City of Dublin denies claims in lawsuit over shopping redevelopment near Bridge Park

DUBLIN, Ohio (WCMH) -- The city of Dublin is denying allegations that private property rights were violated when the city rejected a development's company's proposal to overhaul six acres of a shopping district east of Bridge Park.

Stavroff Land and Development's claims that the city's Bridge Street District code hinders the company's ability to redevelop Dublin Village Center is "moot" and "barred by applicable statutes of limitation," Dublin's response filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Ohio states. The company had also argued the city's "illegitimate restrictions" violate equal protection and due process law.

Dublin provided line-by-line acknowledgements in the March 18 filing to more than 160 of Stavroff's claims, admitting to some allegations but denying many or stating the city is "without knowledge to admit the allegations." Now, Dublin is asking the court to dismiss the company's suit.

The development company's complaint filed in January said 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." In doing so, Dublin "unilaterally rezoned hundreds of acres of land and anointed its officials with unfettered and arbitrary discretion over private property."

Stavroff 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, Dublin said in the filing that Stavroff has yet "to set forth allegations sufficient to support a claim for compensatory damages." In addition, the city said in a statement to NBC4 in January 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."

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.

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."