Luckey: Appeals court to hear eminent domain case

News Editor
news@presspublications.com

Oral arguments are scheduled to be heard Oct. 23 before the Ohio Sixth District Court of Appeals in the case of a company trying to prevent the taking of its property through the eminent domain process.
T&S Agriventures, LLC, owned by Timothy Snyder, Patricia Snyder, Steven Snyder, and Beth Snyder, are trying to fend off the forced sale of their property to the Village of Luckey.
Wood County Common Pleas Court Judge Mary Mack ruled in favor of the village, saying the village followed the proper steps and complied with state law to begin appropriating the property.
The property site covers about 73 acres and includes a former stone quarry, which the village wants to use to construct a public water system for residents. The village is now serviced by water wells.
The village filed a petition in March, 2023 to appropriate the property and a month later the owners filed a response, challenging the authority of the village to appropriate the property, the necessity of the appropriation, and the offer by the village.
Cory Panning, the village mayor, testified the village had made a good faith offer of $525,000 to purchase the property and had obtained an appraisal listing its fair market value at $435,000 before the offer was made to the owners.
Judge Mack ruled: “The court further finds that defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating bad faith, fraud, or an abuse of discretion by the village. Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, the court rejects the challenges raised by defendants and finds in favor of the village as to its authority to make the appropriation, the necessity of the appropriation, and the good faith offer.”
She wrote that the Ohio Constitution “does not require that the taking be immediately necessary, only that the taking is necessary for a public purpose.”
In the appeal, attorneys for the owners argue: “The entire reason for the alleged necessity for taking the defendants’ property – i.e., to construct a new public water source – is premised on a speculative, wholly undefined, and ephemeral, future concern.
“The village has no timeline for any aspect of the project, has not taken steps to determine the project’s feasibility, and has no idea whether the project would be undertaken or completed in ten years, 20 years, or ever.”