Three answers, one decision

TIFFIN — Tiffin's law director has given three accounts of why two neighboring property owners were added to Lenny Clouse's annexation petition. The county engineer, whose office reviews the plats, said the reason now offered does not hold up. Law Director Zach Fowler raised the two properties with Clouse's attorney, James Gucker, in February 2025. Reviewing a draft petition on Feb. 25, he wrote: "Is Thomas Flechtner (2702 W. SR 18) and CLS Tiffin LLC (2685 W. SR 18) joining the petition? The City has sewer service agreements in place with those properties that require them to join a petition to annex." He added: "It was my understanding from the discussions about this annexation that the City was expecting to enforce these agreements and have them join the annexation." The email went to Gucker, copied to Clouse and blind-copied to City Administrator Nick Dutro. In it, Fowler also told Gucker the petition needed the appeal-waiver language required by R.C. 709.022, that he would need to file the adjacent-owner list required by R.C. 709.02(D), and that while he was "not entirely opposed to naming the Mayor as the agent, it's more common for it to be an owner or their attorney." The petition Gucker then prepared covered only Clouse's property. The Seneca County Engineer's mapping department reviewed it across several rounds that July, returning corrections on July 10 and again on July 14. Gucker reported the approval to Fowler on July 15. On July 18, Fowler reported to city officials that the survey Gucker had brought him included "only Lenny's property" and that Gucker "was not aware of them joining" as to the Flechtner and CLS Tiffin parcels. City Engineer Matt Watson replied that the earlier proposal presented to the county engineer had included both properties, "which could be forced to be annexed via Sewer Service Agreements." Two days later, Fowler wrote back: "What I would need to know is if the City desires to have Fletchner and CLS Tiffin join. I can inform Attorney Gucker that is the case." Bryce Riggs, then interim president and chief executive of the Tiffin-Seneca Economic Partnership, answered at 7:10 the next morning. "From the beginning, I think we were all in agreement that it only made sense to move forward with annexation for both Fletchner and CLS while we're going through this process with Lenny," he wrote. He added: "I also believe that was the wish of (County Engineer) Mark Zimmerman as well to avoid creating 'islands'." At 7:54 a.m., Watson wrote that Clouse could try to negotiate survey costs with other owners, but "it would be my recommendation not to negotiate with Fletchner as he was more or less told that he would have to annex." At 8:18, Fowler emailed Zimmerman, copying Assistant Prosecuting Attorney Eleanor Anderson and the Seneca County Prosecutor's Office. "I was under the impression they would be asking Thomas Fletchtner and CLS Tiffin LLC (outlined in red) to join due to the sewer service agreements they have with Tiffin," he wrote. "Gucker said they have not. Have they brought this to you? Do you have any concerns?" Mayor Lee Wilkinson replied to the internal thread that afternoon: "As noted, I had already contacted Mr. Fletchner, and he is prepared to be annexed." On July 25, Riggs set out the plan: "The Mayor could get Fletchner to sign off and I would work with CLS for their signature." Fowler wrote to Gucker that afternoon: "I've been informed by the City this afternoon that they do want to have Fletchtner and CLS Tiffin, LLC added to your client's petition." 'That was me' Asked by Anna Flechtner on Aug. 4, 2026 who at the city made that decision, Fowler told her, the seven council members and the council president that he did. "That was me," he wrote. He said state law requires annexed territory to be contiguous to the city's boundary, and that Clouse's property "on its own, does not sufficiently touch enough of the City's existing boundary to be considered 'contiguous.'" He said the decision was made "sometime in February 2025 at meeting between myself and Mr. Clouse's attorney." Fowler gave council the same explanation the day before. Clouse's property "on its own doesn't touch enough of the city boundary to be contiguous," he said, describing "a very small strip" against "a very large farmland that would come in." After discussing it with Clouse's attorney, he said, "we thought [it] wouldn't be enough and that other land had to come," which is why the corner parcels and the Flechtner property were included. Asked to reconcile his accounts, Fowler said the October 2025 email to the Flechtners was answering their questions about what an annexation petition should contain, that the July 2025 email to the county engineer was an attempt to learn what concerns that office had, and that the August 2026 email answered Anna Flechtner's question about who at the city had decided to add the two properties. Zimmerman said he saw no contiguity problem. Asked whether the July 2025 plat covering only the Clouse property presented any such issue, he wrote: "Under the law, no I did not see any contiguity issues." He added that the properties left out along SR 18 and US 224 both have access to the half of the roadway that was not annexed when Wal-Mart came into the city. Asked whether anyone from the city, the petitioners or their attorney had raised contiguity with his office at any point, Zimmerman said he did not recall anyone doing so. "These concerns were not raised by anyone else to me," he wrote. Told what the county engineer said, Fowler wrote: "I don't know what the county engineer has approved or reviewed or any conversations his office has had with Mr. Clouse, his attorney, or anyone else regarding this proposed annexation." The survey bill A Hank & Associates invoice dated Feb. 6, 2026 divides the survey cost among three owners: $500 for the Flechtner parcel, $800 for CLS Tiffin and $600 for a parcel listed as Vella, totaling $1,900. Clouse delivered it to the Flechtners' door on June 8, 2026 with a handwritten note. "Tom, I paid the $1,900.00 last week to keep this moving," it reads. "Please re-imburse Development Solutions the $500.00 for the survey work." Anna Flechtner said the family declined. She said it was not the bill itself but the conversation with Clouse during that visit, about the annexation and the situation surrounding it, that led them to contact the Hopewell Township Board of Trustees. Gucker said the full survey bill was $3,469.50 across two invoices and that he asked the surveyor to divide it in proportion to the property owners. He said he told Anna Flechtner not to worry about paying their share, and that Clouse later confirmed he paid both invoices and did not expect reimbursement. Asked about it, Clouse wrote: "(She) said she didn't want to pay, end of story." Anna Flechtner said the family did not request the survey, select the surveyor or agree in advance to pay any portion of it. "Our concern was not simply that we 'didn't want to pay,'" she said. "We questioned why we were being billed for a survey initiated by someone else." Asked about that line in his own email this month, Watson said his point had been about the bill. "That comment was on the basis of enforcing an existing Sewer Service Agreement," he wrote, "and if they were being forced to annex via the agreement, I did not think it would be right to also charge them for a portion of the survey work." The zoning map Watson said he created the proposed zoning classification map on or around Aug. 22, 2025, and presented it to the city administration at a project coordination meeting on Aug. 26. Its purpose, he wrote, "was to initiate discussion regarding the city administration's desire for the zoning classifications for the site." The map divides the annexation area into four districts: existing C-2 general commercial, proposed C-2, proposed M-1 light industrial and proposed M-2 heavy industrial. At Fowler's request, Watson emailed it to Gucker on Sept. 9. It was attached as an exhibit to the petition the Flechtners were asked to sign that month, and to the version they signed the following February. Fowler described the practice to council on Aug. 3. "Any time we do annexation, we already have a pre-discussion with the owner about what the desired zoning would be," he said. "That's why a zoning map was developed." On March 3, 2026, Clouse emailed Daniel Brickner in the city zoning office, copying Gucker and the surveyor. "I received this map the last week and wanted to verify that I could build residential in Light Industrial," Clouse wrote at 9:22 a.m. "Also, the 16 acres I bought off Progressive Developers at the northwest corner of the property will not be annexed into Tiffin. It's a hunting club as this map shows. Please let me know your thoughts." Brickner answered 23 minutes later. "I have reviewed the proposal and can confirm that the M-1, Light Industrial Zoning District allows for all forms of residential construction," he wrote. "This includes single-family, two-family, and multiple-family dwellings for three or more families." The following day, Watson circulated a revised zoning map excluding the northwest corner. Asked whether property owners are typically able to request changes to proposed zoning maps before annexation, Watson said the map "is a working document during the petition process." "Typically, the proposed zoning is coordinated between the City Administration and the petitioner(s)," he wrote. He noted that the classification is ultimately approved by city council, and that the planning commission reviews proposed zoning for annexations and makes a recommendation before council votes. At the July 20, 2026 council meeting, Wilkinson said he would have to consult the law director on whether zoning must be in place before annexation. Clouse said industrial zoning is not what he wanted in 2020. "I wanted to change zoning to Heavy Commercial for manufacturing," he wrote. "Hopewell Twp Zoning used to have it but somehow it got eliminated. I had no desire for Industrial Zoning." His signed application to Hopewell Township, dated Jan. 28, 2020, lists the proposed use as light industrial and the proposed zoning district as industrial. What the land was wanted for City officials say there is no development plan for the property. Fowler told council on Aug. 3 that Clouse "does not have any actual plans for the land itself, but he just wants to have land available in case." He said Clouse came to the city after failing in the township: "He tried it with Hopewell Township. It failed with the zoning change. So he has come to the city seeking to bring it in to have it zoned for industrial development." Asked whether he is aware of any prospective use for any parcel in the annexation area, Wilkinson wrote: "I am not aware of any specific industry that may or may not be planned for any parcel in this site." Gucker said the same. "There are no specific plans for development in this area," he wrote. "The first step for any future development is typically annexation. That process starts well in advance of development so it can be completed if an opportunity that benefits the community arises." He said future development could be residential or commercial. Three uses have been sought for the corner in six years. At the March 2020 township hearing, Clouse said a company wanted the site, with a goal of hiring 50 people and as many as 230 within five years. He told the zoning commission in February that a plastics factory wanted to come in and that this was their desired location if zoned industrial. Clouse named the company this month. "TH Plastics loved the location however we were able to keep them in Tiffin luckily at another location," he wrote. In a Sept. 17, 2025 email, Dutro wrote that township C-2 zoning had kept a certain-sized fuel service station off the corner lot, "which is why Casto was quick to jump on the annexation process in order to move ahead with their proposed development," and that he assumed a large gas station was still the company's intention. Asked about it this month, Dutro said that was speculation on his part after the township denied a proposed gas station. He said the plan has fallen through and that CASTO has no development lined up for the site as the annexation has not been finalized. Hopewell Township records show a third proposal. The township said discussion involving CASTO or CLS Tiffin and the US 224 property came before it regarding zoning for a proposed marijuana dispensary at the location. Dan Leathery of CASTO wrote in November 2025 that setbacks in the city's C-2 district "have the potential to create pinch points in our site plan," and that some relief would help "to land the right user here." He did not respond to written questions from the Advertiser-Tribune. Asked whether he has discussed tax abatements or other incentives with the city, Clouse wrote: "Tax abatements would have been discussed if we had a legitimate end user." Coming Wednesday: What the same land got in 2020, and what it gets now.