South Euclid City Oakwood Country Club Rezoning Question (November 2011)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A South Euclid City Oakwood Country Club Rezoning Question was on the November 8, 2011 ballot in the city of South Euclid, which is in Cuyahoga County.

This measure was approved

  • YES 4,281 (55.3%)Approveda
  • NO 3,460 (44.7%)[1]

This measure sought to reverse the proposed rezoning of the Oakwood Country Club property from the proposed mixed green space and retail plans so just green space land. This measure was brought to the ballot through a petition drive by residents. When the city refused to place the measure on the ballot, residents took up the issue with the Ohio Supreme Court which ruled that the petition was valid and the city had no valid reason to refuse to place the measure once it was deemed to have the required number of signatures. The President of the Council saw this development as a way for the city to grow, but those opposed would rather see development in the already established retail area at Cedar Shopping Center.[2] The company which had plan to develop the area, noted that they are confident they will still be able to develop and are still continuing with planning the area.[3]

The President of the development company had asked the Ohio Supreme Court to take another look at the measure and remove it from the ballot. They noted that the case seemed to be contrary to others and hoped the court would hear their case.[4] But the Court ruled against the reconsideration request of the development company, stated that they upheld their previous decision to allow the measure to be on the ballot.[5]

The developer of the area was still able to begin its work regardless of the upcoming vote, city officials stated. They noted that they did not think residents will reverse the zoning ordinance and that even if the developers start now there will be no issues come election time. The developing coming though stated that while they could begin work, they would wait for the vote as they were confident voters would keep the zoning in place.[6]

Additional reading

References