State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, No. 98-1814
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Ohio |
| Writing for the Court | PER CURIAM; MOYER; PFEIFER |
| Citation | 85 Ohio St.3d 18,706 N.E.2d 771 |
| Docket Number | No. 98-1814 |
| Decision Date | 17 March 1999 |
| Parties | The STATE ex rel. BONA et al., Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF ORANGE, Ohio et al., Appellees. |
Page 18
v.
VILLAGE OF ORANGE, Ohio et al., Appellees.
Decided March 17, 1999.
[706 N.E.2d 772] Appellee P & Y Development Co. Limited Partnership ("P & Y"), an Ohio limited partnership, owns land in appellee village of Orange, Ohio. The northern portion of P & Y's property is zoned S-1, Special Residential District, a village zoning classification that permits "combinations of developments such as single or attached family units, extended care facilities and senior citizen dwelling units, all well set back from streets in landscaped surroundings." Appellant Rose Bona owns real property that abuts the northern edge of P & Y's property and is zoned U-1, a village zoning classification permitting single-family homes.
In 1993, P & Y filed a declaration of restrictions with the Cuyahoga County Recorder's Office that set forth a preliminary development plan for the property. The village of Orange Council enacted Ordinance No. 1993-38/39, which accepted P & Y's declaration of restrictions. Under the approved declaration, the restrictions could be "modified or amended by [P & Y], in whole or in part, only with the consent of the Council of the Village by an ordinance duly adopted by Council of the Village as evidenced by its minutes."
On May 13, 1998, the village council enacted Ordinance No. 1997-30, which amended the 1993 declaration of restrictions on P & Y's property by approving a revised development plan that, among other things, decreased the number of residential units to be developed on the property from one hundred fifty-one to one hundred forty-two units.
On May 19, 1998, appellant Frank Bona submitted a referendum petition to appellant Susan Bonk, clerk of the village council. The referendum petitioners requested that Ordinance No. 1997-30 be submitted to the village electors for their approval or rejection at the November 3, 1998 general election. In June 1998, upon the advice of the village law department, Bonk informed appellant Frank Bona that the referendum petition was defective. The law department had concluded that Ordinance No. 1997-30 was not subject to referendum because it was an administrative rather than a legislative act of village council.
Shortly thereafter, appellants, Frank and Rose Bona, filed a complaint in the Court of Appeals for Cuyahoga County against appellees, village of Orange, Clerk of Council Bonk, Mayor Kathy Mulcahy, Village Council President Herbert L. Braverman, and the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections. The Bonas requested a writ of mandamus to compel appellee Bonk to certify that the referendum petition was sufficient and to immediately thereafter submit Ordinance No. 1997-30 to the village council either to repeal the ordinance within thirty days after its
Page 20
submittal or cause it to be submitted to village electors at the November 3, 1998 general election. The Bonas also requested that the writ of mandamus require the village council to reconsider the ordinance, and if it did not repeal the ordinance within thirty days after its submittal, that appellee board of elections submit the ordinance to the village electors at the November 3, 1998 general election. The Bonas alleged that time was of the essence. The court of appeals granted P & Y's motion to intervene as a respondent, and the parties and amicus curiae Ohio Municipal Attorneys Association submitted briefs on the merits. 1[706 N.E.2d 773] On July 28, 1998, the court of appeals denied the writ. The court of appeals determined that Ordinance No. 1997-30 was an administrative action that was not subject to referendum. Thirty-five days later, on September 1, 1998,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, No. 20AP-421
...rel. Demaline v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections , 90 Ohio St.3d 523, 526, 740 N.E.2d 242 (2000), citing State ex rel. Bona v. Orange , 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 20-21, 706 N.E.2d 771 (1999).{¶ 29} As the present case involves an election-related matter, appellees bear the burden of establishing tha......
-
In re Proposed Charter Petition, CASE NO. 18CA30
...for the Merit Selection of Judges, Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 102, 103, 551 N.E.2d 150 (1990), and citing State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 21, 706 N.E.2d 771 (1999). Furthermore, the Ohio Supreme Court generally has been unwilling to find that Page 7election cases are subject to an ......
-
State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott, No. 98-1786
...83 Ohio St.3d 549, 550, 700 N.E.2d 1278, 1280. Finally, appellants improperly requested in their prohibition complaint a declaration[706 N.E.2d 771] that there was no evidence of a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any evidence of fraud in their cases so as to require an in camera ......
-
State ex rel. Walker v. Ryan, No. 108890
...with regard to Walker's claim of entitlement to legal representation, would constitute a vain act. State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 22, 1999-Ohio-431, 706 N.E.2d 771, citing State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee, 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 192, 1998-Ohio-461, 690 N.E.2d 6. {¶ 13} Assuming tha......
-
Ohio Democratic Party v. LaRose, No. 20AP-421
...rel. Demaline v. Cuyahoga Cty. Bd. of Elections , 90 Ohio St.3d 523, 526, 740 N.E.2d 242 (2000), citing State ex rel. Bona v. Orange , 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 20-21, 706 N.E.2d 771 (1999).{¶ 29} As the present case involves an election-related matter, appellees bear the burden of establishing tha......
-
In re Proposed Charter Petition, CASE NO. 18CA30
...for the Merit Selection of Judges, Inc., 49 Ohio St.3d 102, 103, 551 N.E.2d 150 (1990), and citing State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 21, 706 N.E.2d 771 (1999). Furthermore, the Ohio Supreme Court generally has been unwilling to find that Page 7election cases are subject to an ......
-
State ex rel. Abner v. Elliott, No. 98-1786
...83 Ohio St.3d 549, 550, 700 N.E.2d 1278, 1280. Finally, appellants improperly requested in their prohibition complaint a declaration[706 N.E.2d 771] that there was no evidence of a waiver of the attorney-client privilege or any evidence of fraud in their cases so as to require an in camera ......
-
State ex rel. Walker v. Ryan, No. 108890
...with regard to Walker's claim of entitlement to legal representation, would constitute a vain act. State ex rel. Bona v. Orange, 85 Ohio St.3d 18, 22, 1999-Ohio-431, 706 N.E.2d 771, citing State ex rel. Thomas v. Ghee, 81 Ohio St.3d 191, 192, 1998-Ohio-461, 690 N.E.2d 6. {¶ 13} Assuming tha......