Clayton City Council voted 6–1 to repeal a previously adopted ordinance that approved the Planning Commission’s recommendation for a zoning change and preliminary development plan for SDG Warner Village LLC, a sizable development the prior ordinance had covered.

The ordinance repealed was listed on the council agenda as Ordinance 0012502; at the meeting, the repeal was carried by a 6–1 roll-call vote after council discussion and an explanation from the law director, Martina, who said Ohio case law supports the position that once a municipal legislative authority repeals an ordinance, any referendum filed against that ordinance is moot and the Board of Elections should not submit that measure to voters.

Why it matters: Repealing an approved ordinance for a major subdivision effectively withdraws city legislative approval of the project as it had been granted; the law director advised council that, under Ohio law and precedent, the Board of Elections should remove a repealed ordinance from the ballot even if petitioners had filed a referendum petition.

Details in the meeting

- The ordinance on the agenda (Ordinance 00725-12) was titled to repeal Ordinance 0012502, which had adopted Planning Commission recommendations approving SDG Warner Village LLC’s change from RSD to PDD and a preliminary plan for roughly 183.1044 acres near Sweet Potato Ridge Road and Main Street.

- Law director Martinez (identified in the meeting as Martina) explained her view that Ohio case law shows that repeal by the legislative authority makes a referendum moot and the Board of Elections should not submit the measure to voters. Martina read language summarizing that position, saying the board “shall not submit such ordinance or measure to a vote of the electors.”

Council action

- Motion: Motion to approve repeal of Ordinance 0012502 (mover: Gorman; second: Merkel).
- Vote: Yes — Council Member Farmer; Council Member Gorman; Council Member Merkel; Council Member Kelly; Council Member Bachman; Council Member Stevens (6). No — Council Member Henning (1). Outcome: Ordinance repealed (6–1).

What was not decided: The council’s repeal removes the earlier city approval in ordinance form; if developers seek to proceed they would need to refile applications and obtain fresh Planning Commission and council approvals. Any pending referendum petitions related to the prior ordinance should be rendered moot per the law director’s interpretation; the Board of Elections was advised not to place a now-repealed ordinance on the ballot.

Next steps: The law director’s office will provide the council with the cited case law and coordinate with the Montgomery County Board of Elections if a referendum petition had been filed to ensure the ballot reflects the repeal.