In 2020, they got a hearing

TIFFIN — On Feb. 26, 2020, about 20 residents filled the Hopewell Township hall to argue about two parcels of farmland at US 224 and West State Route 18. They had been notified by mail three weeks earlier. Notice had run in the newspaper. The zoning commission chair asked whether anyone wished to speak in favor of rezoning the land industrial. "No comments were made," the minutes record. Eighteen days later the trustees held a second hearing on the same applications, and about 20 residents came again. The chair asked twice for comments supporting the change. Both times the minutes record the same thing. No one spoke for it. The trustees voted to deny. And the chair explained that if anyone was unhappy with the decision, they could petition the board of elections and put it on the ballot. Six years later, the same land is coming into the city through a process that requires none of that. What happened in 2020 Lenny Clouse filed four rezoning applications that winter. Two covered parcels on County Road 11. Two covered parcels on US 224, F20000313560000 and F20000313520600, both now part of the annexation petition. The zoning commission recommended approving the CR 11 applications and denying the US 224 ones. The trustees followed that recommendation on both counts. Clouse told the commission a plastics factory wanted to come in and that this was their desired location if zoned industrial. He said the company aimed to hire 50 people and as many as 230 within five years, and that it could not expand further in Findlay. He also asked the commission for limits. He said he knew the industrial classification was broad and could include a chemical plant, landfill or junkyard, and asked whether the change could be approved with restrictions to prevent heavy industrial operations, or whether the township might create a light industrial category. A commission member explained that the zoning labels dated to the original zoning book, and that a conditional use permit would be required for a landfill or junkyard. David Zak, then chief executive of the Tiffin-Seneca Economic Partnership, spoke in support. He said the workforce was tight, that $17 to $20 an hour was good for the area, that the company would pay taxes, and that there was not much industrial land available. He said one 37-acre site remained and predicted it would be gone within a year. Residents raised runoff, traffic, wildlife, property values and lighting as concerns. Marianne Kline said she had never had water in her basement until a nearby building went in and had since had it three times. Lloyd Creeger said he would rather keep the parcels' farm ground. Paul Hemminger's family said they did not see the area as an industrial park and wondered what the property would look like in 30 years. Bob Harris asked where the plants would sit. Deb Swartz asked whether a big factory should be the first thing people see entering Tiffin. Kline also noted the property had been turned down for a zoning change in 2013, and asked how many times it would be revisited. The commission voted 3-0 to recommend denial, with the chair abstaining. At the trustees' hearing on March 16, Dan Welly, who owns farmland next to the property, said the lifestyle of those living along 224 and 18 "would be forever changed." He then suggested the land would likely be annexed into the City of Tiffin. Trustee Lori Zoeller answered him. A property has to be contiguous to the city to be annexed, she said, and there is an annexation agreement already established with the City of Tiffin. The trustees voted 2-0 to deny, with one trustee absent. What is happening now The annexation is proceeding as a Type 1 expedited annexation under Ohio law, which the city has used for roughly two decades. It requires every owner in the proposed territory to sign the petition. In exchange, the process moves quickly and without public input. Once a complete petition is filed, county commissioners must approve it at their next meeting. There is no public hearing and no discretion. Signers waive any right to appeal, in language the statute requires be printed in capital letters above the signature line. Neighboring property owners have no standing to object to the annexation itself. The township has no vote and, Law Director Zach Fowler told the Flechtners, no right to notice. Fowler told council on July 20, 2026 and again on Aug. 3, 2026, that adjacent owners would receive written notice from the city later, at the zoning stage, and could be heard by council and the planning commission then. The list of adjacent property owners the petition is required to carry runs to 36 names. Hopewell Township said in a written response to the Advertiser-Tribune that it received no notice of the proposed annexation from the city, the county, the petitioners or their attorney at any point. Its only advance contact came from the Flechtners, who called a trustee on July 8, 2026 to say they would attend the board's July 13 meeting. The annexation plat includes a signature block for the township trustees reading "We do hereby accept and approve this plat," above a block for the county commissioners. Both are blank. James Gucker, the attorney for Clouse's company Development Solutions LLC, said the trustees are not required to consent and that their lines are left blank if they do not. "In all of the annexations I have been involved in in Wyandot and Seneca County, the Trustees and Commissioners sign the plat," he wrote. "I am not certain if they will sign this one." Seneca County Engineer Mark Zimmerman said the signature is a formality. "Part of the Expedited Annexation process is that Sewer and/or Revenue Sharing Agreements have to be in place between the Township and the City," he wrote. "The Township has, through the agreement(s), agreed not to oppose annexations. As a result the signature is a formality they have already agreed to." He said the block leaves the township some latitude where township roads are involved, on questions such as maintenance, but that such cases would be a rarity. Zimmerman said he has long had concerns about the process. He said his comments were general and not about any particular annexation. "This process is setup to eliminate opposition," he wrote. "Sadly, and hopefully without purpose, this type of annexation can and generally does disenfranchise landowners that abut the annexation, especially when homes are concentrated along roadways," he wrote. "Because all landowners have to approve, there is no incentive to reach out to the abutting neighbors to build agreement." He compared it to the traditional process. "During a traditional annexation, the surrounding landowners have a voice, and County Commissioners can assess to a point the general welfare of the community based upon that voice and factor that into their decision. Expedited Annexations took that voice away and require Commissioners to approve the annexation without a word from the public if the minimum standards are met." Zimmerman said he does not oppose annexation or a landowner's right to do what they wish with their property. His concern, he said, is "building a puzzle board around existing homes to do an expedited annexation and leaving them in the township while all but legally surrounding them," which he said creates lasting problems for fire, emergency medical, law enforcement and delivery services navigating a checkerboard of jurisdictions. He said he has raised the same concerns on at least two prior annexations in the county: the Ohio Logistics annexation in Fostoria in February 2023, and the Forrest annexation in February 2024, which brought territory into Tiffin north of the city and east of the Eagle Rock industrial park. He said he never raised them formally, only in meetings. "Most people in those meetings are pushing annexations so my words fall on deaf ears," he wrote. "Again, the people get no voice other than mine." The petition The Flechtners were presented with a petition at a Sept. 10, 2025 meeting at Gucker's office, Anna Flechtner said. She said Clouse; Bryce Riggs, then interim president and chief executive of the Tiffin-Seneca Economic Partnership and now president and chief executive of the Seneca County Collaborative; Karen Vela, an authorized member of VH1 Properties LLC, which owns the medical office property at the corner; and two representatives of CASTO were present. The family declined to sign, citing errors in the document. Gucker gave a different account of the sequence. He said the parties met at his office in February 2025 and signed petitions in advance, before the expanded annexation plat was ordered, and that after CLS Tiffin, VH1 Properties and the Flechtners signed, the surveyor was authorized to proceed. Asked to reconcile that with the September meeting and with his own Sept. 16, 2025 letter telling the family he had informed the law director they did not want to sign, Gucker did not respond before publication. Riggs said he attended the September meeting "in my capacity as the economic development representative involved in coordinating communication among the parties connected to the proposed annexation and development area," and that his purpose was to provide project context and help the parties communicate. The day after that meeting, Fowler emailed Gucker that Thomas Flechtner "would be contractually obligated to sign the petition," adding in a second message that afternoon, copying Mayor Lee Wilkinson, City Administrator Nick Dutro and City Engineer Matt Watson, that failure to sign "could be grounds for disconnection from the sewer line, in which case, he would have to get a home sewage treatment system." On Sept. 16, Gucker wrote to the family enclosing a revised petition. "I contacted the Law Director and let them know that you did not want to sign the joint petition for annexation," he wrote. "The Law Director provided me the 'sewer service agreement' that was previously signed." "It is the city's position that if you do not sign the petition, the city could cut off sewer service to your premises," the letter said. Gucker advised the family to review the matter with an attorney. Asked about that letter this month, Gucker said Fowler told him the city would enforce the agreement but did not say it would cut off service. "He did not specifically state that they would cut off sewer service," Gucker wrote. "However, that is a remedy the City could utilize for noncompliance." The petition enclosed with that letter named Thomas and Anna Flechtner as the only petitioners, for their single parcel. It gave the petitioner's address as 4382 Township Road 90, New Riegel, which is Clouse's address, and described the real estate as located in Sections 22, 23 and 27 of Hopewell Township. On Oct. 1, 2025, the Flechtners wrote to Wilkinson, Fowler and Dutro. They said they were willing to sign a corrected petition but identified errors, including a legal description that did not match their parcel and a petitioner's address that was not theirs. They objected to the clause waiving their right to appeal. "We do not believe it is fair to use the threat of disconnection as leverage to compel our signature on a flawed document," they wrote. Wilkinson replied that afternoon. "I want to begin by assuring you that the City of Tiffin has no intention of disconnecting your sewer service," the mayor wrote. "While the original sewer agreement reserves that right, it is not the City's practice to use such a provision as coercion, and I regret that the correspondence you received gave you that impression." He said Fowler would confer with Gucker to correct the language. Fowler replied minutes later. "It is Mr. Clouse and his attorney that are circulating a petition," he wrote. "Whether the petition is proper under Ohio law rests with Mr. Clouse's attorney." He agreed the items the family identified needed correcting, and said the appeal waiver was language the statute requires. Six weeks later, on Nov. 11, 2025, Gucker asked Fowler whether the city could disconnect the family's water and sewer. "The disconnection is not very likely to happen," Fowler replied. "I don't see the City going to that extent. That was the threat in another case, but that had to do with water service." He said the realistic remedy would be a breach of contract action seeking specific performance. Asked whether he had communicated that view to the family, Fowler pointed to the Oct. 1, 2025, exchange, in which the mayor had assured them the city had no intention of disconnecting their service. The Flechtners signed on Feb. 19, 2026, at Gucker's office. Their signatures appear on the joint petition and on the annexation plat. Directly above the signature line, in bold, is the language they had objected to four months earlier: "Whoever signs this petition expressly waives their right to appeal any action on the petition taken by the Board of County Commissioners." Anna Flechtner said the errors they had identified appeared to have been corrected in that version. She said they signed because they believed they were required to under the sewer agreement and that refusing could have consequences for their sewer service. Asked whether the petition was corrected, Wilkinson said he had asked the law director to work with Gucker to clean up the language and assumed they had done so. Fowler told council on Aug. 3, 2026, that the family "did sign the petition one time." Council was not told Fowler told council on Aug. 3, 2026 that it had never been briefed on the project. "I know we had visitors at the last meeting about annexations, and the city administration really had not brought to you that proposal out at the corner of 18 and 224," he said. He then asked members to tell him when they would like to hear about such projects in future. "What is a good time for you all to bring these projects to Council?" he said. "The administration is going to learn about these in advance a little bit. Typically, they come up kind of as the petitions." In his July 30, 2026, email, Fowler told council that another row of houses along US 224 also has sewer service agreements with the city, but that Clouse is not approaching those owners. "He is trying to ask the fewest amount of owners as possible," Fowler wrote. Asked whether the annexation would make those properties contiguous to the city boundary and eligible to be asked to join a future petition, Fowler said the properties on the north side of US 224 ending with the medical building at 2685 W. US 224 would become adjacent to the city's boundary. "Any of them could be asked to sign a petition by a landowner that is circulating a petition," he wrote. "Whether the sewer service agreement is enforceable against them at that time depends on the terms of the sewer service agreement and the current facts and circumstances." Where it stands The February petition was never filed. The medical offices, held by VH1 Properties LLC, had joined and then withdrew, and a new survey and petition followed. On March 3, 2026, Gucker emailed Dutro, Riggs and the city zoning office asking for something in writing before a meeting with the property's owners. "They wanted to know exactly what the tax consequences will be for the annexation to the City," he wrote, asking specifically about school taxes for both Tiffin City Schools and Hopewell-Loudon, and about sewer and water rates. Two days later, Dutro obtained sewer rates for the medical office and noted it was "planning to be annexed into the City later this year." Fowler told Anna Flechtner on Aug. 4, 2026, that the owners "voluntarily retracted" and that he recalled they did not want to pay city income taxes. Dutro, who made the initial contact, said he was never told directly why they withdrew and learned of it from Riggs a few months ago. On July 7, 2026, Gucker emailed the family a petition signed by Clouse and CLS Tiffin and asked to stop by for their signatures. He came to the house on July 10. That afternoon Anna Flechtner replied by email: "This email was received. Please do not show up at our home again." The next day, Gucker forwarded her email to Clouse, Riggs, Dutro and Fowler. He wrote that he had gone to the house because his calls and emails went unanswered, that the family "said that they were exploring their options and that the City would never require compliance with the annexation agreement," and that they had said they would not pay their share of the survey cost. "I would suggest that someone from the City talk to them and explain their obligations under the agreement," Gucker wrote. Two days later, Fowler did. His July 13, 2026, letter opens: "I understand that you no longer are willing to sign the annexation petition, and that you do not believe the City would enforce your obligation to sign it under the sewer service agreement." He wrote that if the family declined, the city's remedies "may include seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce the agreement," and asked for an answer by the following day. The letter was copied to Wilkinson, Dutro and Gucker, and blind-copied to Watson. Asked whether council authorized or was notified of that letter before it was sent, Fowler said no. He said the letter was informing the Flechtners of what would occur if they refused to sign. Fowler said the Clerk of Council reported having no responsive records. Nine months earlier, Wilkinson had written to the same family that using the sewer agreement as coercion "is not the City's practice." Asked how he reconciles the two, Wilkinson said he believed Fowler was stating the terms of the agreement, and quoted its termination provision. "I prefer to resolve disputes through communication, diplomacy, and good-faith negotiation whenever possible," the mayor wrote. "My goal has always been to work collaboratively with residents to reach a mutually acceptable solution before considering more serious legal remedies." That evening, the Flechtners went to the Hopewell Township Board of Trustees meeting. Fowler told the Advertiser-Tribune this month that council has not been asked to authorize legal action against the family "as the Flechtners continue to state that they will sign." At the Aug. 3, 2026, council meeting he said the city was "not at that moment." He cited Anna Flechtner's July 13 reply, in which she wrote that she and her husband "are not refusing to sign the annexation petition, and we are not unwilling to cooperate," and an Aug. 5, 2026, exchange in which he said it was indicated the family might meet with Clouse and Riggs. Anna Flechtner said the family has not signed the petition now circulating. "At this time, we have not signed the annexation petition," she said. "We continue to have questions and concerns regarding the proposed annexation and the future rezoning of the property, and we are working with those involved to obtain answers. We are also evaluating our legal rights and options before making any decision. Until we have the information we need, we are not in a position to sign the petition." She said the family has not retained an attorney and is looking for independent counsel. She has been reviewing the records herself. Clouse said he is trying to find a resolution. "I am just trying to do the best for all folks from Seneca County area," he wrote. "I will try to work with all parties to try to work out the best solution." No annexation legislation is before council. Council President Bridget Boyle said at the July 20, 2026, meeting that no vote has been taken.