A real estate development company claims it was forced to bear the full cost of unrelated public roadway improvements in order to proceed with its residential subdivision project, according to a newly filed federal lawsuit. The complaint asserts that such requirements violate constitutional protections against uncompensated takings and could have significant implications for property owners and developers navigating government permitting processes.
The suit was filed by Lakefield Place Development LLC in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio on April 9, 2026, naming as defendants the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), Director Pamela Boratyn, Deputy Director Doug Gruver, and Technician Dustin Williams—all in their official capacities.
According to the complaint, Lakefield Place Development LLC acquired approximately 111 acres in Goshen Township, Clermont County in June 2021 with plans to develop a residential community called Lakefield Place. After obtaining necessary zoning approvals from local authorities—including a rezoning from agricultural use to a planned residential district—the company began subdividing and recording plats for various sections of the project.
The dispute centers on ODOT’s actions during later phases of subdivision approval. The developer states that while ODOT did not object or provide feedback during initial plat reviews—despite having access to traffic impact studies since 2021—the agency later refused to approve subsequent plats unless Lakefield Place agreed to construct off-site roadway improvements at two intersections: State Route 132 at Lakefield Place and State Route 131 at Deerfield Road. The latter intersection is described as being over a mile and a half away from the main entrance of the new development.
Lakefield Place argues that its own traffic study showed its project would generate only a small fraction of total trips through these intersections—less than another nearby subdivision—but ODOT still insisted that it cover one hundred percent of what is described as six-figure improvement costs. The complaint states: “ODOT has imposed an unlawful exaction and committed a regulatory taking of Plaintiff’s property rights.”
After attempts at negotiation failed, Lakefield Place says it was compelled under protest to sign an agreement with ODOT on April 10, 2024, obligating it to make the required improvements before further plat approvals would be granted. Later, when seeking approval for additional sections, ODOT also demanded that the developer post a bond valued at $390,622 for construction at State Route 131 and Deerfield Road—a requirement met by Lakefield Place under protest on February 21, 2025.
The lawsuit contends these conditions violate both Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution and the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. It cites legal precedents including Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard establishing that permit conditions must have an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” between what is demanded by government agencies and the actual impact caused by new development projects.
Lakefield Place alleges that ODOT failed both tests: “ODOT has not identified… any ‘legitimate police-power purpose’ that would justify refusing to approve the specific phases… on which the off-site improvements were conditioned,” according to court documents. Furthermore, it claims there was no individualized determination linking required improvements directly to impacts from this particular subdivision.
The complaint requests several forms of relief: a declaratory judgment stating ODOT violated constitutional rights; issuance of a writ compelling ODOT to begin formal appropriation proceedings; just compensation for alleged takings including reimbursement for bonds posted; damages; attorney’s fees; expert fees; costs; pre-judgment and post-judgment interest where applicable; and trial by jury on all triable issues.
Attorneys representing Lakefield Place Development LLC are J.P. Burleigh (trial attorney), Sean S. Suder, and Teresa M. Bamberger from Suder LLC in Cincinnati. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-00363-MRB.
