CFAES Give Today
Farm Office

Ohio State University Extension


Zoning Law

Zoning Law Library

Our Publications

Ohio Revised Code

Case Law

  • Zoning
    • State ex rel. Sunset Estate Properties, L.L.C. v. Lodi - The Ohio Supreme Court held that the last sentence of the village ordinace addressing abandonment of nonconforming use was an unconstitutional deprivation of property right.
    • Shamockery, L.L.C. v. Olmsted Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals - Denial of a request for a zoning certificate to use a parcel for beekeeping was appropriate and the board of zoning appeals decision "was not unconstitutional, illegal, arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by the preponderance of substantial, reliable, and probative evidence because the parcel was excavated as a water retention basin and handles drainage for several areas in order to prevent flooding."
    • Boice v. Ottawa Hills - Amendment to minimum size requirement for "buildable" lot enacted after purchase of vacant lot cannot be enforced to prevent construction on lot after amendment.
    • Apple Group Ltd. v. Granger Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals - Township's zoning resolution complied with ORC 519.02 and was not unconstitutional as applied to the property developer's plan to develop housing on less than the required acreage.
    • Bedford v. Deal - City ordinance prohibiting the keeping of certian animals within city limits was constitutional.
  • Permits
    • Kelleys Island v. Tremmel - Appellant charged with 60 counts of failing to comply with Kelleys Island zoning inspector after he erected fence posts on his property without first obtaining a required permit.
  • Resource Extraction
  • Appeals
    • Dempsey v. Shawnee Hills - Landowner had standing to appeal Board of Zoning Appeals because he appeared before the BZA, represented himself, opposed and protested the zoning change, and advised the BZA, on record, he intended to appeal from the decision.
  • Agriculture
    • Scioto Twp. Zoning Inspector v. Puckett - Pay lake did not constitute aquaculture and therefore violated the zoning ordinance.
    • Copley Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Demrovsky - Property owners were permitted to conduct a landscape business on their property even though it was zoned residential, however it was found the business had no agricultural use whatsoever and in reality was a commercial construction business.
    • Hill v. Tate Twp. Bd. of Zoning - A garage addition was not exempt from regulation as a use incident to an agricultural purpose.
    • Columbia Twp. Bd. of Zoning v. Otis - A haunted hayride is not an agricultural use of land.
    • Schabel v. Troyan - The use of a pavilion and "crush pad" were agriculturally exempt because the property was being used in connection with viticulture activities.
    • Litchfield Twp. Bd. of Trustees v. Nimer - A beef jerky business did not constitute "agriculture" within the meaning of ORC 519.01 because the marketing and processing operation was not secondary to the care of livestock on the property.
    • Terry v. Sperry - Ohio law does not grant a township or county zoning authority over buildings or structures used for the vinting and selling of wine if they are on property used for viticulture.
    • Bd. of Brimfield Twp. Trustees v. Bush - A dog rescue operation was the equivalent of a boarding operation and thus falls within the agricultural exemption and the township cannot prohibit the shelter under its zoning authority.
    • Tillman v. Watson - Farm market owner could not prove that more than 50% of his gross income from the operation of the farm market was derived from produce raised on farms he owned or operated which would have made him exempt from zoning.
    • State v. Huffman - Use of mobile homes was not incident to the agricultural use of the land and were prohibited by the township zoning ordinance.
    • Mentor Lagoons, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Mentor Twp. - A township zoning ordinance may not prevent the use of land for the keeping of horses even in a residential district.
  • Utilities and Energy
    • Jones v. Auburn Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals - Court held ORC 519.213 only grants zoning boards the ability to hear appeals from administrative rulings as to a small wind farm's location, erection, construction, and other items listed in the statute.
  • Conditional Use

Ohio Agricultural Law Blog