Rice v. Vill. of Johnstown

• Citation: 30 F.4th 584
• Decision Date: 08 April 2022
• Docket Number: 21-3268
• Parties: Andrew L. RICE; Mary Neda Ann Shaub; Parker Family Trust; Wilcox Communities, LLC; Wilcox Investment Group, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF JOHNSTOWN, OHIO, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

30 F.4th 584

Andrew L. RICE; Mary Neda Ann Shaub; Parker Family Trust; Wilcox Communities, LLC; Wilcox Investment Group, LLC, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.VILLAGE OF JOHNSTOWN, OHIO, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 21-3268

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: October 13, 2021

Decided and Filed: April 8, 2022

ARGUED: Matthew S. Zeiger, ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants. Yazan S. Ashrawi, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Matthew S. Zeiger, Marion H. Little, Jr., Kris Banvard, ZEIGER, TIGGES & LITTLE LLP, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellants. Yazan S. Ashrawi, Jeremy M. Grayem, FROST BROWN TODD LLC, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellee.

Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; BATCHELDER and LARSEN, Circuit Judges.

LARSEN, J., delivered the opinion of the court in which SUTTON, C.J., joined. BATCHELDER, J. (pp. 15–27), delivered a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge.

The Rice family devised a two-part plan to annex their eighty-acre farm into the Village of Johnstown and have it zoned for a residential development. But it was not to be. After working for eighteen months with various Johnstown officials, the Johnstown Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z Commission) rejected the family's application at the preliminary stage. Unhappy with the process, the Rice family sued. The family claimed that Johnstown had unlawfully delegated legislative authority to the P&Z Commission, violating its due process rights under the United States and Ohio Constitutions. The family sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief.

The district court was skeptical. Because the farm was not located in Johnstown, but in adjacent Monroe Township, the court held that the Rice family lacked standing to bring its claim and granted summary judgment to the Village. We disagree. Whatever the merits of the claim, the Rice family has standing to bring it. But because the Johnstown ordinance at issue has since been amended, the family's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are moot. Only the claim for damages survives. Therefore, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the judgment of the district court and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I.

A.

The Rice family¹ owns eighty-plus acres of vacant land in Monroe Township, Ohio. It proposed to transform the property into a housing development called "Concord Trails" through a purchase agreement with Wilcox Communities, a local development and construction business. But the arrangement faced two obstacles. First, Monroe Township had zoned the property as Agricultural and R-1, and the proposed development was too dense for that zoning. Second, the development needed access to municipal services, which only the neighboring Village of Johnstown could provide.

To overcome these hurdles, the Rice family set out to have the farm annexed into Johnstown and zoned as a "planned unit development (PUD)." Instead of proceeding one step at a time, the Rice family began both processes simultaneously. "[D]iscussions with Village personnel" led the family to believe that annexation would be a simple "formality" that would occur "along with" zoning. And, in fact, it is undisputed that annexation can be pursued "concurrently" with the request for PUD zoning and "need not be completed" for zoning to be approved. In Wilcox's experience, this was "typical practice in Ohio." So, the Rice family began both processes at once. It spent the next eighteen months, and hundreds of thousands of dollars, pursuing the redevelopment plan with Johnstown. Nonetheless, both the zoning and the annexation were eventually rejected, dooming the Concord Trails project.

B.

Johnstown's Planning and Zoning Code has a two-part process for zoning as a PUD. See JOHNSTOWN, OHIO, PLANNING AND ZONING CODE §§ 1179.01–1179.04 (1985). At the time the Rice family applied, the applicant first had to secure preliminary approval from the P&Z Commission, composed of five individuals appointed by the Village Council for four-year terms. Id. Only with that approval in hand could the applicant apply for final development plan approval from the Village Council. Id. Section 1170.02 of the Planning and Zoning Code stated that the P&Z Commission's preliminary approval was "necessary before an applicant may submit a final development plan." The Village Council had never denied a final plan once the preliminary plan had been approved. And the P&Z Commission's preliminary decision was not appealable or reviewable. So, the Rice family contends, this first step was necessary, sufficient, and final for zoning as a PUD.² The ordinance at the time contained the following instruction to the Commission:

[The] Commission shall review the preliminary development plan and application to determine if it is consistent with the intent and purpose of this Zoning Ordinance; whether the proposed development advances the general welfare of the community and neighborhood; and whether the benefits, combination of various land uses, and the surrounding area justify the deviation from [a] standard district.

In June 2017, the Rice family submitted an initial concept plan to the P&Z Commission and received positive feedback. Over the next year, the family went back and forth with the P&Z Commission, receiving more positive feedback; and it held a town hall that was open to the community. Feeling optimistic, the family submitted a preliminary PUD application and paid an application fee of $26,450. Then, following a Commission meeting on July 31, 2018, the Rice family submitted a revised application, incorporating feedback on decreased density, pedestrian connectivity, and "buffer areas." The P&Z Commission met again on August 28 to review the updated application but tabled the matter. But on September 19, the Commission convened a special meeting for final consideration and voted to reject the development plan, finding that it did not "advance the general welfare" of Johnstown. Because Commission approval was required to proceed to the next stage, the denial ended the Rice family's application for zoning and the Concord Trails project.

C.

Meanwhile, the annexation process continued. Annexation, like zoning, involved a multi-step process. First, Johnstown approved a "services resolution" stating that the Village would provide all necessary municipal services. Next, the Licking County Commissioners approved the annexation. Finally, the petition went to the Village Council for a vote. But once the Commission rejected the Rice Family's zoning application on September 19, 2018, the Village Council declined to vote. The 120-day statutory window expired in January 2019, denying the annexation petition by "pocket veto."

Still hoping for annexation, the Rice family initiated a second annexation petition in November 2019. Again, the family cleared the first two steps, but the Village Council denied the petition, this time by a 7-0 vote. As of this appeal, the Rice family has not applied again, though they are not precluded from doing so.

II.

The Rice family sued the Village of Johnstown in the Southern District of Ohio. The family made two claims for relief, based solely on the denial of the zoning application. First, it alleged that Ordinance 1179.02 unlawfully delegated standardless and final legislative authority to the P&Z Commission, resulting in a denial of its Fourteenth Amendment right to due process. Second, it alleged that the same unlawful delegation of legislative authority violated its due process rights under the Ohio Constitution. The Rice family sought (1) a declaration that the ordinance unlawfully delegated authority to the P&Z Commission in violation of the Ohio and U.S. Constitutions, (2) an injunction against enforcement of the ordinance, and (3) compensatory damages for the fees and expenses associated with their rejected preliminary application.

The district court understandably had trouble deciphering the Rice family's claims. While the family emphasized the "unlawful delegation of legislative power," its argument could not have been based on the federal nondelegation doctrine because there was no delegation of congressional power. In response to the confusing complaint, Johnstown filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the claim advanced by the Rice family—"denial of ... due process ... via improper delegation of municipal legislative power"—did not exist. Johnstown argued in the alternative that if the claim sounded in procedural due process, the Rice family had no constitutionally-protected "life, liberty, or property" interest because it had no "legitimate claim of entitlement" to the approval of its building plan. Even if the Rice family's preliminary plan had been approved by the P&Z Commission, the Village Council would have retained authority to reject the proposal.

The district court rejected Johnstown's arguments and denied the motion to dismiss. The court decided that the Rice family's claims fell "squarely into the due process category." But the court concluded that the claims sounded neither in procedural nor substantive due process. Rather, the court suggested that the family's allegations arose "under a lesser-known strand of case law" that "prevents the delegation of legislative authority to purely private citizens with no discernable standard which the private citizens must follow." The court then concluded that the standards set out in the Johnstown ordinance were sufficiently vague as to allege a violation of due process.

After discovery, Johnstown moved for summary judgment, while the Rice family moved for partial summary judgment. The district court, however, asked the parties for supplemental briefing on the issue of constitutional standing. Concluding that the Rice family lacked standing, the court granted Johnstown's motion for summary judgment and denied the family's motion for partial summary judgment. The Rice family appealed to this court.

III.

A.

We...