State ex rel. Crobaugh v. White - Ohio Supreme Court Opinion - Ohio Supreme Court Decision

	ROMINGER LEGAL
		Ohio Court Cases and Opinions - Ohio Legal Research
					Need Legal Help?
					Need Legal Help?
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER
LEGAL RESEARCH CENTER			LEGAL HEADLINES - CASE LAW - LEGAL FORMS	NOT FINDING WHAT YOU NEED? -RESEARCH

This court case was taken from the web sites of the Ohio Courts. Search our site for more cases - CLICK HERE

LEGAL RESEARCH

COURT REPORTERS

PRIVATE INVESTIGATORS

PROCESS SERVERS

DOCUMENT RETRIEVERS

EXPERT WITNESSES

Find a Private Investigator

Find an Expert Witness

Find a Process Server

Case Law - save on Lexis / WestLaw.

Legal News - Legal Headlines

[Cite as State ex rel. Crobaugh v. White, 91 Ohio St.3d 470, 2001-Ohio-102.]

THE STATE EX REL. CROBAUGH ET AL. v. WHITE, CLERK, ET AL.
[Cite as State ex rel. Crobaugh v. White (2001), 91 Ohio St.3d 470.]
Zoning -- Mandamus sought to compel city of North Ridgeville and clerk of city
council to remove the notations on the official zoning map for planned
community development zoning for the Waterbury and Meadow Lakes
developments -- Cause dismissed, when.
(No. 01-71 -- Submitted March 27, 2001 -- Decided May 23, 2001.)
IN MANDAMUS.
__________________

Per Curiam. On September 20, 1999, the North Ridgeville City Council
passed Ordinance No. 3491-99, which added Planned Community Development
("PCD") District as a new zoning classification. Under this ordinance, following
approval by city council of a preliminary plan to develop land as a PCD District,
the clerk of council has a duty to reflect the approval on the city's zoning map:

"Following approval of the application by Council, the Clerk shall cause a
notation to be made on the Zoning Map to reflect the area which is included in the
approved preliminary plan in a PCD District. If the developer does not complete
and file a final plan of a phase of the development area within one (1) year, the
approval of the preliminary plan shall lapse and the notation of such approval
shall be removed from the Zoning Map.

"Following approval of the application by Council and the notation of the
Zoning Map, the legislative process for rezoning the PCD shall be complete.
Review and approval by Council of the PCD's final development application shall
be solely administrative in nature." (Emphasis added.)

On October 2, 2000, the city council passed Ordinance No. 3621-2000,
granting approval for the preliminary plan for a six-hundred-forty-acre PCD

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
known as Waterbury. On October 16, 2000, the city council passed Ordinance
No. 3628-2000, which approved the preliminary plan for a five-hundred-ninety-
five-acre PCD known as Meadow Lakes. Respondent North Ridgeville Clerk of
Council Jim White noted the PCD zoning for Waterbury and Meadow Lakes on
the zoning map.

On December 4, 2000, respondents, North Ridgeville and White, as well
as the President of the North Ridgeville City Council, filed a complaint in the
Lorain County Court of Common Pleas naming as defendants the committees for
the referenda of Ordinance Nos. 3621-2000 and 3628-2000, committee members,
and relators, North Ridgeville resident-taxpayers Chris Crobaugh, Ron Hawk, and
Mike Tyson. In that case, the plaintiffs requested a judgment declaring that the
ordinances were validly passed as emergency measures in compliance with the
North Ridgeville Charter and validly rezoned the Waterbury and Meadow Lakes
properties.

In January 2001, instead of confining their claims to the declaratory
judgment action, Crobaugh, Hawk, and Tyson filed a complaint in this court for a
writ of mandamus to compel North Ridgeville and White to remove the "illegal
notations for PCD Zoning for the Waterbury and Meadow Lakes developments on
the official zoning map." Respondents filed an answer, and Sunrise Development
Company, which is under contract to purchase the Waterbury property, filed a
motion for leave to intervene as a respondent and to file a motion to dismiss.
Subsequently, FJD Properties, L.L.C. and All-Purpose Construction, Inc. filed a
motion for leave to intervene as respondents and a motion to dismiss.

This cause is now before the court for its S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5) determination.

We must now determine whether dismissal, an alternative writ, or a
peremptory writ is appropriate. S.Ct.Prac.R. X(5). Dismissal is appropriate if it
appears beyond doubt, after presuming the truth of all material factual allegations
and making all reasonable inferences in favor of relators, that they are not entitled
2

January Term, 2001
to the requested extraordinary relief in mandamus. State ex rel. DeBrosse v. Cool
(1999), 87 Ohio St.3d 1, 3, 716 N.E.2d 1114, 1116.

Dismissal is warranted here because respondents have no duty to remove
the PCD classification from the North Ridgeville Zoning Map and relators have
an adequate legal remedy by way of the pending declaratory judgment action to
raise their claims.

Neither the Clerk of the North Ridgeville Council nor North Ridgeville
has any duty under the ordinances to remove the PCD classification from the
Waterbury or the Meadow Lakes property. In fact, the clerk had an express duty
under Section A.08 of Ordinance No. 3491-99 to include notations for PCD
zoning for these developments when the ordinances approving the preliminary
development plans were passed by the city council. That section states,
"Following approval of the application by Council, the Clerk shall cause a
notation to be made on the Zoning Map to reflect the area which is included in the
approved preliminary plan in a PCD District."

Moreover, "[w]here parties to a mandamus action are also parties, or may
be joined as parties, in a previously filed declaratory judgment action involving
the same subject matter, a court, in the exercise of its discretion, may refuse to
issue a writ of mandamus." State ex rel. Bennett v. Lime (1978), 55 Ohio St.2d
62, 9 O.O.3d 69, 378 N.E.2d 152, syllabus; State ex rel. Huntington Ins. Agency,
Inc. v. Duryee (1995), 73 Ohio St.3d 530, 537, 653 N.E.2d 349, 356. Relators are
parties to a pending, previously filed declaratory judgment action in common
pleas court, and they can raise their claims challenging respondents' interpretation
of the ordinances or their constitutionality in that action. See State ex rel.
Grendell v. Davidson (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 629, 635, 716 N.E.2d 704, 710
("constitutional challenges to legislation are normally considered in an action in a
court of common pleas rather than an extraordinary writ action filed here"); State
ex rel. Linndale v. Teske (1995), 74 Ohio St.3d 1415, 655 N.E.2d 736. And like
3

SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Grendell, 86 Ohio St.3d at 635, 716 N.E.2d at 710, this case does not involve a
public right of the magnitude at issue in State ex rel. Ohio Academy of Trial
Lawyers v. Sheward (1999), 86 Ohio St.3d 451, 715 N.E.2d 1062.

Finally, our judgment in State ex rel. Commt. for the Referendum of
Ordinance No. 3543-00 v. White (2000), 90 Ohio St.3d 212, 736 N.E.2d 873, is
not res judicata because we did not enter judgment on these claims in that cause.

Based on the foregoing, we dismiss the cause. This renders moot the
remaining motions.
Cause dismissed.

MOYER, C.J., RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY, PFEIFER and LUNDBERG STRATTON,
JJ., concur.

DOUGLAS and COOK, JJ., concur in judgment.
__________________

Phillips & Co., L.P.A., and Gerald W. Phillips, for relators.

Eric H. Zagrans, North Ridgeville Law Director, for respondents.
__________________
4