Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Village solicitor says Ordinance 13-09 is void for lack of council public hearing
Summary
Village Solicitor Christopher Moore told the Mount Orab council the zoning change in Ordinance 13-09 is void because the council did not hold a required public hearing; he cited Ohio Revised Code Section 713.12 and a federal case in support of his opinion.
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Christopher Moore, the village solicitor, told the council on Monday that Ordinance 13-09 is void because Village Council did not hold the statutorily required public hearing after the Planning Commission’s recommendation.
"It is my opinion that the procedural defect took place, included the lack of a public hearing held by Village Council, and that, as a result, renders Ordinance 13-09 void," Moore said, citing Ohio Revised Code Section 713.12 and the federal decision in Jessica Sharp v. City of Wilmington as consistent authorities.
Moore said an appropriate public hearing had occurred at the Planning Commission, but the absence of a subsequent council hearing meant the zoning change was not lawfully enacted. "As such, it is the position of me as the Village Solicitor and therefore the position of the Village of Mount Orab that ordinance 13-09 is void and by matter of law, the Zoning Code in effect prior to its passage or attempted passage, is still in effect," he said.
Council members acknowledged the solicitor’s opinion and said they would work to notify the public where necessary. Moore told the council that to enact new zoning, the council would have to proceed as if Ordinance 13-09 had not taken effect and hold any required hearings or procedures anew.
Moore framed his conclusion as an attorney’s opinion and said he reached it after review of the ordinance, the record of proceedings, and applicable law. The council did not vote on the ordinance itself during the meeting; Moore’s legal opinion was presented as guidance on the ordinance’s current legal status.

