A United States District Judge in Ohio has suggested that a ruling by a county judge may have rendered an ongoing dispute involving a proposed future site for a Sheetz Convenience Store in Centerville, Ohio, moot, and that there may be no need to continue with the case in the federal court.

Judge Michael J. Newman issued an order in mid-January in which he asked attorneys for Sheetz and other plaintiffs in the federal case to assess the effects of a decision by a Montgomery County, Ohio, judge that reversed an Oct. 9, 2023, rejection of plans for a new Sheetz store by the Centerville City Council.

The disapproval of the plan for a 6,139-square-foot Sheetz fueling station, convenience store and sit-down and drive-thru restaurant along Fair Hills Avenue in Centerville received the unanimous approval — by a 5-0 vote — of the city’s planning commission.

The approval was conditioned on improvements to the property that included resolution of issues such as traffic impact, lot frontage improvements, interior parking, the planting of shrubs and many other items.

The site for the new store is in Centerville’s B-2, or “General Business District.”

According to the commission, the B-2 District includes all of the uses of the ground that Sheetz proposed — a fueling station, convenience store and restaurant.

But, while the commission approved the plan of the proposed Sheetz store on the site of what was a popular local restaurant known as Elsa’s, it drew opposition from its immediate neighbors, which included Epiphany Evangelical Lutheran Church, a housing complex for the elderly called Bethany Village and a nearby homeowner.

The opposition sought rejection of the plan by the City Council.

A public hearing on the issue lasted five hours and on Oct. 23, 2023, council denied approval by a 7-0 vote.

The swirl of public controversy resulted in appeals to the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas and to the federal court.

The federal judge presiding over the case recently became aware of a decision issued on Jan. 7 by county Judge Angelina N. Jackson, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

Jackson concluded that … “the reversal of the Planning Commission (by city council) is unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable and/or unsupported by a preponderance of substantial, reliable and probative evidence …”

She went on to state the council exceeded its authority by improperly taking legislative action in reversing the Planning Commission’s approval.

Council, she explained, made its ruling based on the proposition that the Sheetz store was to be open on a 24/7 basis, which, it concluded, “is inconsistent with the use and character of surrounding properties.”

The key question she posed in her opinion was to define the term “surrounding properties.”

City Council considered the surrounding properties to include a restaurant, the church, an apartment building and Bethany Village.

But, Jackson noted in her opinion, other nearby properties included in the B-2 Zone included a garden center, Mike’s Sub restaurant, a public library, a Jimmy John’s sandwich shop, a car wash, a dine-in restaurant, a McDonald’s, an orthodontist and a car dealership, as well as the church and retirement community.

“Appellants (Sheetz and other plaintiffs including the landowner who is selling the property to Sheetz), insist that the addition of Sheetz will not change existing uses and character of the surrounding properties because the proposed development is within the use and character of the other 13 commercial, retail and drive-thru uses of the properties and any concerns regarding outlier use of the corridor operating 24/7 are addressed by the conditions the Planning Commission placed on the property,” according to the county judge in her 23-page opinion.

Her opinion was subsequently sent to 16 attorneys involved in the case.

According to Newman, Jackson’s decision “in effect, instructed the Centerville City Council to approve the planned demolition of the Elsa’s Mexican Restaurant located (on the proposed Sheetz site) and allow construction of a fueling station, convenience store, and sit-down and drive-through restaurant.”

He wants to know by early February if the claims by the plaintiffs have become moot (already answered) or are “ripe for adjudication.”