Golf Vill. N. LLC v. City of Powell
| Decision Date | 27 August 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-3920,19-3920 |
| Parties | GOLF VILLAGE NORTH LLC; TRIANGLE PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CITY OF POWELL, OHIO; DAVID BETZ, in his official capacity as Powell, Ohio's Director of Development, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION
File Name: 20a0504n.06
This zoning dispute between a land developer and the City of Powell, Ohio stems from the developer's plan to build a hotel on a piece of vacant land. The developer, Golf Village, argues that the applicable zoning ordinances (which are frozen for fifty years by contract) permit this use, while the City argues that they don't. Golf Village's efforts in the state administrative system and courts failed because it declined to file an application for a zoning certificate, and the City refused to issue an official land-use determination without one. So Golf Village filed this § 1983 action alleging due process violations and seeking declaratory relief.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City after holding that Golf Village could not establish a constitutionally protected property interest in developing its land for use as a hotel. In doing so, the court found that the applicable "Development Plan" limited the land's use by implication—that is, it did not include any reference to a hotel, so that use must not be permitted—and the court also identified two provisions that it interpreted as prohibiting such use. We disagree. Guided by well-established rules of statutory construction, we conclude that the Development Plan's text and structure do not support the district court's limitation-by-implication construction. Moreover, we do not read the purported limitations as prohibiting use of the land as a hotel. We therefore reverse the district court's judgment and remand for further proceedings.
Plaintiff Triangle Properties, Inc. has long had ambitious plans for its land holdings in Delaware County, Ohio, which total over 900 acres. Triangle and its subsidiary, plaintiff Golf Village North LLC (collectively, "Golf Village"), envisioned a "planned, comprehensive development" called "Golf Village Community" with "a full complement of residential, commercial, office[,] and light industrial uses." The Community would include, among other things, several types of residential dwellings, a golf course, a "commercial retail center," and offices.
This appeal concerns Golf Village's plan to build a "residential hotel"1 on two parcels of vacant land ("permanent parcels 319-314-01-001-011 and 319-314-01-001-012") that together comprise about 8.1 acres within "Subarea G" of the Golf Village Community (the "Property"). In 2000, Triangle applied to rezone most of its land in Delaware County. As relevant here, it wanted to rezone Subarea G from "FR-1" ("Farm Residence District") to "PC" ("Planned Commercial and Office District") and listed in its rezoning application two proposed uses for the land: "commercial retail center" and "offices." At the time, the land was located in Liberty Township, which struck a deal with Triangle. The Township agreed to rezone the land and Triangle agreed to "plan, develop, and construct the public infrastructure for the Community with private monies." Liberty Township approved Triangle's rezoning applications in February of 2000, as did the Delaware County Regional Planning Commission. Triangle upheld its end of the bargain as well, putting "tens of millions of dollars into the infrastructure of the Golf Village Community."
In addition to the rezoning applications, Triangle submitted a "Development Plan" to Liberty Township, "setting forth the development standards for the . . . PC Districts within the Golf Village Community." The Development Plan described Subarea G as a "community scale office park." It also included a "Concept Plan" prepared by a design firm, showing a map of Subarea G and describing various parcels of land as "Retail," "Retail/Office," or "Office/Retail."2The Township's zoning commission and later its trustees approved the Application and Development Plan in the summer of 2000. At some point, Triangle assigned ownership of the Property to Golf Village North.
In 2002, Triangle submitted an application to amend the Development Plan, "requesting that the sub areas E and G of Golf Village be modified from Planned Office to Planned Office and Commercial to allow for a mixture of these types of uses." It's important to note that this was not a request to rezone the land. Before and after this amendment, the land remained zoned "PC" ("Planned Commercial and Office District").
A development plan, which must be included with a zoning application, limits the uses of land separately, and on a more granular level. The Zoning Resolution provides that the permissible uses for PC-zoned land must be "developed in compliance with the approved Development Plan and standards."
The Development Plan here (as it appeared in the Amendment Application) included a section for "specific limitations or controls to be placed on," among other things, "commercial uses, operations, locations or types of tenants" for Subarea G. Within that section, it listed the following under "Types of tenants":
It also listed seven "restricted uses" for Subarea G:
The Liberty Township Trustees approved the Amendment Application with two exceptions relevant here. First, they mandated that, in the "Types of tenants" section, "Other uses as per code" be changed to "Other uses as per plan." Second, they mandated that the "restricted uses" section be renamed "prohibited uses."
Later in 2002, Triangle, Liberty Township, and the City of Powell, Ohio "began negotiations for the City's annexation of the Golf Village Community." These negotiations produced two agreements: a "Pre-Annexation Agreement" and a "Cooperative Economic Development Agreement" ("CEDA"). "[P]ursuant to the Agreements, the City agreed to adopt, maintain, and administer the existing zoning restrictions - set forth in the [Zoning] Resolution and the Development Plan as previously adopted by the Township - on the Golf Village Community." Also,
Fast forward to May 2013. Golf Village contacted David Betz, the City's Development Director, about its plan to build a "residential hotel" on the Property. Nine months later, Betz responded in an email. He concluded that Golf Village's proposed use for the Property was "not specifically permitted by the Golf Village Zoning Plan," and would amount to a "'Major Modification' to the Township Zoning Plan" under the CEDA. Thus, in Betz's view, the proposalwould "require[ ] the review and approval by both the Liberty Township Trustees and Powell City Council."
Golf Village disagreed, and several emails between City officials and Golf Village's employees or attorneys followed. At one point, Tre Giller, Triangle's president, suggested a "condominium development" as an alternate use, but Betz responded that it would "not fall within the allowed zoning as outlined in this plan" either. Betz suggested that an independent living facility for seniors "would work very nicely" on the Property, but Giller responded that "we do not develop that particular product." Throughout these exchanges, Betz's position—that a residential hotel was not a permitted use under the Zoning Resolution and the Development Plan—remained consistent.
In 2016, Golf Village, through its counsel, sent a letter to Betz formally requesting approval to develop the Property as a residential hotel and arguing that "such use is clearly permitted" under applicable zoning and law. A Concept Plan attached to the letter included illustrations of the proposed "Residence of Golf Village." Betz responded, characterizing Golf Village's letter as a "request for . . . an advisory opinion" and refusing to issue such an opinion:
[T]he City's Zoning Code does not establish a process whereby an applicant may seek an advisory opinion from the Zoning Administrator. Rather, the zoning code clearly contemplates that an applicant must submit a full and complete application for a recommendation by staff and review and consideration by the appropriate boards and commissions.
Betz recommended that Golf Village "prepare an appropriate application for a Zoning Certificate approval pursuant to the applicable zoning requirements."
Golf Village did not do so. Instead, it attempted to appeal to the City's Board of Zoning Appeals. The City responded through its counsel, stating that "no action will be taken with regard to your purported Application for Appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals" because "there is noappealable administrative action." The response concluded thus: "If your client desires to submit an appropriate application for Zoning Certificate approval pursuant to the applicable Golf Village zoning requirements, the City would be happy to process such application in due course."
Golf Village then attempted to appeal the City's refusal to consider the zoning appeal to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas. See Golf Vill. N., LLC v. City of Powell, No. 17 CAH...
To continue reading
Request your trial