s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s ... s"i'a't1; op 01110)...

S-s-s-s-s-s-S-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-S-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-S-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s

IN 1'HE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s

State of Ohio, ex rel.Ntiller Diversified IIoldings, LLC, et al.,

Relators,vs.

The Wood County Board of Elections,

Respondent.

Case No. 09-1573

EXPEDITED ELECTION MATTER

' 1

CLERK OF CC)s11pFiE:IUIEr CClll t`i`

s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-a-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s

EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OFRELATORS MILLER DIVERSIFIED HOLDINGS, LLC AND McCARTIIY BIIILDERS,

INC.

s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s

TABLE OF CONTENTS

® Affidavit of Krut J. Miller

® Exhibit A(Rezoning Applications oi Wolf Pareel, to DeChristopher Parcel and NeiderhouseParcel)

® Exhibit B(Resolution 2007-28 witli Preliniinary Plan attached)

485807v1

® Exhibit C(Resoiution 2007-29 with drawing attached)

• Exhibit D(Resolution 2007-27 with attaehed Prelinunary Plan)

® 7oning Resolution Provisions Defining Zoning Districts and Providing the DimeisionalRequirements

• Site Plan Provisions of Zoning Resolution

• Auditor Document Showing Acreage for Wolf, DeChristopher and Neiderhouse Parcels

• Minutes of the August 26, 2009 Special Meeting of the Wood County Board of Elections

® "I'ranscript of the Proceedings before the Wood County Board of Elections on August 26,2009

This is to certify that a copy ol'the foregoing was sent by Electronic Mail this

day of September, 2009 to: Max E. Rayle, Esq., Rayle, Matthew & Coon, 100 South

Main Street, Bowling Green, Ohio 434Q2.

Att iller Diveroldmgs, JLC & McCA Builders, Inc.

2485807v1

S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-5-5-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-s-5-5-S-S-S-s-5-5-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

IN '1'HE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO

s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-8-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s

State of Ohio, ex rel.Miller Diversified Holdinbs, LLC, et al.,

Case No. 09-1573

Relators,vs.

The Wood County Board of Elections,

Respondent.

EXPEDITED ELECTION MATTERPURSUANT TO SUPRPMU COURTPRACTICE RULE X, SECTION 9

s-s-s s s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s

AFFIDAVIT OF KURT J. MILLER

s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-9-s-s-s-s-s

Jeffrey M. Stopar (0066640)(Counsel of Record)Lane D. Williamson (0041467)Eastman & Smith Ltd.One SeaGate, 24tt' FloorP.O. Box 10032Toledo, Ohio 43699-0032Telephone: (4I9) 241-6000FAX: (419) 247-1777E-mail: fmStopar^castntansniith.coin

LD W illiamson(n),eastrriansmi th. com

Max E. RayleRayle, Matthew & Coon100 South Main StreetBowling Green, Ohio 43402Telephotie: (419) 354-4442FAX: (419) 353-9934

Attorneys for Relators Attorney for Respondent

4seo54v1

S"I'A't1; OP 01110 ))

COUNTY OF

I, Kurt J. Miller, being first duty sworn according to law, hereby acknowledge,

certify, and testify that the following affidavit is true based on personal lalowledge.

1. I am an owner of Miller Diversified Holdings, I,LC ("Nliller").

2. Miller and/or IvtcCarthy Builders, Inc. ("McCat-diy") have had options on

thrce parcels of property in Perrysburg "I'ownship, Wood County, Ohio, known as the Wolf

Parcel, DeChristopher Parcel and Neiderhouse Parcel.

3. Dating back to 2005, Miller attempted to have the Perrysbutg Township

Trustees ("Trustees") rezone the Wolf Parcel, but those attempts wet-e met with opposition.

Miller ultimately withdrew the first attempt to rezone the Wolf Parcel from A-1 (30,000 square

foot lots) to R-3, which would permit smaller, 10,500 square foot lots. 'I'he initial application to

rezone the Wolf Parcel was withdrawn.

4. In 2006, Miller held a meeting with the neighbors before resubmitting the

application to rezone. At tliat meeting, the tteighbors voiced several concerns regarding

rezoning, one of which was the potential lbr unde.sired annexation to the City of Perrysburg.

Ultimately, the Wolf Parcel was rezoned fi-om A-1 to R-1 (20,000 square foot lots) and R-2

(15,000 square foot lots), which was not the R-3 designation that Miller requested. Indeed, the

R-1 and R-2 zoning was insufficient for Miller to develop the Wol f Parcel irt a way that would be

economicaily viable, so thc Wolf Parcel was not developed at that time,

5. In 2007, Miller and McCarthy via a comtnotily owned entiry, Velocity

Development, LLC, submitted, with the approval and eonsent of the landowners, applications to

rezone the Wolf. DeChiistopher and Ncidcrhouse Parcels, as was evidenced by their signatures

^

aIISOSavi

on the zoning applications as requirect by the Township. Speciftcally, the following zoning

changes were sought:

A. A portion of the Wolf Parcel would be rezoned frotn R-1and R-2 to R-3;

The DeChristopher Parcel would be rezoned from A-1 toR-4A; and

C. A portion the Neiderhouse Parcel would be t'ezoned tiamA-1 to R-3.

6. A true and accurate copy of the rezoning applications of the Wolf Parcel,

the DeChristopher Parcel and thc Neiderhouse Parcel, along with the submittal page from

Velocity Developmcnt, LLC is attached as Exhibit A.

7. Due largely to the opposition voiccct by neighboring propcrty owners, the

Trustees ultimately approved rezoning only after several conditions were placed on the rezoning.

8. Although the rezoning application regarding the Wolf Parcel requested a

zoning change from R-1 and R-2 to R-3, the 'frustees rezoned parts of the Wolf Parcel to A-1

and other parts to R-3.

9. The Trustees required the Wolf Parcel to be developed substantially in

accordance with the preliminary plan attached to Resolution 2007-28 as Exliibit A. A true and

accurate copy of Resolution 2007-28 with the prclitninary plan attached thereto is attached as

Exhibit B.

10. With regard to the DeChristopher Parcel, although R-4A zoning (5,000

square foot lots) was requested, ibe 'I'rustees rezoned the DeChristopher Parcel to R-4A, subject

to site plan review under the Perryshurg "Lownship Zoning Resolution and further requiring that

the DeChristopher Parcel be developed in a manner that does not exceed the maxinnun density

permitted in the R-3 district, which t'equires lots that are no snialler lhari 10,500 square feet. "hhe

485054v1

Trustees also prohibited mobilc hotnes on the DeChristopher Parcel. A true and accurate copy of

Resohttion 2007-29, is attached as Exhibit C.

11. With regard to the Neiderhouse Property, rezoning of a portion of the

parcel from A-1 to R-3 was requested. The Trustees uttimately rezoned a portion of the

Neiderhouse Parcel to R-3, but left sonie of the parcel zoned A-1, as shown in the preliminary

plan attached to Resolution 2007-27, In addition, the Neiderhouse Parcel was required to be

developed in substantial compliance with the preliminary plan attache(i to Resolution 2007-27.

A true and accurate copy of Resolution 2007-27, along with the attached preliuzinary plan, is

attached as Exhibit D.

12. 'fhe Neiderhouse Parcel is contiguous to the Emeiald Lakes Subdivision

and the Emerald Lakes Subdivision is contiguous to the City of Perrysburg.

13. After the 'I'rustees passed Resolutions 2007-27, 2007-28 and 2007-29

rezoning the threc parcels, certain resiclents of Perrysburg Township circulated tln'ee separate

petitions for a township zoning relerendum seelcing to submit the rezoning of each of the three

parcels to a vote at the November 4, 2003 gcneral election. '1'he eirculators of the Petitions

submitted the Petitions to Perrysburg Township. After reviewing the Petitions, the Trustees did

not certify the petitions to the Wood County Board of Elections.

FURTNER AFFIANT SAYE"I'H NOT.

Ku^ J. Mille

Sworn to before nie and subscribed in my presence this ; re day of Septemher,

2009.

,,,....,.,:qp431'?

=oO=BENJAMiN M. BRC) S_*= Notary pubHc,. State of Ohk!. . :p,

CI-mission Expires 7-2-124

4S5o54v1

EXHIBIT A

From: Eastman & Smith Ltd.4198677924 To: <def_to> Page: 2/2 Date: 9/8/2009 10:07:10 AM

September 14, 2007

Velocity Development, LLC

Pt'E.S;SjEvYlf

Mr. Grant GamPerrysburg Twp. Zoning Office26609 Lim City RoadPerrysburg, OH 43551

Dear Mr. Gam:

Attached you wiU find three zoning applications for three separate praperties located inthe NiederhouseClltompson Rd. area. Per our conversation, it is my understandingth8t we were to submit this together and that the zoning would be heard together, butthe fee would be per property since they developments are not contigufaus.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Sincerely,

Velocity D®veiopment, LLC

Kurt J. MillerPresident

Enclosure

34J0 h'•rmr•field t3bid Suite A. o Mciumee:, Of9 43537 • C)ffice. 419 $67 9ll9 ®(nx 419 86'7.1`'};{41

From: Eastman & Smith Ltd.4198677924 To: <defto> Page: 212 Date: 918/2009 10:07:10 AM

From. 8677924 Page: 2/18 Date: 9124/2007 4:. ./ PM

Page 1

APPLICATON T® AMEND OR SUPPLEMENT THE ZONING RESOLUTION

Applicadon No.

To the Trustees of Perrysburg Township:

This Application requests that the Zoning Resolution of Perrysburg Township be:

Supplemented Amended X

W e are reauesting a zoni^9®chane fr4m A-1 to Ft oninp.

The legal description of the praperty is: SeQ Attach®d

The following fs a list of all property owners within, continguous to, and directly across the streetfrom subject property. (This list must contain the complete address of such owners as thoseaddresses appaar on the Wood County Auditor's current tax list or the Treasurers mailing list).

McCarthv Builders. 5239 Tractor Rd.. Totedo. OH 43815

Logy L. & Wanda M. Fisher. 10798 Neiderhouse Rd. Perrvaburst. OH 43551

Daniel H. & Sandra L. E3rown. 88 Locust St.. Parrvsburo. OH 43561

Riohard & Mary Ann Zaletel 10725 Nfterhouse Rd.. Perrvsburra. OH 43551

J. J ni I. Eikes 1 0693 ouse R e sbu OH 43551

Michael J. Gladieux, 10863 Noiderhouse Rd.. Penvsbu[ QH 43551

John J. Jr. & Lynn J. Hunter, 10631 Neiderhouse Rd.. Perrysburg. OH 43551

Randall E . Pamela M. Neal 10597 Neiderhouse Rd.. Perri±sburci OH 43551

See additionai sheet$300,00 filing fee paid by: Check {No..__

Cash

This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker faY server. For more information, visit http://wvAv.gfi.com

Fron 38677924 Page: 3/18 Date: 9(24/2007 4. 17 PM

Page 2AppGcation No.:

The request for Zo ' chan from A• o R-3 is being submitted because:(state reason or proposed use)

The develaoer wottld like to deyeloo a sin9la famiiv r$sidentiai subdivision Tha minimum lot

wip m_ a^g rea^fi ements of the anpro^iate zonina classifications and is similar pr less

dense t

Six maps which desoribe the property listed above are included as part of this request(note signature must be notarized). Map size to be 41 "x97".

Signed: owners and lessees, include mailing address

Roland R & Sandra K Neiderhouse h each

19839 Hull Prairie, Boytlina Green. OH 43402

2. S-i0-07

(DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE)

The Wood County Planning Commission has considered the above

on

This Commission recommends to (date) this request.

Comments:

The Perrysburg Township Zoning Commission considered the above request at a Publichearing held on . The notlce of this hearing appeared in

(date)on

(name ofpublication) (date)

This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http:Jlwww.gfi.com

From 8677924 Page: 4/18 Date: 9124/2007 4:. / PM

Page 3Application No.

The Zoning Commission moved to recommend this request be

by vote of to

Comments _,,.,_.

Signed:

Secretary, Zoning Commission

The Perrysburg Township Trustees considered the above request at a Public Hearing heid on

The notice of this hearing appeared in(date)

on(name of publication) (date)

The recommendations of the Wood County Planning Commission and the Perrysburg Township

Zoning Commission wero given careful consideration at this heaiing.

The Board of Trustees movedto the request

by the foilowing vote;

voted

^ voted

- voted

Comments:

Signed:

Clerk of the Board of Trustees

This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit http://www.gfi.com

Frorr 38677924 Page: 5/18 Date: 9/2412007 4. :8 PM

PROPERTY OWNERS

Thomas J. & Kayiene S. Swartz, 10567 Neiderhouse Rd., Perrysburg, OH 43551

Pritz Carl & Rita Ann Grensing, 10535 Neiderhouse Rd., Perrysburg, OH 43551

Dana L. Svoboda, 10505 Neiderhouse Rd., Perrysburg, OH 43551

WlEliam A. & Kimberiy A. Swartz, 10491 Neiderhouse Rd., Perrysburg, OH 43551

Mychai! 5cheramic, 26247 Oak Meadows Dr. W., Perrysburg, OH 43551

Ronald L. & Sheila K. Carmony, `i'rustees, 26292 P. Wexford Dr., Perrysburg, OH 43551

Barbara J. Miller, 26284 E. Wexford Dr., Perrysburg, OH 43551

Katy J. Gominger, Trustee, 26276 E. Wexford Dr., Perrysburg, OH 43551

William H. Kahlenberg, 26283 W. Wexford Dr., Perrysburg, OH 43551

Ervin H. & Ladonna J. Kossow, 26291 W. Wexford Dr., Perrysburg, OH 43551

Ralph J. & NeHie E. Fahrer, 8060 Monclova Rd., Monclova, OH 43542

Thomas D. & Patricia S. Penny, Trustee, 10733 $. Lakes Dr., Perrysburg, OH 43551

Larry L. & Faye L Covert, 10741 S. Lakes Dr., Perrysburg, OH 43551

Nancy M. Gamble, 10753 S. Lakes Dr., Perrysburg, OH 43551

Douglas L. & Barbara S Santchi, 10765 S. Lakes Dr., Perrysburg, OH 43551

Patricia J. Brown, Trustee, 1D777 S. Lakes Dr., Perrysburg, OH 43551

This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http:/MAnnv.gfi.com

From 8677924 Page: 6/18 Date: 9/24/2007 4: 3 PM

August 9, 2007

PROPOSED CHANGE IN ZONINGFROM

A-1 TO R-3

Situated in the County of Wood, in the State of Ohio, and in the Township of Perrysburg: Lotnumber 6 being the SB'/4 of the NW'/a of Section 16, Town 4, United States Reserve; exceptingthcrefrom the S 100.00' to remain zoned A-1

Deed reference Vol. 674 Pg 725 Parcel 11

P:\ W ordproceaaingWRD]OM10k'0d9fjM108049601g I2.OOl.doc

r'eller,Pinch

+q'. A950Ci1tC,s, it16.Engineers • Surveyors

Dn'ive • ItO, Sox 68 • Maumee, Ohio 43637-0068

Addra o„n1 w)etce in sdchson, Michigan (419) 893-3680Fax (419) 893-2982

www.fellerfinch,comThis fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com

Frorr, i8677924 Page: 7/18 Date: 9/2412007 4:. _8 PM

Page 1

APPLICATON TO AMEND OR SUPPLEMENT THE ZONING RESOLUTION

Application No.To the Trustees of Perrysburg Township:

This Application requests that the Zoning Resolution of Perrysburg Township be:

Supplemented^ Amended x

We are reauestinn a zonin4chanQe from A-1 to R 4A zoning

The legai description of the property is: See Attached

The following is a list of all property owners within, continguous to, and directly across the strseetfrom subject property. (This list must contain the complete address of such owners as thoseaddresses appear on the Wood County Auditor's current tax listor the Treasurer's mailing list).

Jodie L. Tucholski, 25964 Thompson Rd.. Pemabura, OH 43551

Thomas H^¢r auer. 1030?. Baver rd., Perrysburr} QH 43551

Robert H. $r BeNv B. Heslun, 919 Hickorv St.. Perrvsburg QH 43551

Grace M. Harbauer. Tntstee 22 232 E. Fifth St Perrvsbura OH 43551

Harriet E. Hall 04. 22$66 u{t Rd. Perr+sburn. OH 43551

Donald M. & t?orothy A. VOlltriar. 9844 Roachton Rd., Perrysbura OH 43551

Craig & Nancy LsHote. 9742 Roachton Rd.. Perrvsbursa, OH 43551

Robert A. & Jennifar W Honsberaer 97n7 Roachton Rd Perrvsburq Oh1_ 43551

See additional sheet

$300.00 filing fee paid by: Check (No.^

Cash

This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http:UwNNv.gfi.com

Frorr. 38677924 Page: 8/18 Date: 9/2412007 4. G8 PM

Page 2Application No.:

The request for Zonin chanae from A-1 to R-AA is being submitted because:(state reason or proposed use)

like to de ilv residential subdivision The minimum iot

size witl meet the reouirements of the apQrQpriate zonii

e se t an nearb velo

ifica na and i milar or

Six maps which describe the property listed above are included as part of this request(note signature must be notarized). Map size to be 11 "x17".

Notarv Box

Signed: owners and lessees, rnclude marlrng address

jeffrev J. OeGhristooher Trustee

30548 Elk Meadow Wa_„ v Ba Vista CO 81211



on(date)

This Comrnisslon recommends to this request.

Comments:

The Perrysburg Township Zoning Commission considered the above request at a Publichearing held on The notice of this hearing appeared in

(date)on

(name of publication) (date)

This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http:/hvvvw.gfi.com

From 18677924 Page: 9118 Date: 9l2412007 4:. _8 PM


The Zoning Commission moved to recommend this request be

by vote of to

Comments

Signed:


The Perrysburg Township Trustees considered the above request at a Public Hearing heki on

The notioa of this hearing appeared in(date)


The recommendations of the Wood County Planning Comniission and the Perrysburg Township

Zoning Commission were givan careful consideration.at this hearing.

The Board of Trustees moved to

by the foilowing vote:

the request

voted

voted

voted

Cornrnents:

Signed:


This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit http:l/www.gficom

From: 3677924 Page: 10/18 Date: 9/24/2007 4.. .29 PM

PROPERTY OWNERS

Betty L. Henry, Trustee, 7511 Fremont Pike, Perrysburg, OH 43551

Merle G. Kazmaier, 9311 Fremont Pike, Pertysburg, OH 43551

James Howard Sherman, Trustee, 336 E. Seventh St_, Perrysburg, OH 43551

Bayer Paric. LLC, 755 W. Big Beaver, Ste. 1275, Troy, Mi 48084

CAR ABC VA, LLC, 1919 S. Post Rd., tndianapolis, IN 48239

Robert F. & Becky A. Beyer, 26002 Thompson Rd., Perrysburg, OH 43551

William J. & Antoinette Wolf, 3804 65m St. E., Bradenton, FL 34208

This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more informaUon, visit: http:/(www.gfi.eorn

From. 3877924 Page: 11118 Date: 9/24/2007 4. 29 PM

Fnxn: unlnrwnn Papa 12112 oate: 7it92007 3:18:55 PM

IAiY A

Slpiatbt,lln EheTtw+nsMp of crarryshung,ln the Camty of Wood arxi SYate at ohio, tot The nordr halfof fhe eadrrest quatter aW ft rtorth tW of itte cauthxm,si qwrav of ft arwiltwes[tLar#c+r ir Sgction15, Town 4 Ur>Itad vAiDas Resarva In the'1Wx.•Mre Mmm 9qtmre at ttle Mek oP ft PAplds oP tlte Mlami attak! dfe.+oatabinp 99.9etrisc more a Is,s.

1M AGO 6]LCFff TFfS FYNJiDWtRG:

Aâ t1i3t park # ihe Wast hatt (1/2) af Fracnoinal Aecrian t^hrn (f 5}^'1àwn Fo1>P (4) nf the Ua. Res^nre ktth013 mNs square at the taot ofdhe rapids at ttte MfaaU oP Lalo: 61e, ^CuaDed la Fêrr^dar® TUwnsh4Wnad ^tky, C7hto, and helnp maiw patlâAady 6axtded and descrêd as fdla>•ra; Commeuldeg at a

of^f9kl̂ ^ 5i.'Ckb+1 iNle#tY t15) a^dRtar}Ce^# ^tYl+.^d n ^^ t^ a d^M t1ile p^t1t Nb"IrYtY1g; HMnCe Fastatly eleng s irte drmm pareitel wah itte tJOrtl^ Ilne otsa{d Fta[ffar^l ^dlan flthCen(15) a cûtae of ate hwrdred nkKtWE^ve (345) fbCt to p i^ th^rrr@ ^wthettY atnng p Itne drawn

wilft tht Wtst Nne trF 5ak3 flartipnat SecEion iiFteEn ii5) d dtatdnt» af hva hura9r^ atx[y flw

^ ^ (i } a ^^ eF aîG tauût erfa ^ ^^^^ ^ is^^to.âe ^ ^#vt^ pnaâ Î^d^^?"•^ (^`7 P^Frarqnnet Sectlott idtesn (25): thar^ Nnrtlt^y atonp ttw W^t Grte et sald Fratiianal Sectlar fili^rt (2a dst^nce vF hwa ixurdral s5dy-gre (7bS) feek W ttta placG bf bt^titrnng. fr^tid ^rt'^{ cmtaWnq ono ôee hiuldt'eY7 Cightl+aEc thartâttdMtS (i.186) aOES tsf l^nd m,d bring et,^tcR [^s aM tepal tdphrtays.

This tax was recvtvsd by OF3 F'AHrnakx fwi servor. For more i c.iicn, vCeIC -htipJJwww g1l.cam

This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http://www.gfi.com

From. 3677924 Page: 12118 Date: 912412007 4. 29 PM

Page 1

APPLICATON TO AMEND OR $UPPLEMENT THE ZONING RESOLUTION

Application No._To the Trustees of Perrysburg Township:

This Appiication requests that the Zoning Resolution of Perrysburg Township be:

Supplemented Amended X _

We are reque ino azoninghanrJe from R-1 & R-2 to R-3 zonina

The tegai description of the property is: SegAttached

The following is a list of all property owners within, continguous to, and directly across the streetfrom subject property, (fhis list must contain fhs oompiete address of such owners as thoseaddresses appear on the Wood County Auditor's current tax list or the Treasurer•s maiiing list).

Noble Sroadcast of Toledo, Inc 125 S Suoerior $treet Toledo OH 43802

Martin J . Jennifar J . Weislak P O Box 1028 , Perrysburti OH 43551

Thomas Harbauer, 10302 Bavor Road. Perrysbuffl OH 43551

Jeffrey Dechristooher Trustee 3054$ Eik Meadow Way Bua^r a Vista CO 81211

Robert F. & Beckey A. Beyer. 26002 Thomason Road, Pernrsbur . 6H 43551

Kevin R- $, Jacguelvn S. Keiler. 2$076 Thom son Road Perrysburg OH 43551

Sharon A, & RA rt D. Terdoest. 26104 Thompson Road. Perrvsbu[g OH 43551

Sharon Ten9oest. 26153 ThomKtsQn Road, Perrysburg, OH 43551

See additional sheet$300.00 filing fee paid by: Check (No. 1

Cash

This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http:/lwmrw.gfi.com

From, 8677924 Page: 13/18 Date: 9/2412007 4. 29 PM

Page 2Application No.:

The request far Zoning chanae tram R-1 & R-2 to R-3 is being submitted because:(state reason or proposed use)

The developer would like to develop. sing{e familv residential sutXiivision The minimum lot

size will meet the requiremants of the aoaroDriate zonino classitications and is similar o.r less

dense than naarbV develonmenis

Six maps which describe the property listed above are included as part of this request(note signature must be notarized). Map size to be 11"x17".

Signed: owners and lessees, include mailing address

Notatv Box William J yVoif, 3804 65'" St. E Bradenton PI 3A208

cle a^ ^a-,J^.

Coun-try.F(Vt ^2

3%) ^a07

_ eNA#ON L. aNNetary WkOe, 9rere vt Fici,

My oomm. oXpirac Mxr.9, 20111Oamm. No. DD 6421

i CantM Thru Nu rnaur^ 6ompgny(9urnly DN , I

Antoinette Wolf. 3804 6S'" St.. E Bra enton Fl 34208



on(date)

This Commission recommends to this request.

Comments:

The Perrysburg Township Zoning Commission considered the above request at a Publichearing held on . The notioe of this hearing appeared in

(date)on

(name of publication) (date)

This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http:!/wvn,v.gfi.com

From. 8677924 Page: 14118 Date: 9124/2007 4. 30 PM


The Zoning Commission maved to recommend this request be

by vote of tQ

Comments _ _.

5igned;


The Perrysburg Township Trustees considered the above request at a Public Hearing held on

The notice of this hearing appeared in(date)


The reaomm®ndations of the Wood County Planning Commission and the Perrysburg Township

Zoning Commission were given careful consideration at this hearing.

The Board of Trustees moved to

by the following vote:

the request

voted

voted

voted

Comments:

Signed:



From 8677924 Page: 15/18 Date: 9/24/2007 4 30 PM

PROPERTY OWNERS

Charles J. &®everty A. Allen, 26218 Thompson Road, Penysburg, OH 43551

Jeffrey L. & Elaine E. Gagle, 1347 S. Detroit Ave., Toledo, OH 43614

James B. & Patricia K. Schmakel, 26257 Thompson Road, Penysburg, OH 43551

Jojou Waleed & Shatha Azis, 26205 Black Oak Court, Perrysburg, OH 43551


From 8677924 Page: 16/18 Date: 9/2412007 ^ 30 PM

EXIIIIIIT A

LEGAL AESCRIPTION

Situated iu the County of Wood and the State of Ohio and In the Township of I'errysburg, andbounded and descri6ed as follows: Lot Number 8, beiag the Southeaxt 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 ofSeetion 16, Town 4,'United States Reserve of Wood county, Ohio, containing 41 acres, more or ieaa.SubJest to legai bighway.


From. 8677924 Page: 17/18 Date: 9 /2 4120 0 7 a 30 PM

February 8, 2006

PROPOSEA R-3 ZONING

A parcel of land being part of tlte Southeast quarter ( 114) of the Northeast quarter (1/4) ofSection Sixteen (16), Town four (4), United States Reserve, in Perrysburg Township, WoodCounty, Ohio, said parcel of land being bounded and described as follows:

Cnnvneneing at the Southeast comer of said Northeast quarter (1/4) of Section Sncteen (16),

thence in n northerly direction, along the East line of said Northeast quarter (114) of ScctionSixteen (16), having an assumed bearing of North zero (00) degrees, sixteen (1fj) minutes,twenty-oue (21) seconds Enst, a distapco of one thousand one hundred thirty-five and forty-sixhundredths (1135.46') feet, to the Trne Point of Beginning;

thence North eighty-nine (89) degrees, ftfty-frve (55) minutes, eighteen ( 18) seconds West alonga line, a distance of two hundcrd and zero hundredths (200.00') fcet;

thence South zero (Ot)) degroes, four (04) minutes, forty-two (42) seconds West along a line, adistance of nine hundred fourtecn and ninety-eight hundredths (914.98') feet;

thence South ffty-two (52) degrees, two (02) minutes, forty-four (44) seconds West along a line,a distanee of one hundred itfty-nine and eighty-five hundredths (159.85') feet;

thence North tltirty-four (34) degrees, thirty (30) minutes, twenty-one (21) seconds West along aline, a distance of one bundred fifty-four and ninety-eigbt hundredths (154.9S') feet;

tltencts North eighty-nine (89) degrces, fifty-eiglk (58) ntinutes, forty-six (46) seeonds Westalong a line, a distance of seven hundre,d seventy-two and thirty-nine hundredths (772.39') feet;

thence South zero (00) degtxcs, nine (09) mtnutes, forty-fivc (45) seconds West along a line, adistance.of sixty-two and seven hundredths (62.07') feet to a point;

thenca Notth eighty-nine (89) degrees, fifty (50) minutes, fifteen (15) seconds West along a line,a distance of one liundred eighty and zero hundredths (180.00') feet to the intersection of theWest lino of said Southeast quarter (1/4) of tha Northeast quarter (1/4) of Section Sixtoen (16);

thence Notth zero (00) degrees, nine (09) minutas, forty-five (45) seconds East along said Westliue of the Southeast quarfer (1/4) of the Northeast quarter (1/4) of Section Sixteen (16), adistanco of one thousand one hundred fotYy,eight and fotty-seven hundredths (1148.47') feet tothe intersection of the North line of said Northeast quarter (114) of Section Sixteen (16);

thence South eighty-nine (89) degrees, fifty-five'(55) rninutes, eighteen (18) seconds Past alongsaid North line of the Northeast quarter (114) of Section Sixteen (16), a distance of one thousand

This fax was received by GFI FAXmakerfax server. For more information, visit: http:/1www.gfi.com

Frorr. 18677924 Page: 18118 Date: 912 4120 0 7 •, .31 PM

Proposed R-3 ZoningFebmary 8, 2006

Page 2 of 2thaee hundted sixty-four and seventy-six hundredths (1364,76') feet to said tra.st line of theNortheast quarter (I/4) of Seotion Sixteen (16),

thence South zero (00) degrees, six (tN>) minutes, twenty-one (21)seconds West along said Eastline for the Northeast quarter (1/4) of Seetion Sixteen (16), a distance of two hundred and zerohundredths (20(t.00') feet to the'i'rue Point of Beginning.

Said parcel of land containing an area of 1,332;628 square fee[, or 30.593 acres of land, more orless.

Ttte above described pareel of land is subject to any and all leases, easements and restrict7ons ofrecord.

The bearings used hereon are based on an assumed nieriidian and are for the express purpose ofcaloulating angular measurements.

Prepared by:

FELLER, FINCH & ASS TES, NG•,u,,,,,,

ll, Edward Thornton, P. S. :Professional Surveyor No. 782^.

7

; THOtthi()N

DDNALD[01Yt,RD : . ?

7827. .liTERF','_d,

.NZw"a`TSl^'NAl''I^rytBtIN1f1

to&04BS9UOW1959i9iz

&,4ssociates, Inc.Erigineers • 8urveyors

Drive • P.O. Box (38 • Maumee, Ohio 48537-0068

» Columc^, o7+in, •nd 3mxsa.e, diloAipan 419) 8g3-9G80T ax (^419) 893-2982

vrtv^v.fallerfinch.com

This fax was received by GFI FAXmaker fax server. For more information, visit: http:lMnww.gfi.com

EXHIBIT B

RECORD OF RESOi.UTlONs

Ihyion Leyal DImA C^, Fu^^^â. ÔU^S

Resoluciuia No.................._......_.__......................._. Passrd._........

R^SOLUT7LON 2007-2 R"W ®I.^' PARCEL"

d'PgY]GRE AS, the Panysbta'g Tovvnship Loard of Ttnstees wotdd be inclinect to approve tha applic'rtionsfor the re-z.oning of the Wolf I'at'cel fiom R-1 and R-2 to A-1 and R 3, provided cet'taiu cond

be includecl to run with tlie laud

N®VV, 7•IU1ULi'OAZ7G, BUt k"T RESOLVED TkFAT T&]CO', AI'P'LYCATROl`F IS FiP131:131IFSk BY'OLirUPEILItXSBD:ltCv 'Y'OWNgklGP L'OtiR10 OF TRUSTEES SUBJECT TO TUE, 1e

CfâNN;iJTI'IONS:

$ectaon 1. The "Wolf Parcel," shall be developed snbstanttially in accordance with tlte pa'elimiuu y planpresented to the Ti2lstees at the hearing ou Noverctbc:r 12, 2007, as modified to incoiporato the ch igesreqttested by the TLustees on Decenxber 17, 2007, see prel'nniaary plan attached as Exb.ibit "A;" aud

Section 2. Futtne lot owners in 1he subdivision developed on the Wolf Pa.rcel shall not be require I tosign atmexation petitions and there sbaU not be any aunexation provisions, powers o£ appointuse t OTpowcrs of attorney regarding annexation in futare putchase contracts or auy annexation coveu s in

ftitiire deeds that atise as a matto : of contract; and

Section 3. McCarthy b' uilders, Inc., au Ohio corporation, its successors and assign s, sl all file an cffi lavitlru suant to R.C. 5301.252, or siutilar instr•ument, releasing the right to annex lots in the Et,xerald IcesSubdivision, or to excrcise any powers of appointment or powers of attorney regarding annex.tioufollowing the effeotive date of tUis resoltition, as finally tlatenuincd, demonstrating that there exi t nocontracts or agreetuents of auy Icincl with ow.xers of ttie Wolf Paceel, or any real estate that is eonti ousto the Wolf Parcel, that confer upon atry thit'd party the riglit to compel the annexai:iou of tl:te Wolf P'celto any municipality.

`dectlou 4. This resolntion shall be ett'ective at the earlicst titue pctmitted by latv.

The resolut on was moved Uy'1'rustee aud secouded by Trustee o z- ânC

Ou Roll Call the follotving voteiwas cast:

Craig baFlote y^ Gaiy 13ritten ue Aobert MackV r

CERT9P.+ICA'I'If?1*I

I, the undarsigned Piscal Officer of Pertysburg Township, Wood Cotmty, Ohio do hereby certiCy th# theforegoiug Resolution is a ttue copy of the Resolufiort adopted by ttie Poat'd of Tiustees of 1'en}, urgTownship, Wood Cotuity, Ohio on the 17'h day of December, 2007.

- t^C^ juk^-Shirley I-Ia,^Fiscal Officer

20G5f

M^lANMG

PKELIMINAPY DRAWINGOF

PERRYS5URG TOWNSHIP, WOOD COUNTY, OHIO

se o

CPEHSPALE

AI ZaryING-/

L'cGALDE56RIFt10Nuae=_wamsa:nrnrr

^PO MEXO¢iHE,3tY^f65E[iqN4iCNNn,1.W:^f^5iAR5REXFK

xuw^e eavtcrsses

. 5N[M 52MEMF5

AVERAGE EXI5TING ELEVATION = 641t

E%15TING ZONING. A-1PROPOSED 7DNIN:r. A-1 & R-3

ACREAGE:41.StDEN5ITY: 2O6 L0T5(ACRE

OPEN SPACE PRC`dDED:5.5 AG (13G)OPEN 9PACE REQUIRED: 2.09 AC (67,)

DEVEIAFED BY:

MILLERDIVERS!FIE^uINC.

EXHIBIT C

RECQR[7 OF RESOLUTIONS

ouyion lapoi Bluv^ c.a, Po^m biu loou5 .-_ __^_.

Kcsolnliun n(a _.___......_... ............... I'QS5C(I _.._...__..... .- .....................

ItiSOLiTliION 2007-7,9°IDECkTCtdS1 OPICGR PAkiCL+'D„

e Perrysburg Township Board of Trustees wordd. be inclined to approve thaapplic^^tiou for the re-zoning of the DeChristopher Parcel froiu A-] to R-4A, provided certaincondi{ ons could be included to ruuwith the land.

NO ^ Tl^RG&'ORE, BF^, IT RDSOLVd;I â T4TAT TIFTT APPLICA'I'ION IS APPROVPtII^ B^.'Pf3G Pk1RIi7ISL?iAtG TOVV1ySATP POARID Oh` TRUSTEES ut7L'dltC'h TO TII^^'OL, OWAVC CO1VDx'TiToNs:

Secti 1. The "DeChristopher Patcel," sflalt be developect at a density that does not exceed themaxin^mrl density that would be al.towed itt tho R 3 zouiag district contahied in the Pen.I,sburgI'own. ip Zoning Itesotutiou in effect as of the date of this resolution, and subject to site plan reviewpw'su t to the Petrysbm'g Township Zoning Resolution in effect as of ttie data of this resoIution; and

Sectio 2. Development of the DeCiuistopher Parcel shall rostrict agaiust, and prohibit, mobilehonres and

Seeti4 3. Futnre lot owners in the subdivision developed on•the DeChristopher Parcel shall nofi berequit- ,to sign annexation petitions and tltere shall not be aay aunexatiou provisions, powers ofappoi. ment or powers of attorney regardbig amiexation in fidure ptucliase contraets or anyannex on covenants in fuhire deeds that azise as a matter of contracE; and

Sectiv' 4. 14cCarthy Builders, Inc., an Ohio corporation, its successors aud assigns, shall file anaffida t pursuant RC. 5301.252, or simila• instrument, releasing the right to anuex lots in theL^+.mera Lalces Subdivision, or to exeanise any powers of appoiutrnent ox powers of attorncy regardi tgannexa 'on following the effective date oftbis resolution, as finally determined, demonstrating tl atthereexist n coutracts or agreements of any lcinct with ownes of the DeClnistopher Parcel, or any real estatethat is ontignous to the DeCln'istopher Paccel, that confer npon any t3,iud party tha right to compel theanuexa. oa of tho DaCtu'istopher Parcelto any municipality. ,

Sectivrl,15. This resolution shall be effoctive at the earliest time pertnitted by law.

The res^lution was moved by Trusteee&,z^ H,,ic aud secoitded by Trustee ^LI ,/^r3__

Ou Ito4 Call the followiug vote was cast:

CraigL^t-Iote RPr,,a4i GaryBritten Âêc; RobettMaclc t_t^-5

CL'(,it'F9T•ICA'i ION

I, the uVersigned Fiscal Officer of Perrysburg Township, AVood Couuty, Ohio do hereby certify that theforego,.̂W,ÎjtP' Resolution is a hue copy of the Resolution adopted by the Board of Trustees of PernysbuigTowns , Wood Cotnity, Ohio on tha 17's day of December, 2007.

^ '^Ghr^^ô^her o or^

___-- ., .. .... JI

PERRY5BUKG TOWN5FIIp: WOOD GOUNTY, OHIO

EXI5TING ZONING: A-1

PROPOSED ZONING: R-4A

ALREAGE: 9H.51t

SURROUNDING ZONING; A-1 & R-1

OEYELDFEO DY:

MILLEk01VER51FIED,IN6.

PREPAREO BY.

nceR'ucFk .baee n Î^ê. ^ e..(aÎP^^ssseêYa e °e° m(nÎhy:tY

. ..imv._ .. t . _ _.

EXH I B IT D

RECORD OF RESOLUTIONS

Uur^on legol xlmd G., F.„" Ibin 300e5

I wu^

coult

NOVTHE,L'O](i

1 icsohxt i un Ab. ..... _....._.........__......._.. __...........__ ('Usse(l

It!, SODUTION 2,007••271iNLJSâ]GR$IOUSEPe'.J.tCE, LI I

RrtAS, the Pcnysburg Township Boa.rcl of Trustees would bo inclined to approve Ihe applicationre-zoniug of the Neiderhouse Pareel fran A-1 to A-1 and R-3, provided certain couditions

be included to run witltr the land.

TdIC12E, 1'OYd.T., 33E YT Itg;SOg,VE ID TEfATi TFU APP'Y,rit:'?,TIOIV IS APPROVED BYPERRYSP,UfCG TOW1VSLtA' P=Ot1Il?1a OF TRUSTEES SUBJECT TO M

OWING CONllFTxONS:

Secti n 1. The "Neiderhouse Parccl," shall be developed substantially in accordauce with theprel' inary plan pzesented to the Tnstees at the tioaxing on November 12, 2007, as nodified toincor orato the changes requosted by the Tnistees on December 17, 2007, see preliminary planattacl d as Pxhibit "A;" retainfrag the option for thc Developer to creat-e a stub slreet nr the nmthwestcom of the Neiderhonse Parcel that would allow for a stteet to be constracted connecting theNeid 'house Parcel to Bmerald Lalces Subdivision; and

Secfi u 2. Futriu'e lot owners in ttio subdivision developed on the Neidorhonse Parcel shall not borequ• d to-sigu annexation petitions and there shnll not be any amtexation provisions, powers of -apgo^ tment or powers of attorney ts;garding annexatiou iu future purchase contracts or aayanne, tion covenanis in fiiture deeds that arise as a matter of conU^tct; aud

Sectit u 3. M.cCartliy Builders, Iuc., au Ohio corpoiation, its sucoessoi:s and assigns, slrall file anaffld it pursuant to R.C. 5301.252, ar similar •vistrument, releasing tlio tiglit to aunex lots in tlxaLsmer ld Lakes Subdivfsion, or to execise auy powers of appointment or powers of attorney regard'nigawze tion following the ef-feetive date of this resolution, ay finally deteGiniuect, demonstrating thatthere :cist no conh-acts or agreemenfs of any Iciud with owners of the Neiderhouse Paioel, or any realestat ttxat is contigiious to tho Neidechouse Parcel, that confer upon any third party ttie right to compelthe exatiou of the Neiderhouse Parcelto any municipality.

Secti u &. This resolution shall be etPective at t[ie earliest time permittecl by law.

Tiie r solution was xuovcd by Trustee ^•AuW A- e and seconded by Tnustee ^• f N c75_

Ou Il Call the lollowiug srote was cast:

Craigf.aLiote uu 5V

Gary Brittei Robert Maclc

C1GRT.LE+dC-MON ..

I, the ndersigned Fiscal Ofiicer of Perrysburg Towuslup, Woud County, Ohio do hereby certify that ilieforeg ing ResoluBon is a true copy ,of the Resolutiou adopted by the Board of Trustees of Perrysbm'g`1'owi hip, Wood CoLmty, Ohio on the 17'a day of December, 2007.

iscal Officer

0

PRELIMINARY DRAVJiNGOF

ei e o e o erlyPERRYHBUKG TOWN5HIP, WOOP COUN'fY, OHIO

S- ! NEIM[zi LSL COfD.-- ^ - _.__^__ ___ .__ ____ ________ ____ _

LEGAloESGR'PiICN

5RE ANALYSI5

r:on=cvxc.,c^9axx.,e^mncrsswFu

171.'ILttEMEMENISlN^[FGI:CWOEiF.C1YJL

E%15TING ZONING: A-1

PROPOSED ZONING: A-1 & R-3ACREAG'c:40.Os

OEIiSYlY=21SUNOSLSCOPEN SPAC£ PQOVIOE9 e49ACa (12/,)OP2N sPAGC PyQWk£U-+2D.Yc (Sy.)

oEVEIA?EOeY:

Miller Diver5lfled, Inc.34W 9RRRFIELV 9CULEYPRO, 511RE AMAUMEE,04p4%8JP1101$:419E67-81!9FA%4'3867-7324

P6EP^RP.09Y.

r 4'erFloeh6 Asaaclnte,. IvaW anl<^pnsnn=••.W.. •• _umn=s

ZO NIN G RESO LUTIO N PROVISIONS FI 1ZONIN G DISTRICTS AND PROVIDING THE

D IMENSIONAL R EQUI RE MENTS

ARTICLE IIIESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS

SECTION A. DISTRICTS 9

The unincorporated area of Perrysburg Township, Wood County, Ohio is hereby divided into fifteen (15)districts with the following purposes:

1. "A-1" Agricultural District: The purpose of the A-1 District is to maintain the rural character ofthe land while promoting activities related to agricultural practices and encouraging agricultural landuses and relatively low density, single-family residential dwellings with either on-lot well or septicsystems or off-lot public water and sewer.

2. "S-1" Special District: The purpose of the S-1 district is to maintain relatively large tracts of landopen for recreational purposes to be used primarily by the residents of Perrysburg Township.

3. "R-1" Rural Residential District (low density): The purpose of the R-1 district is to maintain therural character of the land by promoting low density residential growth with access to central wateror sewer facilities when the division of land is classified as a major subdivision (five or more lotsbeing platted). The R-1 district is encouraged in areas when surrounding uses are similar in nature,such as agricultural and low density residential.

4. "R-2" SuburbanResidentialDistrict(iowdensity): The purpose of the R-2 district isto promotesingle-family residential uses at a higher density than that permitted in the R-1 district. Residentiallots in the R-2 district shall have access to central water and sewer facilities.

5. "R-3" Suburban Residential District ( medium density): The purpose of the R-3 district is topromote medium density deveiopmentwhich is at a greater intensity than that permitted in the R-2district. Residential lots found in the R-3 district shall have access to central water and sewerfacilities.

6. "R-4" Suburban Residential District (medium density): The purpose of the R-4 district is topromote a variety of housing opportunities at a higher density than that permitted in the R-3 district,and shall have access to central water and sewer facilities. The R-4 district should also be in closeproximity to community facilities needed by the surrounding residents.

7. "11-4A° Suburban Residential (high density): The purpose of the R4-A district is to promote avariety of housing opportunities (single-family, multiple dwellings, permanently-sited manufacturedhousing, and specialized housing types of assisted living) at a higher density than is permitted inthe R-4 district. This district shall be serviced by central water and sewer facilities and found inareas which are typically located in close proximity to community facilities which are needed on aregular basis.

8. "R-5" Multiple Family Residential District (high density): The purpose of the R-5 district is topromote a variety of housing opportunities at a greater density than that is permitted in the R4-Adistrict. This district should also encourage developments that specialize in a variety of housingtypes which cater to assisted living. The R-5 district shall have access to central water and sewer

9 HISTORY: Amended Effec[ive February 1B, 2005

(TU Table ofContents)

Perrysburg Township Zoning Resolution Article Ilt, Page 1

PERRYSBURG TOWNSHIP ZONING RESOLUTION ARTICLE IIIESTABLISHMENT OF DISTRICTS

SECTION A. DISTRICTS ( Contd.)

facilities and be in close proximity to community amenities which service the regular needs of thecommunity.

9. "R-6". Manufactured Home Park; The purpose of the R-6 district Is to accommodate any typeof manufactured home, mobile home, or industrialized unit, and conform to State standards as setforth in ORC Sections 3701-27. Refer to Article XV (Definitions) for definitions of these uses andArticle VII, Section M (Manufactured Home Park Requirements).

10. "C-1" Neighborhood Business District: The purpose of the Neighborhood Business District isto accommodate the needs of the surrounding residential community by providing goods andservices generally described as convenience goods and services. The district is intended forsmaller scale uses from retail commercial, personal services, business services, professional, andadministrative offices. The goods and services categorized in this district shall be oriented to thedaily or weekly needs of the community and are not to include activities categorized by majorpurchase items, or goods and services which are oriented to a city-wide or highway-attractedclientele. For illustration purposes, the Neighborhood Business District includes: drugstores, beautysalons, barber shops, carry-outs, dry cleaning and laundry pick-up facilities, engineering and lawfirms, and hardware and grocery stores. All buildings located with the C-1 District shall not exceedten thousand (10,000) square feet of gross floor area per business. Such uses are permitted to beeither free-standing or part of a retail center. Other similar businesses of an equally-restricted andlocal nature may be permitted, subject to the approval of a conditional use request by the Boardof Zoning Appeals as per Article XII, Section C.2.c. Outdoor lighting shall be shielded and notvisible from adjacent neighboring properties and uses shall produce minimal noise disturbance toadjacent properties.

11. "C-2" Community Business District: The purpose of the Community Business District is toprovide for the development of retail and service establishments which, in addition to catering tothe community residents' and workers' daily needs for convenience goods and services, alsoincludes establishments offering comparative-type shopping facilities. For illustration purposes,the Community Business District includes the following: supermarkets and stores for the sale ofdrugs, hardware, appliances, furniture, apparel, footwear, business and personal services,professional services, restaurants, offices, motels, vehicular service stations, drive-inestablishments, auto and farm implement sales and services, building trades and services,commercial recreation and other similar or related activities. Additional uses may be permitted inthe Community Business District subject to the approval of a conditional use request by the Boardof Zoning Appeals as per Article XII, Section C.2.c. This district allows general business orcommercial activities in areas of high accessibility serving the general public. Uses within theCommunity Retail District will have common ingress and egress points, uniform signage, andshared parking. Outdoor lighting shall be shielded and not visible from adjacent neighboringproperties and shall not cause a direct nuisance to the general public.

12. "C-3" Highway Business District: The purpose of the Highway Commercial District is toaccommodate wholesale and service uses at a greater intensitythan that which is permitted in theNeighborhood and the Commercial Business Districts. The intent of the Highway Commercialdistrict is not only to service the needs of the immediate community, but also to attract residentsfrom surrounding areas, and to have immediate access to major thoroughfares at their principalintersections. For illustration purposes, Highway Business District uses include motels, gas

(To T.W. af Confenfs]

Perrysburg Township Zoning Resolution Article III, Page 2


SECTION A. DISTRICTS (Contd.)

stations, restaurants, drive-in establishments, auto andfarm implement sales and services, buildingtrades and services, commercial recreation, and similar commercial activities. Outdoor lightingshall be shielded and not visible from adjacent neighboring properties and land uses shall not causea direct nuisance to the general public.

13. "O-Z" State Route 20123 Overlay District: The purpose of the Route 20/23 Overlay District isto promote quality development, stable property values, orderly development, and efficient andsafe movement of traffic, including the implementation of access management strategies,throughout the Route 20/23 Overlay District. Route 20/23 is a major and significant corridor inPerrysburg Township that helps to define local community identity and serves as a majorthoroughfare in Northwest Ohio. An overlay district will impose additional and unique developmentstandards and requirements to coordinate land development with otherjurisdictions and levels ofgovernment. See Article VII, Section Z (State Route 20/23 Overlay District SupplementalRegulations).

a. The boundaries of the Route 20/23 Overlay District are shown on the Official Zoning Map.These boundaries include the area within parallel lines running one thousand feet (1,000 ft.)on both sides of the Route 20/23 right-of-way limits, or the entire depth of those parcels thathave frontage on Route 20/23, whichever is the greater distance. This overlay zone extendsfrom a point where the centerline of the Route 20/23 right-of-way intersects with the centerlineof the railroad tracks east of Lime City Road to the centerline of 1-75 (exclusive of land withina municipality).

b. A separately adopted corridor plan may be prepared by Perrysburg Township (individually, orin cooperation with other units of government) to provide additional guidance for public andprivate decision-making. Elements potentially included in such a plan include a build-outscenario, possible intersection configurations, signalization alternatives, potential access roadalignments, traffic control measures, future land use concepts, coordinated signagealternatives and landscaping designs. Implementation of this corridor plan shall be achievedthrough the enforcement of the Site Plan review process.

14. "I-1" Planned Industrial District: The purpose of the Planned Industrial District is toaccommodate employment uses including administrative and research facilities, offices, limitedmanufacturing, and support services. The planned industrial district is intended to satisfy thefollowing objectives:

a. Encourage large-scale campus-style developments which include attractive street scape andfunctional pedestrian spaces,

b. Provide employment areas which are compatible with adjacent and surrounding residentialland uses,

c. Promote an efficient circulation system, including the separation of pedestrian from vehicletraffic.

The Planned Industrial District shall provide for the development of facilities in a unified, plattedsubdivision which is specifically designed to stimulate growth of industrial uses. The district should

(To Table ol Contenfs]

Perrysburg Township Zoning Resolution Article Iil, Page 3


SECTION A. DISTRICTS (Contd.)

also include a limited amount of outdoor storage which should be screened properly to improve theaesthetics of the area, and lighting shall be shielded and not visible to adjacent neighboringproperties.

15. "1-2" General Industrial: The purpose of the General Industrial District is to accommodateintense industries involving the manufacturing, warehousing, assembly, and storage of productswhose nature or operation produces minimal noise, odor, dust, and smoke. The district providesfor the development of industrial uses on independent sites which require large tracts separatedfrom greater densities of residential growth. The uses involve the production, assembly, andprocessing of large products, as well as those which may generate special impacts on surroundingproperties. This district is categorized by uses and/or storage, material transfer, and large scalemachinery and structures. Outdoor lighting shall be shielded and cause minimal nuisances toadjacent properties.

SECTION B. ZONING DISTRICT MAP

1. The boundaries of the district are shown upon the map which is made a part of the Resolution,which map is designated as the "Zoning District Map." The district map and all of the notations,references, and other information shown thereon are part of this Resolution and have the sameforce and effect as if the district map and all the notations, references, and other information shownthereon were all fully set forth or described herein; the original of which district map is properlyattested and is on file with the Township Clerk.

2. No amendment to this Resolution which involves a matter portrayed on the Zoning District Mapshall become effective until after such change and entry has been made on said map.

3. No change of any nature shall be made to the Zoning District Map or matter shown thereon exceptin conformity with the procedures set forth in this Resolution.

4. Regardless of the existence of purported copies of the Zoning District Map which may, from timeto time, be made or published, the Zoning District Map, which shall be located in the office of theTownship Clerk, shall be the final authority as to the current zoning status of Township land andwater areas, buildings, and other structures.

5. In the event that the Zoning District Map becomes damaged, destroyed, or lost, the TownshipTrustees may, by Resolution, adopt a new Zoning District Map which shall supersede the priorZoning District Map. The new Zoning District Map may correct drafting or other errors or omissionsin the prior Zoning District Map, but no such corrections shall have the effect of amending theoriginal resolution or subsequent amendments thereof.

(io T.W. of Coutents]



SECTION C. INTERPRETATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES (Contd.)

SECTION C. INTERPRETATION OF DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

1. The district boundary lines on said map are intended to follow either streets or alleys or lot lines;and where the districts designated on the map are bounded approximately by such street, alley, orlot lines, the street or alley or lot shall be construed to be the boundary of the district, unless suchboundary is otherwise indicated on the map. In the case of unsubdivided property, the districtboundary line shall be determined by the use of the scale appearing on the Zoning District Map orby dimensions.

2. Where the boundary of a district follows a railroad line, such boundary shall be deemed to belocated midway between the main tracks of said railroad line.

3. Whenever any street, alley, or other public way is vacated by official action of the Board ofTrustees of Perrysburg Township, the zoning district adjoining each side of such street, alley, orpublic way shall be automatically extended to the center of such vacation and all area included inthe vacation shall then henceforth be subject to all appropriate regulations of the extended districts.

4. Except in the cases of parks, cemeteries, and navigable waters, the boundary shall be deemed tocoincide with the boundary line of the park, cemetery, or the channel of the navigable water.

SECTION D. COMPLIANCE WITH REGULATIONS

The regulations set by this Resolution within each district shall be minimum regulations and shall applyuniformly to each class or kind of structure or land, and particularly, except as hereinafter provided:

1. No building, structure, or land shall hereafter be used or occupied, and no building or structure orpart thereof shall hereafter be erected, constructed, reconstructed, moved, or structurally alteredunless in conformity with all of the regulations herein specified forthe district in which it is located.

2. No building or other structure shall hereafter be erected or altered:

a. To exceed the height;

b. To accommodate or house a greater number of families;

c. To occupy a greater percentage of lot area;

d. To have narrower or smaller rear yards, front yards, side yards, or open spaces than hereinrequired; or in any other manner contrary to the provisions of this Resolution.

3. No part of a yard, open space, oroff-street parking or loading space required in connection with anybuilding for the purpose of complying with this resolution shall be included as part of a yard, openspace, or off-street parking or loading space similarly required for any other building.

(To Table of ContentsJ


SITE PLAN PROVI S I O N S O F ZONIN GRESO LUTIO N

ARTICLE XIIISITE PLAN REVIEW 69

SECTION A. GENERAL SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS

1 SITE PLAN REQUIREDExcept as specifically exempted below, no permit for the construction, exterior alteration,relocation, occupancy, or change in use of any building shall be given and no existing use shall beestablished orexpanded in floor area, except in conformity with a Site Plan approved by the ZoningCommission. Site plan review shall also be required for planned unit developments, subdivisionplats and the expansion of any existing use. "Expansion" shali include any of the following;

a. A floor space increase of twenty-five (25) percent;

b. A floor space increase of 1,000 square feet when a subject property is located within or abutsa property within a zoning district that allows single family dwellings; or

c. An increase in the number of parking spaces in a parking area by five or more spaces inaccordance to Article IX (Off-Street Parking and Loading Requirements).

2. SPECIFIC EXEMPTIONS FROM SITE PLAN REVIEWSite plan review shall not be required for:

a. The construction or enlargement of any single-family or two-family dwelling;

b. The construction or alteration of any building used exclusively for agriculture, horticulture, orfloriculture, not involving retail sales;

c. Home occupations; or

d. Residential accessory structures,f

3. INFORMAL PRELIMINARY REVIEW OPTIONIn order to promote the orderly and appropriate development of a Site Plan consistent with thegoals and objectives set forth in this resolution, the Zoning Commission may engage in informaldiscussions with the applicant prior to formal submission of the Site Plan. Such review of plans andissues will provide greater assurance that the project complies with the objectives, standards, andcriteria set forth in this resolution before major design and engineering expenditures have beencommitted to the project. This review reduces the likelihood thatmajor adjustments and revisionswould be required as a result of deficiencies found during the formal review process, as describedin this section. The applicant shall generally follow the procedures as set forth by the ZoningCommission in regards to time frame, technical content of a plan, etc.

69 HISTORY: Amended Effective March 2, 2004

(TO Ta61e ol Confenls}

Perrysburg Township Zoning Resolution Article Xlli, Page 1

PERRYSBURG TOWNSHIP ZONING RESOLUTION ARTICLE XIIISITE PLAN REVIEW

SECTION B. SITE PLAN APPLICATION PROCEDURE (Contd.)

SECTION B. SITE PLAN APPLICATION PROCEDURE

1. All applications for Site Plan approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Inspector at least threeweeks (3) prior to the next regularly scheduled Zoning Commission meeting.

a. A complete Site Plan application shall consist of the application form provided by the ZoningInspector, required materials and copies designated herein, and the required application fee.The Zoning Inspector shall determine whether the application is complete based on therequirements described in this section.

b. Once the application is deemed to be complete, the Site Plan application shall be referred toan independent engineering consultant for review. Upon completion of engineering review,the Site Plan afong with review comments shall then be forwarded to the Perrysburg TownshipZoning Commission.

c. The Zoning Commission shall act on any Site Plan submitted under this section within sixty(60) days from, the time the Zoning Inspector receives a complete submission of requiredmaterials. Any person submitting a Site Plan may agree to a longer review period by theZoning Commission.

2. The Perrysburg Township Zoning Commission shall review submitted material, including thecomments from the engineering consultant, and determine whether a Zoning Certificate shall beissued, based on the Site Plan's consistency with the intent of this resolution.

a. Prior to authorizing the issuance of a Site Plan approval, the Zoning Commission may seekexpert advice or cause special studies to be made for input to its review of any plans orproposals submitted.

(1) Proposed Site Plans may be reviewed by authorized representatives of the PerrysburgTownship Fire Departmentto assure conformance with appropriate fire, safety, building,and sanitary conditions and Site Plans may be forwarded to the Township Board ofTrustees, City of Perrysburg, Wood County Planning Commission, Wood CountyEngineer, Wood County Soil and Water Conservation District, and/or any other similarorganization for review and recommendations prior to acting on any such plan;'0

(2) Proposed Site Plans may include professional services, such as legal review or otherprofessionals such as engineers, landscape architects, planners, or environmentalscientists; "

(3) The applicant shall be responsible for reasonable expenses incurred by the Townshipin reviewing final development plans and for any associated site inspections. Suchexpenses are beyond application fees established by the Township and may includeprofessional service fees incurred in connection with reviewing the plans submitted. ATownship review fee along with a deposit for professional services shall be required asper the Perrysburg Township Zoning Fee Schedule.'z

7o HISTORY: Amended Effective February 18, 2005

71 HISTORY: Amended Effective February 18, 2005


fio Table of Canfentsj

Perrysburg Township Zoning Resolution Article XIIt, Page 2


b. When a particular Site Plan involves a variance request and/or conditional use approval, theZoning Commission may consider such matters concurrentlywith Site Plan approval providedall other applicable hearing and notification requirements are met.

SECTION C. SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE

1. REVIEW CRITERIAAll Site Plans shall be reviewed on the basis of uniform criteria that advance the principles of goodsite design to provide safe vehicular access and pedestrian movement. Site plans shall also bereviewed on the basis of achieving site designs that will promote a healthy natural and builtenvironment for residents. Specific Site Plan approval criteria shall include the following:

a. The Site Plan shall show (consistent with the findings of a Traffic Impact Study) that a properrelationship will exist between thoroughfares, service roads, driveways, and parking areas toencourage pedestrian and vehicular traffic safety on both public and private lands.

b. All development features, including the principal buildings, open spaces, service roads,driveways and parking areas, shall be so located and related as to minimize the possibility ofadverse effects upon adjacent development.

c. Building location and placement shall be developed with consideration given to minimizingremoval of trees and change of topography.

d. Maximum visual and auditory privacy for surrounding properties and occupants shall beprovided through the design of the relationship among buildings, fences and walls,landscaping, topography, and open space.

e. Parking area landscaping and screening shall be arranged to minimize large expanses of hardsurfaces and to channel traffic flow in a safe manner.

9•

Parking and loading provisions shall meet the requirements of Article IX (Off-Street Parkingand Loading Requirements) and on-site traffic circulation shall be designed to provideadequate access for fire and police protection, and minimize interference with the traffic-carrying capacity of adjacent streets.

Refuse storage and pick-up facilities shall be indicated on the Site Plan and shall be fenced,screened, or landscaped to prevent blowing or scattering of refuse, and to provide anadequate visual barrier from locations both on- and off-site.

h. All utilities on-site shall be located underground.

Grading and surface drainage provisions shall be designed to minimize adverse effects onabutting properties, streams, and public streets, and to minimize the possibility of erosion.

2. ACTION ON SITE PLANSThe Zoning Commission shall take one of three actions on a Site Plan as described below:

a. A Site Plan may be approved as submitted.

(TO Table orCOntenls}

Perrysburg Township Zoning Resolution Article XIII, Page 3


SECTION C. SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE (Contd.)

b. A Site Plan may be approved with modifications expressly stated in a motion passed by theZoning Commission.

c. A Site Plan may be approved as submitted (or with modifications) in phases.

3. CONFORMANCE WITH APPROVED SITE PLANS13All aspects of the development shall conform to the approved Site Plan. It shall be a violation ofthis Resolution for any building or premises to be occupied or used, prior to conformance with allapplicable requirements of this Resolution and completion of all specifications of this sectionincluding: required landscaping, drainage, parking area, road, and driveway improvementsaccording to the Site Plan approved by the Zoning Commission. Verification that all of theimprovements conform to the approved Site Plan shall be confirmed through site inspectionsperformed by an independent inspector retained by the Township. The applicant/developer shallbe responsible for all inspection fees. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Zoning Compliance,the owner/developer shall submit a set of "as built" drawings to the Zoning Inspector. Thesedrawings shall be stamped by a professional engineer registered in the State of Ohio and confirmthat the development has been constructed to specifications approved in this Site Plan Review.

4. AMENDMENTS TO APPROVED SITE PLANS'"Afterthe approval of a Site Plan, the developer, individual property owners or property owners maywish to make major or minor modifications to Site Plans. An application for an "Amendmentto anApproved Site plan" shall be filed with the Zoning Inspector. To distinguish between major andminor modifications, and to provide an abbreviated process through which minor changes topreviously approved Site Plans can be approved, the following procedures shall be followed:

a. Minor Modifications.

(1) An application for a minor modification shall include one (1) 11" x 17" and one (1) 24"x 36" set of revised development plans clearly showing the proposed changes.

(2) To qualify as a minor modification, the Zoning Inspector shall find that proposedmodification of an approved Site Plan consists of activity that is no more intensive thanany of the following:

(a) Adjustnients to the size and location of structures, off street loading areas, ponds,pools, decking, dumpsterlocations, patiosand required screening, fencing, lighting,landscaping, accessory structures and other improvements that do not:

(i) Result in an increase in the approved number of housing units ornon-residential principal structures.

(ii) Increase the building mass of a principal structure through an increase inheight, length or percent of lot coverage.

(iii) Move or relocate a principal structure when the subject property abuts land thatis used for residential purposes inside or outside of the development.

T3 tiISTORY: Amended Effective February 18, 2005


fTO Table of Contentsj



SECTION C. SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCEDURE (Contd.)

(iv) Move or relocate a principal structure such that the placement of structures willbe closer to any one property line than existed before such relocation.

(b) Modifications to approved circulation drives and parking areas so long as they donot reduce the number of approved spaces, or encroach into setback areas ordesignated recreation/open space areas, and the location and number of curb cutsremains unchanged.

(c)

(3)

Reductions in the size of signs.

The Zoning Inspector may approve minor changes if all of the following conditions aremet:

(a) The proposed minor change is in conformity with all administrative regulationsand/or policies for such planned unit development issued by the ZoningCommission.

(b) The proposed minor change meets with the approval of applicable Townshipdepartments; and

(c) All conditions for approval of the minor change are acceptable to the applicant.

(d) TheZoningCommissionshallbeadvisedofallminorchangesauthorizedundertheabove procedures.

b. Maior Modifications.

(1) An application for a major modification shall include ten (10) 11" x 17" and four (4) 24"x 36" sets of revised development plans clearly showing the proposed changes.

(2) A major change shall be construed as any change that does not satisfy the abovecriteria for a minor change. Major modifications to approved Site Plans may be madein the same manner as an original Site Plan approval except that an applicant need notresubmit information that has already been submitted as part of a previous Site Planreview process.

SECTION D. SITE PLAN APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

1. WRITTEN REQUIREMENTSAll applications for Site Plan approval shall be submitted to the Zoning Inspector with ten (10)copies of the following written requirements:

a. The applicant's name, address, phone number, and fax number.

b. A signed statement that the applicant is the owner of the property or officially acting on theowner's behalf.

c. The address and parcel number of the property.

[To Table ofCon tents]

Perrysburg Township Zoning Resolution Article XIIt, Page 5


SECTION D. SITE PLAN APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS (Contd.)

d. The name and address of the property owner(s) of record, if the applicant is not the owner.

e. Name, address, phone number, and fax number of the engineer, architect, and/or surveyor.

f. Project description, including the total number of structures, units, bedrooms, offices, squarefeet, total and useable floor area, parking spaces, employees by shift, and similar relatedproject-specific information.

g. Project completion schedule/development phases.

h. Names and addresses of all contiguous and adjacent property owners.

2. GRAPHIC REQUIREMENTSAll applications for Site Plan approval shall contain ten (10) 11" x 17" and four (4) 24"x 36" sets ofthe following graphic requirements:

a. A North arrow, scale, and date of original submission and last revision.

b. A vicinity map drawn at a scale of 1" =2000' with a north arrow indicated.

c. The Site Plan shall illustrate all existing natural land features, trees, forest cover, and waterresources, and all proposed changes to these features including size and type of plantniaterial. Water resources include ponds, lakes, streams, creeks, ditches, wetlands, floodplains, drainage retention areas, or other natural features that may affect development of theproperty in question. If regulatory flood plains are present on the site, 100-year floodelevations shall be shown on the plan based on information found on Flood Hazard BoundaryMaps provided by the Wood County Planning Commission.

d. Existing and proposed topographic elevations shall be shown with two-foot contour intervals.

eb. Identification of any significant site amenities or unique natural features.

f. The gross and net acreage of all parcels in the project.

g. The Site Plan shall show the zoning classifications, including overlay zoning classifications,of the subject property and all abutting property uses (residential, commercial, etc.), andapproximate location of abutting property, buildings, and/or structures and driveways.

h. The Site Plan shall indicate the exact dimensions of the property in question, and showexisting structure(s) with dimensions and proposed structure(s) with dimensions. The SitePlan shall indicate building removals and other alteration, if any, of existing property.

The Site Plan shall indicate, by name, all adjacent thoroughfares. The Site Plan shall showboth right-of-way and pavement widths measured from the centerline.

The Site Plan shall indicate the distance of existing and proposed structure(s) from right-of-way line of all adjacent thoroughfares and show front, side, and rear yard distances to thestructure(s).

(TO Ta6le of Confenlsj




k. The Site Plan shall include a Site Grading Plan pursuant to Article VII, Section F(Construction Excavation / Filling) with a completion date detailing at a minimum, the currentgrade of the site and surrounding property, finished grade of the site and volume of materialsto be used, along with plans for the collection and diversion of all surface water.'S

The Site Plan shall showthe location of all present and proposed utility systems including thewater supply system, sewage or septic systems, and storm drainage system.

(1) The Site Plan shall show the location of existing and proposed water mains, valves, andhydrants (all Fire Department connections shall be "Storz" connectionswith five (5) inchfittings), drain lines, culverts, catch basins, headwalls, endwalls, manholes, and drainageswales, detention areas, and storm system design calculations.'6

(2) Storm Water Plans. For new construction or expansion of commercial and industrialuses or change of uses on sites encompassing an area greater than one (1) acre, theapplicant shall submit storm water management plans prepared by a professionalengineer registered in the State of Ohio. Said plans shall be designed to meet bestmanagement principles and practices for storm water management, retention, ordetention adopted by the Wood County Soil and Water Conservation District or rulesand regulations promulgated bythe Wood County Engineer based upon agricultural run-off rates as appropriate. Detention ponds shall be subject to the design requirementsfound in Article VII, Section T (Ponds, Lakes, and Borrow Pits)."

m. The Site Plan shall indicate existing and proposed off-street parking, driveways, andrecreational areas with complete dimensions. Curb cuts shall be measured at the curb andthroat widths shall be indicated. The drawing shall include the number and size of proposedparking stalls along with the internal circulation pattern of the off-street parking and interiorlandscaping. If the off-street parking is physically joined with abutting property, thencirculation between the properties shall be shown.

n. Location and dimensions of all sidewalks, walkways, bicycle paths, driveways, and unloadingareas. A traffic impact study shall be attached if required pursuant to Section E (AccessControl Requirements).

o. Proposed location and dimensions of common spaces and common facilities, such asswimming pools or community buildings.

p. The Site Plan shall contain a copy of an approved Master Sign Plan or a Comprehensive SignPlan, as required in Article X, Section E.3. (Permit Procedures), which shows the location,dimensions, materials, illuminating characteristics (both internal and/or external) and designfor existing or proposed signs on the property. An application for a Signage Permit may besimultaneously processed as part of a Site Plan review.

q. All commercial and industrial uses requiring Site Plan approval shall be required to submit anillustration of the proposed landscaping plan pursuant to Article VIII, Section A (LandscapePlan Required) of this Article.

75 HISTORY: Amended Effectlve February 18, 2005



[TO Tabfe o/ Contenfs]


PERRYSBURG TOWNSHIP ZONING RESOLUTION ARTICLE XlllSITE PLAN REVIEW


r. The Site Plan shall indicate the locations, size (height), style, and material of all existing andproposed fencing on the subject property.

s. The Site Plan shall indicate the locations, dimensions, and illuminating power of all existingand proposed lighting on the subject property.

t. Location, size, and specifications for screening of all trash receptacles and other solid wastedisposal facilities.

u. Location and specifications for any existing or proposed above- or below-ground storagefacilities for any chemicals, salts, flammable materials or hazardous materials, as well as anycontainment structures or clear zones required by government authorities.

v. The Site Plan for a proposed drive-up establishment shall indicate locations of vehicularstacking spaces for each drive-up window.

w. For new construction or alterations to any existing building, a table containing the foliowinginformation must be included on the plan:

(1) Area of building to be used for a particular use such as retail operation, office, storage,etc.;

(2) Maximum number of employees;

(3) Maximum seating capacity, where applicable; and

(4) Number of parking spaces existing and required for the intended use.

x. A complete set of building drawings and plans as approved by the State Certified BuildingDepartment may be required.

SECTION E. ACCESS CONTROL REQUIREMENTS

Good land use and site planning are directly linked to the capacity of roadways to efficiently move trafficthrough an area and to provide safe access to adjoining property. Achieving an appropriate balancebetween roadway access and capacity not only reduces future congestion and accident rates, but alsoenhances emergency vehicle response times. While other government entities exercise control overroadway access, Perrysburg Township exercises related land use controls. To coordinate thedevelopment approval process, the developer/property owner shall meet the following requirements:

1. When a Traffic Impact Study (TIS), is required by the Ohio Department of Transportation accordingto the Access Control Manual or Wood County pursuant to ORC 5552, a copy of the submitted TISshall also be provided to Perrysburg Township as part of the required Site Plan review submissionmaterials.

('/o ia61e of Conlents)



SECTION E. ACCESS CONTROL REQUIREMENTS ( Contd.)

2. When The Ohio Department of Transportation or Wood County do not require a TIS, PerrysburgTownship may still require a TIS if such proposed development would be expected to generate onehundred (100) or more new or additional directional trips during the peak hour of generationaccording to the most recent version of the ITE trip generation manual. Such a TIS shall meet allof the requirements established by the Ohio Department of Transportation according to the AccessControl Manual. The developer / property owner shall provide such a TIS to Perrysburg Townshipas part of the required Site Plan review materials.

3. As part of the Site Plan review process, a specific driveway location(s) may be approved pursuantto an agreement requiring that such driveway(s) be closed when specific circumstances are met.Such circumstances may include the future construction of a service road on adjacent property, theopportunity for a shared driveway with development of adjacent property, or other site-specificcircumstances. This conditional approval may be required even if the driveway(s) conforms to allother requirements of this section.

[TO Ta67e ofCUnlents]


AUDITOR DOCUMENT SHOWING AC A OFWOLF, DeCHRISTOPHE R AND NEID H USE

Wood County, Ohio: Online Auditor - Property Data

Data For Parcel P60-400-160000046000

j

j

j

^

0

I

6ase Land Valuation Sales Sketch Tax Improvements Additions Resfdential Agricultural Commercial Comments

Land Data

Parcel: P60400-160000046000

Owner: WOLF WILLIAM 7 &ANTOINEfTE

Address: 0 THOMPSON RD

g land

tandTypeCalculated Actual

Acres FrontageEffectiveFrontage Factor

Ao_Row 1.53 0 0AB -Tllable

40.35 0 0 100%

Land Totals

DeededAcres: 41.88

Total Calculated Acres:

Total Value:

41.88

$322,800.00

Copyright 02007 Digital DaL't Tc:..0nalogies, Inc.

G15 parce/shape^file last updated 8/7/20091:50:18 PrvlPilMA database last updated 6/21/2009 8:47:53 AM.

[+] hlap this Fropert, a`I'e^

Base Unit Adjusted Appraised Value

Page 1 of 1

Rate Rate Rate (100^1o)

4000 4000 9000 $322,800.00

i^nnnnne^nnn

Wood County, Oliio: Online Auditor - Property Data

Data For ParceIP57-400-150000015000

Base Land valuation Sales Skeich Tax Improvenlen[s Additions Residential Agricultural Commercial Comments

Base Data

Parcel: P51-900-150000015000__-_^ ____._ .. . .. . .. . . . . . .. ..

Owner: DECHRISfOPHER]EFFREY3TRUSTEE


_ud

[+] Map tnls property.

Tax Mailing Address..__-.._.. _... _. _,:_

^ OwnerAddress

Tax Mailing Name: DECHRISfUPHER 7EFFREY J Owner Name: DECHR6TOPHER]EFPREYJ_....._ _.,.._

Address: 30548ELKPIEADOW WAY Address: 305 JEFFERSON

City State Zip: BUENA VISTA CO 81211 City $tateZip: EXPORT PA 15632

Geographic

City: UNSNCORPORATED

Township: PERRY50URG TOWNSHIP

School District: ROSSFORD EVSD

Legal

Legal Acres: 7881

4egal Description:USR 04 15 W3/4 NSW & N1/2 SW SW

LESS 5265' N414' W 195'

Homestead Reducdon:

2,5 %o Reduction O

Land Use: 101 CASH - GRAIN OR GENERAL FARM

Neighborhood: 00905

NumberOfCards: 0

Foreclasure+

Board of Revision:

NewCOnstruction:

NO

NO

NO.,Annual Txx (Does notinclude delinquencies.): $974.62

Map Number: 400-1500

Divided Property:

RoutingNumber:

NO

Copyright 9)2007 Digital Data Technologies, Inc.

G75 parcel shape9le last updated 8/7/20091:50:18 PM.L'AMA database last updated 8/21/2009 8.47h53 AM.

Page 1 of I

http://auditor.co.wood.oh.us/Data.aspx?ParcellD=P57-400-150000015000 8/24/2009

I Wood County, Ohio: Online Auditor - Property Data Page 1 of I

^

^

^

^

^

j

d

j

j

j

^

Data For Parcel P57-400-150000016000

Base Land Valuadon Sales Sketch Tax Improventents Additions Residential Agrlcultural Commercial Comments

Land Data

Parcel: P57400-150000016000

Owner: DCCHRISTOPHER]EFFREY 3 TRUSTEE


[+] Plap this property.

Land

d4nn TypeCalculated

Acres

Actual

Frontage

EffectlveFronfage

DepthDepthFactor

easeRate

UnitRate

AdjustedRate

Appraised Value(100°/a)

AB-Tllable 18 0 0 100% 4000 4000 4000 $72,000.00Type 2

AA_ Tillable 2 0 0 100 / 4800 4800 4000 $9,600.00

I Land Totals

Deeded Acres: 20

Total Calculated Acres: 20

Total Value: $81600.00

_Copyright @2007 Digital Data Technologies, Inc.

679 parce! shapefile last updated 8/7/20091:50:18PM.GIMA database last updated 8/21/2009 8:4753 AM.

httn:/lauditor.cn.wnnd.nhws/Datn »snx7ParcelTD=P57-400-1 50(100(11 h000 R124/20H09

I Wood County, Ohio: Online Auditor - Property Data Page 1 of 1

^

^

J

^

^

^

^

I

Data For Parcel P60-400-160000026000

Base Land Valuation Sales Sketch Tax Improvements Additions Residential Agricultural Commercial Comments

Land Data

Parcel: P60-400-160000026000

Owner: NEIDERIiOUSE ROLAND R 112 & SANORA K 1/2

Address: 0 FlE1DERHOllSE RD

] LandLandType Calculated Actual Effeclive

Acres Frontage FrontageAO 0 __.._- Raw 0.61 _ 0

A9 TlllablcType 2

Land Totals

Oeeded Acres: 40.71

Total Calculated Acres: 40.71

Total Value: $320,800.00

0

Copyright @2007 Digital Data Technologies, Inc.

G7Sparrel shapef/le Wst updated 8/7/20091r50:18 PM.C4MA dafabvse last updated 8/21/2009 8:47:53AM.

Depth

I

[+J 61ap this properry. -

Depth Base Unit Adjusted Appraised ValueFactor Ratc Rate Rate (100%)

100% 4000 4000 4000 $320,800.00

I http://auditor.co.wood.oh.us/Data.asuY?ParcellD=P60-400-160000026000 8/24/2009

M IN UTES THE AU U T 26, 2009 SPECIALMEETI NG OF THE WOOD C OUNTY BOARD

OF ELECTION S

From: Eastman & Smith Ltd.4193539934 To: <def_to> Page: 2/2 Date: 9110t2009 8:57:02 AM

NLi arrtea of the August 2bt 7Q49 5^ecial Mcctin^

The Wood County Board of Flections held a special meeling in the Gommissioner's Hearing Room on the fitth floor of the couttty OfficeBuilding in Bowling Groon, Ohio. The maeting was colled to order by the Chairman, I7ick Newiova, at 8:00 A.M. and tha purpono of',hcmeeting was to hear the Protest of the Pert/sburg Township Zoning Referendum.

Members present were Dick Nevrlove, Chairman, Al Baldwin, Vice-Chairman; Mike Marsh, Member; John Miller, Member; Terry Burton,Director; Debbie Hazard, Deputy airector, Also present were Max Rayle, the Board of Elechona legal caunsel, Brenda Griffiths, Secretary ofState'Field Uaisori and rhember's of the public 1rnGludirig'legal {ep rsentafiVe di the developets that arepratesfing the Penysburg TownshipZoning Referendum being certified to the baifot.

At the start of tho meeting the Board met in Executive session to consuit w3ih their legal counsel. lNhen the Board came out of executivesessioh and began the meefing Mr. Nswlovo made the foilowing announcements:

•"fhis is a statutonly required rneefing to determine the validity of a Protest to zoning referendum petitions certified to the ballot by thisBoard at the July 16, 2009 board nteeting.

• The hearing is not to diecuss the merits of [he re-zoning decision that the Perrysburg Tovanship t3ozrd of Trustees entered onDecember 17, 2007.

• Each side wlll be given 15 minules to present their case. Anyone who does notstay wifbin the scope of the hearing will be ruled out oforder by the Chair.

• It has come to ihe Board's atten8on that a person or persons unknown has added a paragraph to the Board Notice of this meeting.The Board and its agents and employees ttad nothing to do with either the creation of the addiGonal text and nothing to do vrirh ttredisttibution of that modifed nolice to anyone.

• TTho "map" issue raised by the Protestors In their notice will not be considered by the Board as the issue has already been tleterminedby the Wood County Court of Appeals in its decisian in Hurrtervr3rrtfen. decided February 11, 2009.

• The Board may not decide 1he Protest under consideration 6ased on personal opinions of any Board Members.

• The Board is bound to apply the law that has been announced by the Supreme Courtof Ohio and that body of precxlent contains arecent case that tha Baard is Familiar with: East (7hia Gas Co, vWoad County Board otElections, decided in 1998.

Lane wnliamson spoke an behalf of the Protest.ers. His asser6on was thatthe pe6Gons were inacGUrate, contained immaterial informat on, andwere ambiguous and misleading. Various people spoke for the issue going on the ballot Theircontention was that the petitians weresuffcient and the signers had a clear understanding of what they were signing. (The Wood County Board of Eta^fions has a full transcript ofthe proceedings that is available to the public.)

After hearing all testimony Mr. Marsh made a motion, socanded by Mr, Miller, to deny the Protest on the Neiderhouse Parcel.

Roll Call: Mr. N1arsh-Yes, Mr. Miller - Yes; Mr. Beldwin - Yes, Mr. Newlave - Yes-

Mr. Marsh made a motion, seconded by Mr. Miller, to deny the Protest on he t>eChristopher Parcei,

Roll Call: Mr. Marsh - Yes, Mr. Miller - Yes; Mr. Baldwin - Yes, Mr, Newlove -Yes-

Mr. Miller made a mo6on, seconded by Mr. Marsh, to deny the Protest an the Waif Parcel.

Rol€ Call: Mr. Mllter - Yes, Mr. Marsh - Yes; Mr. Baldwin -Yas, Mr. Newlove - Yes,

There being no furrher businass to come before the Board, the meeting was adtaurned at 8:40 ant.

Approved: Attest ^ ^" ^^^

From: Eastman & Smith Ltd.4193539934 To: <def_to> Page: 2/2 Date: 9/10/2009 8:57:02 AM

T N IPT OF THE C DINBEFORE THE COUNTY BOARD OF

ELECTIONS ON AUGU ST 26, 2009

ORIGIBEFORE THE WOOD COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS

IN RE:

Referendum ProtestHearing, PerrysburgTownship Resolutions2007-27, 2007-28 and2007-29

Transcript of Proceedings taken before me,

Julie K. Latham, Registered Merit Reporter and

Notary Public in and for the State of Ohio, at the

Wood County Board of Elections, Wood County Office

Building, One Courthouse Square, Fifth Floor,

Bowling Green, Ohio commencing, Wednesday, August

26th, 2009, at 8:00 a.m.

llll

SEAGATEReporting Service, Inc.

405 Madison Avenue, Suitc 900 - Toledo, OH 43604

reoNs: 419-241-2070 Toi.i. FREE: 888-419-2070 Psx: 419-241-4718 wex, ^vw.seagatereporting.com

2

1

2

3

4

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

APPEARANCES:

Board OF Elections Members:

Dick Newlove - ChairAl Baldwin - Vice ChairMike Marsh - MemberJohn Miller - Member

Also Present:

Terry Burton - Board DirectorDebbie Hazard- Board Deputy DirectorMax Rayle - Board AttorneyLane D. Williamson, Eastman and Smith, Attorneyfor Miller Diversified Holdings and McCarthyBuilders, Inc.,

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Good morning. This is

the meeting of the Wood County Board of Elections. I'm

Dick Newlove, the Chairman of the Board. To my right

is John Miller a member, Al Baldwin who is vice chair,

and Mike Marsh, who is the fourth member. The people

to Mike's right are Terry Burton, the director of the

Board, and Debbie Hazard, a deputy director. To my

left is Max Rayle, attorney, who is representing the

Board.

Before we begin here I'd like -- I'm just

going to make some announcements as far as how we

intend to conduct this hearing. This is a statutorily

required hearing to determine the validity of the

protest of the zoning referendum petitions. This is

not a public hearing to discuss the merits of rezoning

3

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

of the Perrysburg Township parcels. That is not the

function of this Board. Anyone who does not stay

within the scope of what this hearing is will be ruled

out of order by the Chair.

It's become known to the Board that a person

or persons unknown has apparently added a paragraph to

the official Board notice of this meeting. The Board

wishes to make it clear the Board and its agents/

employees had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with

either the creation of the additional text and

certainly nothing to do with the distribution of that

modified notice to anyone. I just wanted to make that

clear before we started.

Third point is the map issue. The map issue

raised by the protestors in their notice will not be

considered by the Board. The issues have already been

determined by the Wood County Court of Appeals in its

decision of February 9th of this year.

The standard to be applied to the referenduin

petition summary the Board inay not decide the protest

under consideration based on the personal opini.ons of

any of the Board members. We are bound by the law that

has been announced by the Supreme Court of Ohio and

that by precedent is contained in a recent case that

the Board is very familiar with, the East Ohio Gas

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

versus the Wood County Board of Elections decided 1998.

I would like also to say we have written -- we

have received a fair amount of written correspondence,

and you can assume that that correspondence has been

read by the Board.

MR. RAYLE: May I interject something?

The Board should have the public note that we prepared

in a prehearing record that contains all of the

information that will be relevant to this including the

Board notice, the zoning applications initially filed,

and the township resolutions, a sample of each of the

petitions that were circulated, the Wood County

prosecutor's opinion from 2008, the decision in Hunter

versus Briton, the Board minutes that approved the

petitions initially, the notice of protest. Those are

all a part of the official record, don't need to be

repeated, and they're going to be with the transcript.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Anyone that wishes

to speak during this hearing should identify themselves

to the court reporter, and we'd appreciate if you would

spell your name for her to make her life just a little

bit easier.

How we intend to proceed here is we're going

to first ask to hear from the protestors and then from

the petitioners. Do the petitioners have a formal

5

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

representative?

MR. HUNTER: My name is John Hunter.

I'm a resident. I'm an attorney, but it would probably

be unfair to say I represent a group. Mr. Bloom

represented the group. He's not able to be here today,

so I'm here and I'm happy enough to spealc, but to be

clear, while I'm an attorney I'm more of a resident,

and I believe as well a number of the neighbors would

like to address the Board.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: That will be fine. We

intend to give each side 15 minutes to discuss this

matter, and then we will move on at that point. Does

anyone else on the Board have anything that I haven't

covered? Okay. Then, Mr. Williamson, the clock is

running. Go ahead.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you. Good

morning. Lane Williamson, that's L-a-n-e,

W-i-l-l-i-a-m-s-o-n. I'm from Eastman and Smith and I

represent the parties that filed the protest in this

case. As you know, that's Miller Diversified Holdings

and McCarthy Builders. Here with me at the table is

Herb Miller on behalf of Miller Diversifi.ed Holdings.

I do appreciate the Board's consideration of

this matter, also what was prefaced by Mr. Newlove in

terms of the protocol of the hearing.

6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Some of what I will present to you today will

undoubtedly be issues that we believe are relevarrt to

the presentation we're tryirrg to make; and so, to the

extent that they depart into those areas we would ask

for a bit of latitude. We are not here -- specifi.cally

not here to try to rehear the Sixth District cases.

We're well aware of what those provide. But we do

believe, and I think what this Board recognizes, is

what's before you is the question of whether the

summary, the brief summary, that was contained in the

petitions is accurate according to the standard of Ohio

law; and so, that's the focus of our presentati_on.

We'll try to get it movi_ng here.

I would say we do have evidence that we're

going to submit; and so, in the nature of the evidence

that will be in the record we do have the map

i.nformation. You won't hear testimony on it, as you'd

indicated, but our position is that the circulation

process is relevant to the overall handling of these

petitions and the affect on the people that signed it,

so we will present that evidence for the record, and I

guess more or less we're objecting to its exclusion,

but we wiil not take any time in hearing it today.

What I'd like to do with that then is proceed

pretty quickly here into our presentation. What we're

7

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

telling you today is that we believe that these

petitions are invalid for a number of reasons. I'll

explain that in greater detail. We believe that

they're inaccurate in some respects. We believe that

there were material omissions in other respects, and in

context of how the information was presented we believe

that they are both misleading and ambiguous. So, all

of those factors being considered we think that you

will see that one, two, maybe all three, of these

petitions are, in fact, invalid under the standard that

the Ohio law has adopted and that you have the ability

and should exercise your discretion to strike them from

the record.

There's some policy considerations that I

think need to be taken into consideration here. Very

briefly, we understand the public's interest and right

to vote on matters that are properly before the --

before the public on the ballot. The properties

owner's rights are also important.

T'his case is about zoning that has already

been approved subject to the right of referendum, so we

view it from a vested property right perspective.

Perrysburg Township also have, I believe, an interest

in this case, and that information and those

considerations should be taken seriously, and I'm sure

8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

you will.

The key really is to decide wheri it's

appropriate to place an issue on the ballot or strike

it from the ballot; and so, we would ask you to

consider those factors as we go through this.

I told you that I think that the petitions are

inaccurate. Mainly I think they're inaccurate because

they include information that they didn't need to and

that that information is wrong in some respects.

There are also material omissions that I would

point out to you that I think were critical in the

zoning process that came before this protest and by the

fact of those omissions the petitions became misleading

and ambiguous, confusing to the average voter.

Now, the key issue therein, and I think you

know this, is that it's an objective standard. It's

not whether anyone was confused. We're not going to

say that anyone was. Your job is simply to determine

would the average voter be confused, and we think

you'll say yes.

Another issue is that lack of confusion is not

a defense, so if you hear from anyone today that says,

well, I wasn't confused, we don't believe that that's a

relevant consideration either. Again, it's an

objective standard.

9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

I will not bore you with too many of the

facts, but I do want to tell you in light of the

comments regarding the East Ohio case, as I think you

all may remember that was a highly charged situation

11 years ago and this this is basically the same.

This has been going on, this zoning effort, rezoning

effort, since 2005. There have been three separate

applications; one in 2005 that was withdrawn, one in

2006 that was refiled and considerations taken into

account affecting the developer, but also hopefully

addressing neighbor.s' concerns, and then finally a

third that was filed.

And by the way, that second application was

approved by the township trustees, but was modified in

a way that made development not feasible, so we came

back for a third time and we came back in a way that we

thought was palatable to all parties. Obviously, that

didn't turn out to be the case, but at the end of the

day what came out of that third hearing with was there

were three separate zoning resolutions which are now

before you in this case.

Also as part of those zoning resolutions there

are important conditions that were imposed by the

trustees. Those conditioris were intended to (A) keep

the property in Perrysburg Township and have it

10

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

developed there, and (B) limit density and other uses

of the property that might affect the neighbors. So,

those considerations were taken into account by the

township. The developer accepted those conditions.

The neighbors ultimately opposed those reso].utions in

the form of the petition that's before you.

I tell you again that because that is very

analogous to the East Ohio case. That case, if you

remember, turried on the omission of a key word, key

phrase, but due to that material omission it was

ultimately determined those petitions were invalid.

So, the context of high emotion, high anxiety, I guess

if you will, over these issues is really, really,

relevant to us in terms of what is the effect of a

petition on the average voter.

I think you kriow what 509.12(h) requires in

terms of the brief summary, so I'm not going to bore

you with that requirement. What I would like to put in

the record is, so you may know, probably do, but I

think it's important because it bears out in the

discussion later, first of all, legal descriptions as

far as I know are not required, neither is the acreage

of the property to be developed. I'm not aware of any

requirement in the code or in case law that says you

have to put a legal description in the petition. So,

11

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

if you do it, arguably you do it at your own risk.

It's inaccurate, if it's misleading, we believe that

that risk is borne by the Petitioner's, not the

developer, not the township.

The other thing that I think is important is

that the summary issue can be handled very simply by a

petitioner. They can attach an accurate copy of the

zoning resolution that was passed to the petition, and

Ohio law is pretty clear that is sufficient, that's a

brief summary.

They didn't do that in this case. If they had

done that we might not be here today. But the fact of

the matter is that brief summary can be attached in the

form of the resol.ution that was passed. They did not

do that. Again, I believe that if at that point the

petitioner takes the risk that any summary that they

place on the petition can be inaccurate and misleading.

With that I'd like to get into very quickly

our basic presentation here. I have what I'm going to

call a composite exhibit. Soine of this information is

already before you. I've got two more. So, again to

the extent that this is redundant we will not belabor.

What this is organized to show you is that by

parcel there were defects in the proceedings. And it's

organized Wolff resolution -- the Wolff petition, the

12

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

DeChristopher the same, and then Neiderhouse the same,

and then at the very end you have property transfer

information.

This is where the issue of the acreage and the

real estate becomes important, so ].et's quickly get

into that. Again, I've incorporated from what we got

from the township I believe and the Board of Elections

in the form of the resolution and the petitions. These

notations on these copies are not ours, somebody else

did that, but under Tab B for the Wolff parcel you will

see a highlighted version of the petition. This is our

marking. And throughout these marked petitions the

green color coding is intended to draw your attention

to the legal description or acreage issues that we're

calling irrto question, and the yellow is the conditiori

that we believe has not been properly either expressed

or placed in a way that is not misleading or ambiguous

to the average voter, confusing to the average voter.

With Wolff very quickly you see the green, the

green highlighting says that the proposed -- or the

resulting was to affect two parcels, one of which is

41 acres, legally described as, and then it goes

through a description we believe is unnecessary, but

it's there, but it also says the other of which is

30.592 acres legally described as and it continues on.

13

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. RAYLE: The protestors have

five minutes left. You might want to ask them if they

want to save anything for rebuttal.

MR. WILLIAMSON: I'll get through what I

have to say and we'll be done. The bottom line is

that's wrong. The tax card will show that's one

parcel, that 40 acres. That's a material error. We

believe that, therefore, that petition is invalid on

its face. Invalid because, remember, people were

concerned about how much property is being developed.

It isn't immaterial. It's not a rounding error. It's

a significant probleni.

Now I'm going to make my comment regarding

yellow. It applies to all three. This is not an

accurate, in our opinion, summary of the conditions

that were imposed in each of those resolutions because

it doesn't express in its entirety verbatim the

important conditions that the township trustees placed

on this zoning. All right? So, that is the same

argument for all three parcels. Importantly, though,

in the two that I first listed here, Wolff and

DeChristopher, this is placed in a manner in which I

don't think anybody could see it and understand it. No

one could understand what that means, so do me a favor,

just look back at the Wolff resolution under petition

14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A -- or excuse me, Tab A, and just look at that and ask

yourself is it reasonable to believe that anybody could

unde.rstand what was going on in terms of this brief

summary with regard to that zoning resolution after you

try to parse your way through a legal description

that's incorrect on its face and doesn't even need to

be there, isn't even required by law. That's the

argument with regard to Wo1ff.

Okay. Now, quickly if you will please turn to

Tab B under DeChristopher, little different, but

same -- same basic argument. They've got a legal

description that they don't need by law and they have

used at least three, and perhaps four, different

references to acreage. It's confusing. How many acres

is it? Is it 99 or is it 1.86? The average person

would not know and would not be able to discern what,

in fact, the trustees acted upon based on that.

If you look at that highlighting, those green

highlights, the same argument that I just made

regarding Wolff I'll reiterate in terms of the

condition; it's in a manner and in a location in which

it is not reasonable to expect that anyone would be

able to appreciate what it means, and that was an

important condition.

Last, I will go to Neiderhouse and I will ask

15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

you to look at Tab B of Neiderhouse.

Again, as you've done, this is a little bit'

harder to follow, so bear with me. Again, you have a

reference to acreage attempting to describe what is the

property being rezoned. Okay? The problem is there's

a material omission. That parcel is over 40 acres.

This isn't about a little rounding error. They've said

that this, the parcel, is 37.126 acres in size. That's

wrong. I've attached a tax card that I got from the

Wood County auditor's office. It's over 40 acres.

So, the point is they have filed two, they

have omitted a material amount of property, over

three acres. Why is it material? Because it wasn't

rezoned. It was left agricultural. It was left to be

undeveloped.

Again, in the context of this case that's a

big deal. Three and a half acres translates into

roughly ten or more lots to the developer. That's

material in 2007, you can bet it's material in 2009.

So, it's not a rounding error. It's not a math error.

It's not inconsequential, and it's really important

when you think about it because that didn't need to be

there. These legal descriptions, this acreage, is not

required as far as I know by any statute, by any case.

It's there gratuitously, so when you put it in, you run

16

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the risk.

Again, I'll restate the point that we don't

L-hink that the condition that is highlighted in yellow

in Neiderhouse is compliant with the summary

requirements because it doesn't fully iriform the

average voter of the importance of the condition which

you only get if you have it restated. Once again, if

that resolution has been attached to the petitions, we

are not here to argue today that there's a defect.

Why? Because the condition is stated completely. As

it is here, it is not. All right?

So, with that I will conclude. I will save a

few concluding remarks, if you will indulge me, after

anyorie else cares to speak.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: All right, thank

you.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Sir.

MR. HUNTER: I'm John Hunter.

You can spell Iiunter? Very brief comments as I know

there are other residents here that I think wish to

speak, and I'm pleased, to say the least, that the maps

issue is gone. I was rather disappointed to see that

the developers would attempt to mislead this Board with

that issue. The Court of Appeals is very clear, the

1 "7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

maps were attached.

My point would be, however, that it's, as

disappointing as i.t is, measure their statements by the

fact they included that in the first place if they

would assert that the maps weren't attached perhaps

then as you measure their opinions with respect to the

petitions, otherwise keep that in mind.

And I agree with Lane that the real question

is whether or not the petitions inform people about the

resolutions and that which they were to vote about. I

also don't disagree that the legal descriptions didn't

need to be there, but what is noteworthy and from my

point of view, if I said to anybody on this Board I'd

like to talk about the parcel out there in section

five, town six, range four, with the exception of

perhaps Mr. Marsh, who does a whole lot of title work,

you guys aren't going to know what I'm talking about.

On the other hand, if I say, guys, we have a

rezoning petition for the parcel at Neiderhouse and

Thompson on the southeast corner, if you're from the

area and know that area when I tell you, just as all of

the petitioners do, that it's the parcel out at the

southeast corner of Thompson and Neiderhouse you're

going to know what I'm talking about. And, frankly, I

probably agree with Mr. Williamson, most people aren't

18

1

2

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

going to read that legal descr.iption. They know where

Thompson and Neiderhouse is, they know what the

southwest corner is, and they know what you're talking

about. And that's what the petitions do and that's

what the petitions say.

In addition to that, if you take a look at the

language with respect to the important conditions --

and clearly there were important conditions in the

resolution, and I can't speak as to why Mr. Bloom

didn't, frankly, just attach the resolution to the

petitions. I don't do this type of law. I have no

idea why we didn't do that. Seems to me it would have

been easier and perhaps, as Mr. Williamson said, we

wouldn't be here today. Although, I think we would.

But at the end of the day if, you read the

resolution and you read the language that's in the

petition it's very clear, if you will, the deal was,

because that's what it was, it was a deal between the

township and the developer to avoid annexation, and

what the petitions say and what the resolution say is,

guys, no more deals.

If you -- if we let you have this zoning,

which as Mr. Williamson pointed out has been going on

for multiple years, it was turned down by the plan

commission. It was turned down by the trustees. It

19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

was only when the developers threatened the township

that they would go to the city and get what they wanted

and annex this to the city and put in the developments

that a deal was cut and the deal was no annexation, and

if you read the petitions that's what's in the

petitions. You'll stop that. You'll -- there were

agreements for Emerald Lakes, which is, I won't say

contiguous, but out where all these parcels are, and

the developers, and what they have done previously is

they retained a right when they gave those deeds, and

that relates to the affidavit, that they could come in

and essentially force those folks to vote on their

behalf with the annexation.

And so, when you talk about what's important

and you talk about the history, well, that's what's

important and that's what the history was and that's

what's reflected in the petitions, is that all of that

went away.

And if you read the petitions, and I think

we're required to assume, even though, again, I would

acknowledge most folks probably didn't, when you

measure this, the question is does the petition

reflect, if you will, that deal. And the petition

does. And it reflects the agreement that was made and

it reflects the terms of the resolution that the issues

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

with respect to annexation go away. And everybody on

this Board I suspect can or has already read the

petitions and you can read the language in the

resolution. It's not lengthy.

And admittedly, in the petitions, yes, it's in

the midd].e of a rather lengthy paragraph. That doesn't

mean it's misleading or certainly doesn't mean it's not

there.

I would point out as well, to be very clear, I

think Mr. Rayle will tell you the same thing, it is not

required that the same language or identical language

be in there, just that the concept be there and it be

there in a not misleading fashion.

And if you review the petitions particularly

in light of take our decision in the Court of Appeals

or take the East Ohio decision, the purview of the

Board should -- the overlying consideration should be

whether or not this, the referendum, gets to the

ballot. And there is a preference to have this

referendum as a matter of law get to the ballot. And

when you review the petitions in that fashion I think

that you'll find that the petitions fairly and

accurately describe the parcels at the southwest

boarder or wherever they happen to be and they

accurately describe the deal with respect to the

21

( 1 resolution.

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Is there anyone else who

wishes to speak?

MS. HUNTER: Lynn Hunter, and I would

just like to say to the Board I was one of the

circulators of the petitions and when I approached the

neighbors to say this is what's happening, these are

where the parcels are located, I verbally told them

prior to them even reading the petitions, so that they

had a good view of exactly where these parcels were.

And everybody that I spoke with if they had a question

I described which house is next to the parcel and

exactly where it was on each of the locations so that

they were aware exactly where these parcels of land

stood -- sat. Thank you.

MR. ARBITRATOR: Sir.

MR. W. SCHWARTZ: William Schwartz,

S-c-h-w-a-r-t-z. I too circulated the petitions and

like Mrs. Hunter people would say to me where are these

located at and I would give them a description, corner

of Thompson and Neiderhouse, just to the south of there

on the other side of Thompson is where the larger

parcel is, and I live next door to the Neiderhouse

property.

I guess one other thing that wasn't brought up

22

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

here was that in order for us to initiate this process

we needed a resolution, and on December the 17th, 2007,

is when the rezoning was done. My wife repeatedly

called the township office to find out when the

resolutions would be available. It wasn't until

January the 2nd of 2008 when those resolutions were

filed with the clerk of courts. So, they chewed up

over half of the 30 days that we are allotted to get

these petitions in.

So, it appears as though we're being, you

know, stopped or attempted to be stopped by a number of

different people, the township trustees and the

township administration as well as the developers.

And I think what needs to be done is have the

voters have an oppo.rtunity to have their voice heard by

placing this referendum on the ballot.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Is there anyone

else who wishes to speak?

MR. T. SCHWARTZ: I'm Tom

Schwartz, S-c-h-w-a-r-t-z. I also handed out petitions

and I don't know, I'm sure everybody in this room has

gotten a petition. Pretty much when I walked up to the

door no one actually read the petition. You explain it

to them verbally and I did, as the others, I explained

exactly on Neiderhouse and Thompson where it was at and

23

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

then on Neiderhouse Road what's the north side of the

road. I live right across from the property, and we'd

explain it because there's only a few vacant lots that

are undeveloped on those streets.

And I -- maybe one percent of the people read

those. I don't know how many actually stand when

they're at the door, and it was rather cold out, and

actually read through them. I mean, I know when I did

get hit with a petition I listen to the person and take

that as face value and go on from that. I don't read

through it because a lot of it I don't understand

because it is more what I call lawyer type-s, so --

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Okay. Anyone else?

Sir?

MR. GOMINGER George Gominger,

G-o-m-i-n-g-e-r, 26276 East Wexford Drive, Perrysburg.

With all the due process that has gone on in this case

over time we respect that the Board of Elections will

place this on the ballot so that the citizens can

exercise their democratic rights to vote on it. Thank

you.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Anyone else? Does

the Board have any questions of anyone? Then

Mr. Williamson has a minute; is that right?

MR. WILLIAMSON: One minute, let's

24

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

talk. Two points I'd like to say in rebuttal. I think

I've already made the point, but I think it bears

repeating briefly. It's an objective standard, and

with all due respect to the circulators, the petition

is required to speak for itself and when it's

misleading -- or excuse me, when it's inaccurate or it

contains material omissions and it's confusing it must

be stricken.

Your duty -- this is no -- this is not me

talking, this is case law -- these are mandatory

requirements and they require you to engage in strict

compliance and application of the law.

So, in our view you've heard that there are

material errors, material omissions, and we believe

that as a result of those these petitions are

misleading and they're confusing to the average voter

irrespective of whether that average voter actually

heard what they heard or what they didn't hear. The

point is the petitions speak for themselves and we

believe they're defective.

We would sintply ask that you look at each of

them independently and act on them independently.

Obviously they are separate resolutions. This is not a

package of resolutions. They all should be considered

independently and acted upon accordingly. Thank you.

25

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Thank you. Again,

anything from any of the Board members? What is your

pleasure, gentlemen?

MR. BALDWIN: Does everybody here know

that this petition came to the Board back in July and

the Board voted unanimously to accept the petition and

there is an appeal of our decision in favor of putting

it on the ballot based on legal arguments that they've

just outlined. So, I just -- I'm not sure that

everybody knew this is the second time we're visiting

this subject in the last two months.

MR. W. SCHWARTZ: William Schwartz,

S-c-w-h-w-a-r-t-z. No, I was not aware. I never read

that that had happened nor was I ever made aware of

that decision.

MR. BALDWIN: I wasn't sure everybody

was. I wanted to make sure everybody here knows

we've -- we've -- in essence, procedurally what's

taking place is that the Board acted on the petitions

and were submitted recertified, then legal protest to

our decision was filed, and that's what we're dealing

with today.

MR. W. SCHWARTZ: We`ve been kept in the

dark about many of the things that have gone on with

this. Earlier when the Board of -- when the Board of

26

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Trustees for Perrysburg Township decided to not certify

these, the petitions, none of the persons that were

involved in circulating the petitions were ever

informed that there was going -- that was going to be

one of the items on the agenda at that meeting. It

wasn't until later when we read it in the paper that

they had sought a legal opinion and had a number of

points as to why they were not going to certify the

petitions. So, we ended up finding information after

it's all already been done.

MR. BALDWIN: Our meetings are

publically announced. The meeting we had July 16th was

publically announced. We had people in attendance, in

fact, but not this number, but I -- that's the reason

why I thought some of you might want to know that.

MR. W. SCHWARTZ: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Thank you. Mr. Marsh.

MR. MARSH: Mr. Chairman, I'd like

to make a motion.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Yes.

MR. MARSH: I move we deny the

petition on the Neiderhouse parcel.

MR. RAYLE: The protest?

MR. MARSH: The protest.

MR. BALDWIN: Second.

27

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: All in favor of -- is

there any discussion? (No response.) All in favor of

Mr. Marsh's motion?

MR. BALDWIN: Aye.

MR. MARSH: Aye.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Aye.

MR. MILLER: We're denying --

MR. RAYLE: Denying the protest.

You're not upholding what you did before because what

you did in the first instance was to certify the

signatures being valid. Now there's a legal issue of

whether the petitions as circulated were proper under

Supreme Court standards, so you're ruling not on your

prior decision but on the protest itself.

MR. BALDWIN: You're moving to deny

the protest.

MR. RAYLE: Right.

MR. MILLER: Right. Unfortunately I

guess I am.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Motion is passed.

MR. MARSH: Mr. Chairman, I move we

deny the protest on the DeChristopher parcel.

MR. BALDWIN: Second.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Any discussion? (No

response.) All in favor of the motion?

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MR. MARSH: Aye.


MR. MILLER: Aye.

MR. BALDWIN: Aye.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Motion is passed. Any

further motions?

MR. RAYLE: There has to be a motion

of some kind on the Wolff parcel.

MR. BALDWIN: I move that we deny the

protest of the Wolff petition.

MR. RAYLE: Protest.

MR. MARSH: I'll second.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Is there any discussion?

(No response.) All in favor?

MR. BALDWIN: Aye.


MR. MILLER: Aye.

MR. MARSH: Aye.

CHAIRMAN NEWLOVE: Opposed? (No response.)

Motion is passed. Is there anything else to come

before this hearing? If not, we are adjourned.

(Hearing adjourned at 8:41 a.m.)

25

C E R 3' I F I C A T E

STATE OF OHIOSS

I, 3uli-e K.,Latham, Reporter and Notary Public in

and for the State of Ohio, duly commissioned and qualified, do

hereby certify that the foregoing is true and correct, and

complete transcript of the proceedings in the foregoing

captioned matter.

I do further certify that I am not a relative,

employee,.os attorney of any of the parties or counsel

employed by the parties hereto .or financially interested in

this action, nor am I or the court reporting firm with which I

am affiliated under a contract as defined in Civil Rule 29

(D).

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed

my notarial seal of office at Toledo, Ohio, this 8TH day of

September, 2009.

Julie K. Latham, RMRNotary Public in and for the

State of Ohio

My commission expires February 4, 2014.

s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s-s ... s"i'a't1; op 01110)...

Documents