Oberer Land Developers, Ltd. v. Sugarcreek Twp.
| Decision Date | 25 March 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 3:19-cv-82 |
| Parties | OBERER LAND DEVELOPERS, LTD., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SUGARCREEK TOWNSHIP, OHIO, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
Oberer Land Developers, Ltd., and Peter Rammel sued Sugarcreek Township, Ohio, and its Board of Trustees, challenging their denial of approval of a proposed development plan. Plaintiffs seek damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for numerous alleged constitutional violations, as well as claims under state law. They also seek declaratory and injunctive relief. This matter is currently before the Court on Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Doc. #7.
Plaintiff, Oberer Land Developers, Ltd. (Oberer"), was instrumental in developing the Dille/Cornerstone project in Sugarcreek Township, a political subdivision located in Greene County, Ohio. The annexation of this large commercial development by the adjoining City of Centerville spurred years of litigation between the City and Sugarcreek Township.
Thereafter, Sugarcreek Township identified other areas that were vulnerable to future annexation, i.e., areas adjacent to an incorporated area or areas adjacent to public land that is adjacent to an incorporated area. To prevent similar future annexations, the Township revised its Long-Range Land Use Plan ("LRLUP") in 2013. Doc. #5-1. By increasing flexibility for development within the Township, the LRLUP attempted to head off further annexation. The 2013 LRLUP divides the Township into several Planning Areas. Portions of Planning Area 3, located near the Sugarcreek Reserve Metropark, are vulnerable to annexation. These "are priority areas for Planned Residential Development, with densities to be determined on a case by case basis by the Zoning Commission and Township Trustees." Id. at PageID#44. "This area is a priority area for conservation subdivisions characterized by the clustering of lots to preserve 50 percent or more of a site." Id.
To prevent future annexation, the Township also obtained Non-Annexation Agreements from several property owners, including Plaintiff Peter Rammel, who owns three parcels of real property located in Planning Area 3. His property, consisting of approximately 107 acres, is subject to annexation by the City of Centerville because it is adjacent to public land that is adjacent to an incorporated area. His property is currently zoned "E-Rural Estate Residential District." On July 11, 2014, Rammel signed a Non-Annexation Agreement, agreeing not to seek andto oppose annexation of any portion of his property for a period of ten years. In return, the Sugarcreek Township Board of Trustees agreed not to impose tax increment financing ("TIF") legislation on his property for the same period. The Agreement was signed by Barry Tiffany, the Township Administrator, on behalf of the Board of Trustees. Doc. #1-1, PageID#16.
On August 24, 2017, Oberer agreed to purchase a portion of Rammel's property to develop Elliot Woods, a 113-lot residential area consisting of patio homes. That purchase, however, was subject to necessary governmental approvals. In February of 2018, Oberer filed an application to rezone 84.570 acres of Rammel's property to a "Residential Planned Unit Conservation Development District" ("R-PUCD"). Oberer also submitted a preliminary development application. These applications were reviewed by the Greene County Regional Planning and Coordinating Commission ("GCRPCC"), which was to make a recommendation to the Sugarcreek Township Board of Zoning Commission ("BZC").
Rammel's property is accessible from Wilmington-Dayton Road, a two-lane road with two 90-degree jogs at the northeast side of the property, near the intersection of Wilmington-Dayton Road and Conference Road. See Doc. #5-2, PageID#57. The Greene County Thoroughfare Plan had long recommended eliminating these two jogs by extending Wilmington-Dayton Road through Rammel's property; however, no road improvements were currently planned. Doc. #5-2, PageID#54. The GCRPCC recommended approval of the rezoning requestbut recommended that the submitted layout of the proposed development be reconsidered and that a traffic study be conducted before any final decision was made. Id. at PageID#56.
In response to the recommendation, Oberer, with the approval of the Greene County Engineer, proposed putting a traffic signal at the intersection of Conference Road and Wilmington-Dayton Road. Township Trustee Michael Pittman allegedly persuaded the GCRPCC to reject this plan, and to instead require Oberer to remediate three intersections—eliminating the two 90-degree jogs in Wilmington-Dayton Road and remediating traffic issues at another intersection located more than one mile from the proposed development.
These requirements had the effect of eliminating approximately 3.30 acres, or 15 lots, from the proposed development. Nevertheless, in July of 2018, Oberer begrudgingly submitted a revised application for 98 building lots. As required by the Township's Zoning Resolution, the proposed development set aside at least 50% of the total area for open space. The proposed development had a density of 1.2 units per acre. This was less dense than the nearby developments of Woodland Ridge (1.5 units per acre) and Black Farm (2.95 units per acre). However, all of the patio homes in Elliot Woods were to be clustered in one area of the now-83 acres, away from the realigned road. The GCRPCC recommended approval of the revised application subject to several conditions, which Oberer agreed to satisfy. Doc. #5-3, PageID##112-13.
The Board of Zoning Commission ("BZC") considered the revised application at its December 4, 2018, meeting. Doc. #5-5. Approximately 130 people attended that meeting. Many were strongly opposed to the proposed development, citing road and traffic issues and population density. At that meeting, the BZC Chairperson, Mr. Betz, referenced Oberer's role as the developer of the Dille/Cornerstone property that was annexed to the City of Centerville. Betz further noted that, thereafter, the Township updated the LRLUP to decrease the risk of annexation. Betz also noted that Rammel had signed a Non-Annexation Agreement. Accordingly, there was no immediate risk that, if this particular development were not approved, the property would be annexed to the City of Centerville. Betz indicated that, because of that, he "feels a little different about this parcel" compared to others they had dealt with. Id. at PageID#155. After a vote, the five BZC members unanimously recommended that the Board of Trustees deny Oberer's revised application. Id. at PageID#156.
On March 18, 2019, the Sugarcreek Township Board of Trustees denied approval of the revised application. They found that the proposed development did not satisfy all of the criteria set forth in the Zoning Resolution. They cited traffic and safety concerns, intersection concerns, the clustered high density of the patio homes, and the strong opposition of local citizens. Doc. #5-6, PageID#161.
On March 20, 2019, Rammel and Oberer filed suit against the Sugarcreek Township Defendants. The Complaint alleges seven causes of action. Count I alleges that the Township's denial of the revised application exceeds the powersdelegated by Ohio Revised Code § 519.02 et seq. Counts II through VI seek relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of Plaintiffs' procedural and substantive due process rights, equal protection rights, and Fifth Amendment property rights. Count VII seeks declaratory judgment on a variety of federal and state issues. Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs and attorneys' fees, as well as a mandatory injunction ordering the Township to approve the revised application and allow the proposed development to proceed. Doc. #1.
Defendants filed an Answer, Doc. #5, attaching numerous public documents referred to in Plaintiffs' Complaint, including the 2013 revised LRLUP, the GCRPCC recommendation, the Sugarcreek Township Zoning Resolution, and relevant minutes from the meetings of the BZC and the Board of Trustees. Defendants then filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, Doc. #7. That motion is now fully briefed and ripe for decision.
Motions for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) are analyzed under the same standard as motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). See Warrior Sports, Inc. v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 623 F.3d 281, 284 (6th Cir. 2010). "For purposes of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, all well-pleaded material allegations of the pleadings of the opposing party must be taken as true, and the motion may be granted only ifthe moving party is nevertheless clearly entitled to judgment." JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Winget, 510 F.3d 577, 581 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). However, the court need not accept as true legal conclusions or unwarranted factual inferences. Id. (citing Mixon v. Ohio, 193 F.3d 389, 400 (6th Cir. 1999)).
To withstand a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, "a complaint must contain direct or inferential allegations respecting all the material elements under some viable legal theory." Commercial Money Ctr., Inc. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., 508 F.3d 327, 336 (6th Cir. 2007). "The factual allegations in the complaint need to be sufficient to give notice to the defendant as to what claims are alleged, and the plaintiff must plead 'sufficient factual matter' to render the legal claim plausible, i.e., more than merely possible." Fritz v. Charter Twp. of Comstock, 592 F.3d 718, 722 (6th Cir. 2010) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009)). A "legal conclusion couched as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial