land use

As we move into March, we thought it’d be a good time to look back at what committees in both chambers of the Ohio General Assembly got up to in February.  Committees in both the House and Senate are considering bills to regulate carbon capture, change the levy process, study the effects of data centers, and more. Here is an update on the bills we are following.

H.B. 170, Carbon Capture—On Tuesday, February 17, the Ohio Senate Energy Committee held its first hearing on House Bill 170, which would give the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) the authority to regulate carbon sequestration in the state.  We previously wrote about H.B. 170, sponsored by Representatives Robb Blasdel (R-Columbiana) and Peterson (R-Sabina) when it was passed by the Ohio House in October 2025. For a more detailed discussion of the bill, please see our previous blog post, available here.

The Senate Energy Committee heard testimony from Representative Peterson, along with five proponents of H.B. 170.  Most of the testimony centered on the idea of the state gaining “primacy,” or in other words, seeking approval from the U.S. EPA for the state to regulate Class VI injection wells instead of the federal government through the U.S. EPA. Basically, sponsors and proponents argued that if the state can regulate Class VI injection wells within Ohio, that will result in a faster permitting process for carbon sequestration projects within the state. Representative Peterson pointed out that by gaining “primacy,” the regulatory decisions would be more connected to the Ohio communities where the wells are located.

Several proponents of the bill also testified, including the American Petroleum Institute, the Ohio Oil & Gas Association, Vault 44.01, Tenaska, and Hocking Hills Energy and Well Service, LLC. Proponents testified that states with primacy over Class VI injection wells were usually able to approve a project within 9-12 months, whereas the federal EPA process could take around two years. Furthermore, not obtaining primacy could mean that Ohio might lose projects and jobs to other states who do have primacy.  Faster state approval could create jobs and economic benefits in Ohio for projects that the proponent companies are considering.  Some of those projects would be centered around sequestering carbon from ethanol facilities located in Ohio. At present, North Dakota, Wyoming, Louisiana, West Virginia, Arizona, and Texas have obtained primacy to regulate Class VI injection wells. Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are currently considering legislation to gain primacy.  You can read H.B. 170 here.

H.B. 420, Property Tax—House Bill 420 had its first hearing in the House Ways & Means Committee on February 11.  Sponsored by Representatives Click (R-Vickery) and Willis (R-Springfield), H.B. 420 would prohibit new continuous levies from being placed on ballots, require continuous levies currently on the books to be converted to fixed-term or renewed levies prior to 2030, and prohibit continuous levies in the state after 2030 unless such levies are specifically authorized by voters. The House Ways & Means Committee heard sponsor testimony from Representatives Click and Willis.  Representative Click argued that “each generation deserves the right” to approve or disapprove of a levy tax, and that continuous levies prohibit this right by imposing taxes upon people who didn’t originally vote for them. Questions from members of the committee clarified that if passed, the longest levies would last 10 years, however, levies could also exceed that timeframe if they are fixed to loans for long-term investments made by a school, locality, etc. Representative Rogers (D-Toledo) expressed concerns that if passed, the bill could lead to an upheaval in local funding. You can read H.B. 420 here.

House bill 420 is part of what Representative Click has dubbed a “Taxpayers Freedom Trilogy” bill package that also includes House Bills 421 and 422. H.B. 421 would allow ballot measures to reduce inside millage, and H.B. 422 would establish higher thresholds for levy requests over 1 mill (60%) and 2 mills (66%). Neither of the second or third parts of the “trilogy” have received committee hearings yet. Of note, a second hearing on H.B. 420 was scratched from the February 18 House Ways & Means Committee agenda, and House Speaker Huffman has indicated that it is unlikely that these property tax proposals will pass the House before the summer legislative recess.  You can find H.B. 421 here and H.B. 422 here.

H.B. 646, Create the Data Center Study Commission—House Bill 646 had its second hearing in the House Technology & Innovation Committee on February 24. We covered the details of H.B. 646, sponsored by Representatives Click (R-Vickery) and Deeter (R-Norwalk) in an earlier blog post, available here. The hearing drew interested party testimony from numerous groups and individuals, including the Ohio Chamber of Commerce and the Ohio Farm Bureau. The Ohio Chamber of Commerce supported the creation of a Data Center Study Commission but implored the committee to include representation from the tech industry on the Commission, noting that data centers would bring with them jobs, increased GDP, and increased local revenues.  Ohio Farm Bureau supported the creation of a Commission to study the impacts of data centers, including the impacts on agricultural land and resources long term, water use, water quality, and other potential environmental impacts. Ohio Farm Bureau also cited the need for a robust regulatory framework for data centers and long-term land use planning, worrying that without such planning, agriculture in the state of Ohio will suffer from loss of land to development and other problems. Individual citizens testified that they would like H.B. 646 to include a moratorium on building data centers while the study takes place and noted that the Commission should consider what happens to data center property after it is no longer in use. You can find H.B. 646 here.

S.B. 285, Recoupment Charges—The Senate Ways & Means Committee heard proponent testimony for Senate Bill 285 during its February 10 meeting.  S.B. 285, sponsored by Senator Schaffer (R-Lancaster), would make it explicit that agricultural land converted to certain conservation uses would be exempt from a CAUV recoupment penalty if it was previously used for agricultural purposes.  Specifically, land would be exempted if it is given to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) to use as a nature preserve, if it is owned or held by an organization with the purposes of natural resources protection or water quality improvement. The president of the Stream and Wetlands Foundation, based in Lancaster, Ohio, explained during his testimony that the bill would basically be a small technical clarification to previous legislation passed in 2022.  Since 2022, some county governments have interpreted current law as requiring CAUV recoupment charges to be paid for land used to protect natural resources, while other counties have not. S.B. 285 would clear up this confusion and affirm that CAUV does not apply to exempted land used for conservation purposes.  S.B. 285 is available here.

S.B. 361, Eminent Domain—During its meeting on February 17, the Senate General Government Committee heard sponsor testimony from Senator Schaffer (R-Lancaster) on Senate Bill 361.  The bill would prohibit the taking of land by eminent domain for use as a trail for hiking, bicycling, horseback riding, ski touring, canoeing, or other nonmotorized forms of travel.  During his testimony, Senator Schaffer gave an example of a property owner in his district whose land would be cut in half by a recreational trail, and asserted that local government shouldn’t be able to take land from a property owner just for recreational purposes.  Senator DeMora (D-Columbus) asked for clarification about whether pathways for pedestrian and bike safety along roadways would fall under this prohibition.  Senator Schaffer responded that that is not the intent of the bill, and that he would be willing to work with the Committee on language if necessary. S.B. 361 is available here.

In August, the Secretary of the Interior announced that the Trump Administration would be making revisions to the way the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is carried out under federal regulations.  The move was made in part to further the Administration’s goal to “ease the regulatory burden” on citizens.  The revised regulations apply to sections 4 and 7 of the ESA, which means they make changes to how species are listed as endangered, how critical habitat for species is determined, how threatened species are treated, and how the different federal agencies cooperate to carry out the ESA.

Revision of endangered, threatened, and critical habitat protections

The changes to how the ESA is carried out were made in three rulemakings published on August 27, 2019. One of the rules, available here, is meant to increase cooperation between federal agencies when carrying out the ESA (this rule is set to become effective on October 28).  Changes made by the other two rules, available here, and here, are much more controversial because they have a great impact on how endangered and threatened species and their habitats are treated under federal regulations. The new rules went into effect on September 26, 2019. We discuss some of the biggest modifications below.

 First, the rules change the term “physical or biological features” to “physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species.” This change will likely diminish the number of natural features and areas that will be protected, since only those deemed essential to an endangered species will be protected. Similarly, the new rules give the federal government more leeway to determine when habitat is not critical habitat for species, which may result in less habitat being protected under the new iteration of the rules.

 In yet another change, the new rules separate the discussion of “threatened” and “endangered” species within the regulatory text.  Due to this uncoupling, some read the new version of the rule as stripping threatened species of protections they enjoyed when they were more closely related to endangered species. The new edition of the rules instead includes factors for determining whether a species can be listed as threatened, such as whether it is likely the species will become endangered in the “foreseeable future,” which will be determined on a case by case basis.  Critics of the new rules believe that this language will give the government the discretion to overlook the effects of climate change on a species, which could play out over a period of time longer than the “foreseeable future.” Along the same lines, the rules also make it harder to ban certain activities in order to protect threatened species.

 The rules weaken the ESA by allowing the federal government to take into account the actions of states, other nations, and local jurisdictions when listing and delisting species. In other words, if the species is being protected on another level of government or by another country, the U.S. government may be less inclined to protect the species; either by choosing not to list the species, or by removing its threatened or endangered status. Importantly, the new rules also allow “commercial information,” not just scientific information, to be considered when making a decision. Under the old rules, agencies were not allowed to consider the economic impacts of listing or delisting a species. On the whole, the rules seem to give the federal government a lot more discretion to determine that species or habitats should not be protected.

Lawsuits

On September 25, 2019, the day before the new rules became effective, the attorneys general from 17 states, including Ohio’s neighbors Michigan and Pennsylvania, sued the Trump Administration in federal court over the changes to the rules.  You can find the complaint here.  The states assert that the rulemaking violates several federal statutes, including the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs federal administrative agencies.  The states further claim that the weakening of protections for endangered and threatened species and their habitats will cause harm to their natural resources, harm to their citizens through environmental degradation, take away the current and future economic benefits of protected species, and increase costs for state governments.

Congressional action

 Amidst all the rule changes and lawsuits, members of Congress have been working on their own potential changes to the ESA.  Recently, the Congressional Western Caucus, a group of congress members from all around the country who are concerned with land use and resource rights, among other causes, introduced nineteen bills meant to “modernize” the ESA.  If you’re interested in the specifics of each bill, they are listed on the Caucus’ website, here.  Overall, the bills focus on fixing the ESA by implementing “defined recovery goals” for species, relying on “standardized…publically available” science, and allowing more involvement from states and stakeholders on endangered species decisions. 

With action taking place on the administrative, legislative, and judicial levels of the federal government, the way the ESA is written and interpreted seems to be up in the air at present. We will be sure to update the Ag Law Blog with any developments. 

Court says winery must grow more grapes to be defined as "agriculture."

In a split decision, the Seventh Distict Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of a township in Mahoning County that wants to close down a small winery.  Milton Township claims that the winery violates township zoning regulations because it is located in a residential zoning district and does not qualify for the "agricultural exemption" from local zoning.  The court of common pleas and the majority on the appeals court agreed with the township, but a strong dissent by Court of Appeals Judge DeGenaro challenges the courts' rulings and illustrates the need for clarity in Ohio's rural zoning laws.

Myrddin Winery is a family owned business located on Lake Milton in Milton Township, on property that also contains a residence.  A free standing addition serves as the winery, and the property also has a vineyard containing 20 grape vines, with 12 vines producing grapes for harvest.   The Sperry family uses their grapes for wine, and must also import grapes and grape juices for their wine production--5% of their wine derives from their grape vines.  They make and bottle the wine on the premises.  Customers visit the winery to taste and purchase the wine and food items.

Before opening in 2005, the Sperry family asked the township zoning inspector if the township required any permits for the winery.  The zoning inspector advised that the family could begin operations immediately because the township did not require any permits.  In 2008, however, the township changed its opinion and notified the Sperrys that they were in violation of the township zoning resolution.  The township filed a complaint and requested the court to issue an injunction that would prohibit continued operation of the winery.

Two issues were before the Mahoning County trial court upon hearing the Myrddin Winery case:  1) whether a winery is "agriculture" for purposes of the agricultural exemption in Ohio zoning law, and 2) whether Ohio zoning law exempts wineries from local zoning regulation.  The trial court answered both questions in the negative.  The Sperry family appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals.

The court of appeals examined the Ohio Revised Code's agricultural exemption from township zoning authority, but focused its decision on the statute's definition of "agriculture" in O.R.C. 519.01, which states:

• "As used in section 519.02 to 519.25 of the Revised Code, 'agriculture' includes farming; ranching; aquaculture; apiculture; horticulture; viticulture; animal husbandry, * * *; poultry husbandry * * *; dairy production; the production of field crops, tobacco, fruits, vegetables, nursery stock, ornamental shrubs, ornamental trees, flowers, sod, or mushrooms; timber; pasturage; any combination of the foregoing; the processing, drying, storage, and marketing of agricultural products when those activities are conducted in conjunction with, but are secondary to, such husbandry or production."   (Emphasis added.)

As Judge DeGenaro points out in the dissent, the court should have relied on the actual agricultural exemption language contained in R.C. 519.21(A), which provides:

• "Except as otherwise provided in division (B) of this section, sections 519.02 to 519.25 of the Revised Code confer no power on any township zoning commission, board of township trustees, or board of zoning appeals to prohibit the use of any land for agricultural purposes or the construction or use of buildings or structures incident to the use for agricultural purposes of the land on which such buildings or structures are located, including buildings or structures that are used primarily for vinting and selling wine and that are located on land any part of which is used for viticulture, and no zoning certificate shall be required for any such building or structure." (Emphasis added.)

I agree with the dissent's interpretation of the statute, which is that a township may not prohibit the use of buildings or structures that are used primarily for vinting and selling wine and that are located on land used for viticulture, which is the growing of grapes for wine.   Under this interpretation, Myrddin Winery could not be prohibited by way of zoning regulation.  However, the majority chose to read R.C. 519.21(A) to require that "any buildings or structures used primarily for vinting and selling wine" must also fit within the definition of "agriculture" in R.C. 519.01.  That definition includes "viticulture" and the processing and marketing of agricultural products, but only if processing and marketing of products is "secondary to" production.  Because Myrddin Winery was importing more grapes and grape juice for its wine than it was growing on the property, the court concluded that the processing and marketing of the wine was not secondary to production, but was the primary use of the property.  Thus, the agricultural exemption from zoning regulation would not apply and the township could prohibit the winery. 

In short, the court's ruling requires a winery to ensure that production of  grapes is the primary use of the property and any processing and marketing of wine is the secondary use of the property.  Otherwise, local zoning can prohibit a winery.  This outcome is especially problematic for beginning  operations, because grape vines require many years of cultivation prior to successful harvest for wine production.  It also raises challenges for the winery landowner who must prove whether the grapes or the wine are the "primary" use of the property.  The specific exemption for wineries in 519.21(A) avoids these complications.

The Myrddin Winery case is one example of the confusion surrounding Ohio's agricultural exemption from township and county zoning authority, and the court's ruling strays too far from the intent of the law--to ensure that agricultural activities can persist outside of municpal areas.   The Sperry family has a strong basis for appealing the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court and seeking final clarification of the winery provision in the agricultural exemption.  But the Ohio legislature could alleviate the problem for landowners like the Sperry family, as well as townships and counties, by providing statutory clarification to the agricultural exemption.  Cases like the Myrddin winery case pervade the state and continuously raise the issue of which agricultural activities can and cannot be regulated by zoning.  With growing interests in agriculture and with state and federal policies that promote new types of agricultural production, direct marketing, and on-site processing by agricultural producers, Ohio will continue to experience conflicts between agriculture and local zoning regulation.  It's time for the legislature to simplify and clarify the relationship between agricultural land uses and local zoning authority.

The Myrddin Winery case is Terry v. Sperry, 2010-Ohio-1299 (March 23, 2010), and is available here.

If you heard a collective sigh of relief around Ohio on Thursday, it was likely coming from Ohio townships after learning the outcome of the long-awaited “Phantom Fireworks” court case.  The Ohio Supreme Court unanimously agreed that Ohio townships may rely on countywide comprehensive land use plans as a basis for township zoning, rather than preparing individual township comprehensive plans.    B.J. Alan Co. v. Congress Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Slip Opinion No. 2009-Ohio-5863 (Nov. 12, 2009).

I tend to like the pragmatic opinions authored by Justice Pfeifer, and this case is no exception.  The decision answers with brevity the question of whether a township must prepare its own comprehensive land use plan in order to comply with Ohio zoning law.  Examining the language of Ohio Revised Code 519.02, which grants townships the authority to utilize zoning “in accordance with a comprehensive plan,” the court determined that the statute does not require each township to develop its own comprehensive plan.  Such an interpretation would be reading additional language into 519.02, said the court, and “the law requires only that a zoning resolution be ‘in accordance with a comprehensive plan.’” A countywide comprehensive plan is sufficient, and “accounts for the interrelationship of communities and marshals resources and expertise.”

Had the court reached a different conclusion, it would have invalidated hundreds of Ohio township zoning resolutions that are based on county land use plans.  This was the hope of the B.J. Alan Company, which brought the case as a challenge to a zoning decision by Congress Township in Wayne County.  The township denied the company’s request for a use variance to allow it to construct a Phantom Fireworks store on land zoned for agricultural use.  When the case went to the court of appeals, that court agreed with the company’s argument that Congress Township’s zoning resolution was invalid according to ORC 519.02 because it was not based on a township comprehensive plan. 

The controversial nature of the case led to parties lining up in interesting partnerships on both sides of the appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.  Backing the township were the Ohio Township Association, the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation, the Wayne County Farm Bureau and the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys’ Association.  On the opposite side in support of B.J. Alan Company’s appeal were the Ohio Home Builders’ Association, American Planning Association and Ohio Planning Conference.   

The Supreme Court referred the case back to the court of appeals to resolve the question of whether Congress Township’s zoning is indeed “in accordance with” the Wayne County comprehensive plan.  The court did examine the county plan, and held that the plan itself is a valid comprehensive plan for purposes of ORC 519.02.   Sidestepping the fact that Ohio law does not clearly define a “comprehensive plan,” the court concluded that the Wayne County plan “presents a thorough study of the region and sets forth comprehensive land-use goals for the County.”

For now, townships need not panic about finding the time and funds to develop township comprehensive plans.  Townships may continue to enforce their zoning resolutions based on county plans.  Unknown to us is whether B.J. Alan Company will need to find a new piece of land for its Phantom Fireworks store—that decision is now in the hands of the appellate court.