Worthington Spotlight

Popular Categories

Judge rules mostly for Worthington in Lifestyle case



Worthington officials said they largely are pleased with the findings of a U.S. District Court concerning a battery of complaints Lifestyle Communities levied against the city in connection with the city’s rejection of a rezoning application in December 2021 for the former United Methodist Children’s Home site.

“It’s a significant ruling and a validation of our stance that Worthington has a right to exercise discretion in its zoning considerations,” said Worthington City Council President David Robinson.

Despite the dismissal of the majority of the complaints of Lifestyle Communities against Worthington, the court correctly found that Worthington’s “unlawful restrictions on the property are so oppressive” as to “constitute a taking of the property,” said Joseph Miller, attorney for Lifestyle and partner of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease.

In Lifestyle Communities v. City of Worthington, in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Ohio, U.S. District Court Judge Sarah Morrison agreed with the city of Worthington and dismissed eight of the 10 complaints filed by the plaintiff, Lifestyle Communities.

The case stems from a land dispute concerning 37.6 acres at 1033 High St., owned by Lifestyle Communities.

The large and prominent parcel once was the site of the United Methodist Children’s Home, just west of the Worthington Municipal Building.

“Lifestyle claims that Worthington’s city leaders have illegally stonewalled its efforts at developing the property so that the city can purchase it at a reduced price to develop it as a public park,” the opinion stated.

The property owner brought nearly a dozen complaints against the city for its handling of Lifestyle’s attempted rezoning of the property, ranging from a violation of equal protection to a violation of due process to a violation of free expression.

Lifestyle Communities alleged the city has “delayed and ultimately blocked the property’s development through completely arbitrary and capricious abuses of power that disregards Lifestyle’s rights secured through the United States and Ohio Constitutions.”

But all but two of the 10 complaints were dismissed, with Morrison allowing Lifestyle’s complaint that it has been the victim of a “partial regulatory taking” to be upheld and continue to be pursued.

The judge also denied Worthington’s request to dismiss Lifestyle’s request for a declaratory judgment because the partial taking complaint is allowed to move forward.

“Lifestyle Communities will absolutely prove” that the city’s action equates to a partial taking of the property, Miller said, as its value is significantly less because of it.

“The city remains potentially liable for tens of millions of dollars in damages for the taking of this private property,” he said.

Worthington officials acknowledged that litigation remains.

“We are pleased with Judge Morrison’s ruling and recognize that this does not conclude the litigation. The process may be in the early stages and could continue for an extended period of time,” Worthington Law Director Tom Lindsey said.

The path to U.S. District Court began in December 2021 when Worthington City Council conducted its only hearing on the matter and unanimously turned down Lifestyle Communities’ rezoning request for the UMCH Focus Area that included 540 apartments, 94 for-sale townhomes, 72 for-rent townhomes, 24 single-family homes, 60,000 square feet of commercial space and 25,000 square feet of medical offices.

That rejection was followed in January 2022 by City Council narrowly updating its 2014 Comprehensive Plan, specific to the UMCH property.

Lifestyle Communities next filed its lawsuit in March 2022, followed by the city of Worthington filing its motion late in May 2022 to dismiss the lawsuit.

Worthington’s motion asserted that the city’s comprehensive plan is not codified law, “and thus does not limit the city’s discretionary authority,” in responding to Lifestyle Community’s planned-unit-development of the property.

Judge Morrison concurred with that viewpoint.

“The city, through its Council, maintains complete discretion whether to approve or deny a planned unit development rezoning application,” the filing stated.

“Only Council, in its complete legislative discretion, may grant or deny planned unit development zoning applications, and the City’s Charter does not restrict or otherwise eliminate Council’s discretion. …The MPC’s use of the Comprehensive Plan as a guiding document, which has no bearing on Council’s discretionary zoning decisions, is consistent with industry practice and established law.”

But Miller said the restrictions could be found to amount to a taking of the land.

The ruling of the U.S. District Court follows years of debate by the city’s residents and leaders concerning the desired fate of the UMCH property on High Street, just south of Larrimer Avenue.

While some want green space largely maintained on the 37-acre site, others favor plans that would bring further business growth to the area, making the city better situated to compete for tax-generating businesses.

Robinson said he hopes the ruling will provide a path forward for development of the site.

“It has been nearly eight years since Lifestyle first showed us their plans for the property. We’ve seen their proposals go from roughly 500 units, to roughly 700, and most recently to roughly 600 units,” he said.

“I hope this significant ruling, where the judge validated the city’s discretion regarding zoning and dismissed Lifestyle’s claims of entitlement, will instigate a more productive way forward.”

3 responses to “Judge rules mostly for Worthington in Lifestyle case”

  1. Scott says:

    A victory for the city of Worthington and for resident-centered development (versus mega-developer imposed). It is refreshing to see that the judge recognized big developer bullying tactics for what they are and largely threw this case out. Let’s be clear about the real decision to be made here … all parties are pro-business and have called for 10-12 acres of this parcel (the former UMCH property) to be developed commercially. Of the remaining 25 acres, approximately seven are part of the Tucker creek watershed and are off-limits for any type of development.

    So, what should happen to the remaining 18, or so, acres? Ah, now we have the fundamental question!

    Lifestyle’s answer, in their last three proposals, has been consistent, and in line with their business model – building between 500 and 700 housing units, which translates into a housing density of between 50-100 people per acre as compared to an overall Worthington average of 4.2. If this is not insanity, what is? As a single for instance, would any of us welcome a thousand more cars at rush hour, twice a day?

    The alternative is modest residential development, preferably for seniors, and a community greenspace that we all share … think the calm and tranquility of a Schiller or Goodale Park. A quick look at the communities surrounding us gives ample credence to the value of this approach. In the time span that Lifestyles has submitted three failed proposals, Hilliard, Dublin, Westerville, New Albany, and Granville have all announced, and are building or expanding, significant new public parkspace. Employers, looking at Worthington, have long requested ‘more amenities’, so far from being anti-business this alternative is actually pro-business.

    Let’s end this madness!

    Write city council today! Let’s take advantage of this very favorable judicial ruling and move past this stalemate. Let us, as a community, thoughtfully develop this crown jewel of a property into something that our, and all future, generations will cherish.

  2. Jeff Boehm says:

    Your website is terrible!!! The text jumped each time the advertisements changed. It was so bad that I could not keep my place to read the article.

    • Cliff Wiltshire says:

      Thanks for the feedback, Jeff. We made a couple of tweaks and we hope it works better now for you moving forward.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *