2020 Ohio 1508
Ohio2020Background
- Forever Blueberry Barn, LLC owns a barn on residentially zoned land in Litchfield Township and rented it for weddings and social events.
- Township trustees sued to enjoin the barn’s event use as nonconforming in a residential district; the trial court initially enjoined events but later rescinded the injunction after evidence the owner had planted grapevines and planned to make and sell wine.
- On first appeal, the Ninth District reversed, holding the trial court had not determined whether the barn (as opposed to the land) was used primarily for vinting and selling wine.
- On remand the trial court found the barn stored wine and production equipment and that renters would be required to purchase the winery’s wine as a condition of exclusive rental; it concluded the barn was used primarily for vinting and selling wine.
- The Ninth District affirmed; the township appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court to resolve the quantum and nature of proof required to show a building is used primarily for vinting and selling wine under R.C. 519.21(A).
- The Supreme Court held that whether a building is used primarily for vinting and selling wine is a question of fact and must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence; "primary" is not synonymous with "majority" of space or time.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What quantum of proof is required to show a building is used primarily for vinting and selling wine under R.C. 519.21(A)? | Township: owner must show building is utilized primarily for production and sale of grape wine (i.e., primary use of building itself). | Blueberry Barn: the presence of viticulture on the property and evidence of production/sale suffice; "primary" should be determined by function and intent, not rigid metrics. | Question of fact; must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence. |
| Does a small percentage of space/time devoted to vinting/selling defeat a claim that the building’s primary use is vinting/selling? | Township: because only ~4% of interior space used for vinting/selling, barn is primarily an event venue. | Blueberry Barn: percentage of space/time is not dispositive; conditioning rentals on wine purchases and storage/production in barn can make vinting/selling the primary use. | "Primary" is not synonymous with majority; space/time percentages do not automatically control; intent and functional use can establish primacy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. Sperry, 130 Ohio St.3d 125 (Ohio 2011) (construed R.C. 519.21(A) and held a township may not prohibit vinting and selling wine if any part of the property is used for viticulture)
- Trustees of New London Twp. v. Miner, 26 Ohio St. (Ohio 1875) (townships have no inherent zoning power; authority is legislative)
- Torok v. Jones, 5 Ohio St.3d 31 (Ohio 1983) (background on township zoning authority)
- Boice v. Ottawa Hills, 137 Ohio St.3d 412 (Ohio 2013) (zoning regulations construed in favor of property owners)
- In re Foreclosure of Liens for Delinquent Land Taxes, 140 Ohio St.3d 346 (Ohio 2014) (statutory terms given usual and ordinary meaning)
- Ross v. Ross, 64 Ohio St.2d 203 (Ohio 1980) (Ohio Supreme Court does not weigh evidence on appeal)
- In re Estate of Hatch, 154 Ohio St. 149 (Ohio 1950) (same principle limiting appellate review of weight of evidence)