City of Dublin sued for denying shopping center redevelopment near Bridge Park
DUBLIN, Ohio (WCMH) — A central Ohio development company is suing the city of Dublin, alleging its private property rights were violated when the city denied its proposal to overhaul six acres of a shopping district east of Bridge Park.
Stavroff Land and Development, a Dublin-based developer, claims the city’s Bridge Street District code hinders the company’s ability to redevelop Dublin Village Center, a shopping area owned by Stavroff since 2009. The complaint argues the city’s “illegitimate restrictions” violate equal protection and due process law.
Apartments, restaurant proposed for north Metro Center complex
“The City took complete control over the use and development of private property within the [Bridge Street District] by adopting unlawful and overbearing development restrictions,” the suit filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio states. “In doing so, the City unilaterally rezoned hundreds of acres of land and anointed its officials with unfettered and arbitrary discretion over private property.”
The development company is seeking compensatory damages “to recoup the millions of dollars in damages, costs, and expenses it has incurred as a result of the City’s misconduct.” The complaint also demands a declaration that the Bridge Street code is unconstitutional, a declaration that Stavroff’s proposal is constitutional, and an injunction requiring Dublin to refrain from preventing the site’s development.
However, the city of Dublin said in a statement to NBC4 that since the 1,100-acre Bridge Street District was created, dozens of projects have been approved and built.
“The City’s development approval process in the Bridge Street Code provides a fair and collaborative method to achieve high-quality development for the benefit of property owners and the community,” a Dublin spokesperson said. “The City stands by its process and standards.”
Best places in central Ohio to see solar eclipse
Stavroff’s third and most recent plan for Dublin Village Center reviewed by the city’s planning and zoning commission in July included two four-story apartment buildings with 284 units, ranging from a 585-square-foot one-bedroom to a 1,350-square-foot two-bedroom. Possibly built in two phases depending on market conditions, the development would demolish 70,000 square feet of existing commercial space.
The application was denied after commission chair Rebecca Call said the site suffers from sitting next to similar multi-family residential developments, leading to a lack of housing variety in the area. Call said the proposal is progressing but requires further tinkering to create a complex that is “distinctly Dublin.”
“This application could get there, but I don’t think it’s there yet,” Call said during the July meeting. “What I’m hearing the rest of the commissioners say is, it’s definitely a positive maybe, but, as far as if we were to move this exact plan forward, I think we’d have a lot of details to still have to worry about.”
Still, Stavroff claims the city only welcomes proposals by “select local developers,” including two prominent residential projects near the Dublin Village Center site. Because Stavroff is allegedly not one of those select developers, the company said city officials have improperly blocked its development.
Korean barbeque restaurant opens in Dublin’s Bridge Park
The complaint also argues that Stavroff’s third proposal met the Bridge Street code, but that the commission “improperly and retroactively applied” interim land use principles that were not in effect when the company filed its proposal. The suit also cites Call’s “distinctly Dublin” comment as “one of the amorphous reasons” for denial.
“Virtually no proposed development could ever meet the vague, cumbersome, and overly complex requirements the City now imposes,” the complaint argues. “The City intentionally flipped its role from being the regulator of the reasonable use of land to the holder of the keys to the land’s development. No development can occur in the District unless the City ordains it.”
The city has yet to file a legal response, and has until Feb. 16 to respond to a summons issued on Jan. 26.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to NBC4 WCMH-TV.
