Challenge
continued from B1 rezoning as a planned unit development was made on standard forms and followed township regulations, the lawyers said.
“His proposal to develop should have been resolved as an administrative action of the trustees,” the lawyers said in a letter to the board.
Unless the board agrees, on May 7 voters in the township, including the incorporated village of Waynesville, will cast ballots to decide whether to undo the trustees’ decision.
On Aug. 21, the trustees called for the referendum, following a petition drive led by resident Tom Duerr.
On Friday, Duerr said, after the trustees approved the rezoning, they told him the decision was subject to referendum.
Duerr said he has since followed through the process without objection from prosecutors or election officials.
“We’re hoping the board of elections allows the residents to have a little bit of a say in it,” Duerr said.
Duerr wants the township to require at least 2 acres for homes in rural residential developments.
In forming the petition, Duerr said he copied from language used to call an election in a successful referendum in Washington Twp. in Montgomery County. He said a grassroots movement was building against the high-density planned developments.
Federle, who lives on the land he wants to develop, acknowledged he was among the minority in favor.
“Everybody is always against development,” Federle said earlier this year. “You’re always the bad guy.”
On Friday, Federle said he felt the trustees should not have called for the referendum.
“The property already had the transition PUD zoning on it,” he said. “It should not have been subject to referendum.”