some speakers emphasized the impact accepting such a settlement will have in the future.
A number of residents feared that the proposed consent decree would set a precedent that essentially allows developers to buy their way into the township.
McKitrick Road resident Bob Chapman described the agreement as “what looks like rezoning for sale, in a sellout of our rights.”
“The plaintiffs have finally shown us who they are… you must finally see them, too, as the indignant bullies they are,” McKitrick Road resident Kevin Barney added.
While many residents pleaded with the trustees to reject the consent decree, others simply asked them to wait to make a decision.
Industrial Parkway resident Barry Adler, who was elected to the Board in November and will be seated in January, noted that the judge overseeing the case has not yet ruled on a motion to dismiss filed by the township.
Other residents hypothesized that the board was rushing to make a decision before the two outgoing trustees, Joe Craft and C.J. Lovejoy, are no longer on the board.
“Two of you are leaving – why are you even getting involved in this?” said Ketch Road resident David Shore. “We don’t want you here anymore.”
No matter their reasoning, Larry Mastella, a Brock Road resident, summed up the overwhelming opposition to the consent decree expressed by every person who spoke Monday.
“Where are the people standing up saying, ‘Yes, we need to do this tonight?’” he asked.
Still, Craft insisted that the settlement “is in the best interest of all Jerome Township residents.”
“I believe this is a fair settlement that avoids costly litigation that could cripple the township long-term and instead creates a flow of ongoing revenue and benefits for the township while allowing responsible, high-quality development to continue,” he said.
Craft listed several terms of the agreement that he said would benefit the township.
Jerome Village Company, LLC will make a one-time cash contribution of $400,000 to be paid on or before Jan. 31, 2022. Beginning in January 2023, an annual cash contribution of $125,000 will be paid before Jan. 31 each year through 2032.
The company will also pay the township an additional $1 million for the construction of a firehouse and equipment for the department.
Craft noted that the settlement will result in “all future commercial development” becoming a part of the Joint Economic Development District (JEDD) between Jerome Township and the City of Marysville.
Additionally, he said an amendment will allow for a continuation of the Jerome Village Development Plan approved more than 10 years ago “requiring future development to comply with the same high-quality standards, green space commitments, infrastructure improvements and other public amenities.”
Craft added that the Rolling Meadows development, on Industrial Parkway, will also have 100 fewer homes than initially approved.
“Were the litigation to go forward, I’m not willing to risk losing and becoming liable for millions of dollars in damages that (the township) does not have,” Craft said.
Earlier settlement offers from the plaintiff demanded $13.4 million in damages, plus additional monthly accrual and attorney fees.
Through the consent decree, the Scotts Farm plaintiffs will be paid $25,000; Wicked Chicken, LLC will receive $25,000 and the Rolling Meadows plaintiffs will be paid $200,000.
The court is currently considering a motion to intervene filed by Bob and Lynda Chapman on Dec. 20.
The court is accepting statements from individuals who wish to object to or support the pending settlement until Dec. 23 at noon. The statements must be submitted in PDF format to Meg_Burrell@ohsd.uscourts.gov.
According to an order from U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Watson, the parties shall respond to any objections on or before Dec. 27 at noon.