Northstar Land v. Delaware Cty. Boe, Unpublished Decision (10-28-2003)
Northstar Land v. Delaware Cty. Boe, Unpublished Decision (10-28-2003)
Dissenting Opinion
{¶ 23} I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I would find that R.C.
{¶ 24} I would conclude that when the township enacted the zoning resolution allowing for a planned-unit development, the township intended to create a "floating zone" covering the entire township, and this action should have resulted in an amendment to the zoning map. Thus, when a landowner desired to apply planned residential development zoning to a particular parcel of land, the landowner need not apply for an amendment to the zoning map, but need only meet the criteria specified in the resolution for a planned residential development. I would conclude that the original legislative action in adopting the resolution to create the floating zone over the township was subject to referendum, but was not challenged at that time, and the application of the zoning resolution to appellant's property is not subject to referendum, but must be challenged through administrative appeal. I would sustain the assignment of error and reverse the judgment of the trial court.
Opinion of the Court
{¶ 3} On August 14, 2001, NorthStar filed an application with the Delaware County Zoning Department, seeking to rezone the land from a farm residential district to a planned residential district, a form of a planned-unit development ("PUD"). Kingston Township did not have its own separate zoning resolution at the time of NorthStar's filing of the application. As such, zoning matters were governed by the Delaware County Zoning Code. Rezoning applications were heard by the Delaware County Regional Planning Commission and the Delaware County Rural Zoning Commission, then reviewed by the Delaware County Board of County Commissioners pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 4} NorthStar filed an action in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a declaration its application was subject to the standards and procedures set forth in R.C.
{¶ 5} Following the adoption of the resolution, a group of Kingston Township citizens circulated a referendum petition on the resolution, which was filed with the Kingston Township Clerk on January 12, 2003. The group sought to have the resolution placed on the November 4, 2003 ballot for approval or disapproval by the electorate. Following the procedures established by R.C.
{¶ 6} On March 3, 2003, NorthStar filed a complaint in the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas, seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction to enjoin the board of elections from placing the referendum question on the ballot. The trial court conducted hearings on March 12, 21 and 27, 2003. Via Opinion filed April 10, 2003, the trial court held the referendum should be placed on the November 4, 2003 ballot, finding the Kingston Township Trustees' decision to rezone NorthStar's land was a legislative act and subject to referendum.
{¶ 7} It is from the April 10, 2003 Opinion NorthStar appeals, raising as it sole assignment of error:
{¶ 8} "I. The trial court erred in finding that Northstar Land LLC was not entitled to an injunction prohibiting the Delaware County Board of Elections from submitting the referendum petition, requesting a public vote on Kingston Township Resolution No. R2002-08 to the Electors of Kingston Township for their approval or rejection at the next election to be held on November 4, 2003."
{¶ 10} R.C.
{¶ 11} "Planned-unit developments may be included in the township zoning resolution under one of the following procedures:
{¶ 12} "(A) The board of township trustees may adopt planned-unit development regulations that do not automatically apply to any property in the township, but establish standards that will apply to property that becomes part of a planned-unit development as provided in this division. Property owners who wish to have planned-unit development regulations apply to their property may apply to have the zoning map amended pursuant to section
{¶ 13} "(B) Upon the application of property owners, the board of township trustees may establish a planned-unit development for their property, designating the property as a planned-unit development on the zoning map in accordance with the procedures set forth in section
{¶ 14} "(C) Pursuant to section
{¶ 15} Nothing in this section prevents a board of township trustees from authorizing a planned-unit development as a conditional use in the zoning resolution pursuant to section
{¶ 16} The procedures for creating a planned-unit development under R.C.
{¶ 17} Article VIII of the Kingston Township Zoning Resolution sets forth the purpose, permitted uses, conditional uses, prohibited uses, and development standards and requirements of the planned-residence districts. Section 8.05 of Article VIII is entitled "Procedure," and sets forth the procedure through which an applicant may apply for an amendment to the zoning map. An application for a PRD requires "a change in the zoning map to show the PRD as a rezoning, and the submission and approval of a final development plan." NorthStar submits, "When a township creates a PUD district under Section C, the PUD district is a `floating zone' or `overlay district' which hovers over certain identified township property until a property owner requests to have the PUD standards applied to its property. * * * At the time that the Kingstown Zoning Resolution was adopted, the township identified the land that could be subject to each of the three types of planned district regulations." Brief of Appellant at 9. NorthStar refers this Court to Section 8.5(A) of the Kingston Township Zoning Resolution, which reads:
{¶ 18} "A) Application — The owner or owners of lots and lands within the area under Township Zoning may request that the zoning map be amended to include such tracts in the Planned Residence District in accordance with the provisions of this resolution."
{¶ 19} NorthStar explains this language creates a "floating" or "overlay" district over any "lots and lands within the area under Township Zoning." We disagree.
{¶ 20} Pursuant to R.C.
{¶ 21} NorthStar's sole assignment of error is overruled.
{¶ 22} The judgment of the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas is affirmed.
Hoffman, J. and Farmer, J. concur.
Gwin, P.J. dissents.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.