Terry v. Sperry
956 N.E.2d 276
Ohio2011Background
- Sperry owns and resides on property in Milton Township, Ohio, where Myrddin Winery operates.
- Property zoned R-1; township zoning regulated uses including agriculture and home occupations.
- Sperrys conducted viticulture on site (grapes grown) and vinting/selling wine on premises; some grapes sourced externally.
- Grapes grown on site represented a small fraction of wine sales (about 5%), with most wine produced from other sources.
- Zoning inspector filed suit to enjoin winery use as retail/restaurant in residential district; trial and appellate courts held exemption not applicable.
- Supreme Court reversed, holding R.C. 519.21(A) exempts vinting/selling facilities on land used for viticulture, regardless of viticulture being the primary use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether R.C. 519.21(A) exempts vinting/selling buildings from township zoning when land is used for viticulture | Sperry contends exemption applies because the property is used for viticulture and for vinting/selling wine. | Milton Township contends no exemption unless viticulture is primary use or otherwise limited by statute. | Exemption applies; township cannot regulate vinting/selling buildings where viticulture occurs on the property. |
| Whether viticulture must be the primary use for exemption | Viticulture need not be the primary use for exemption under 519.21(A). | Zoning authority could require viticulture to be primary to qualify for exemption. | No requirement that viticulture be the primary use; any viticulture on the property suffices. |
| Definition and scope of 'agriculture' under R.C. 519.01 in this context | Viticulture and related agricultural activity could classify as agriculture to trigger exemption. | Overall winery activities might fail the general 'agriculture' definition if wine production dominates. | Viticulture on the property may satisfy 'agriculture' and trigger exemption; however, the key is the separate vinting/selling use incident to agriculture. |
Key Cases Cited
- Saunders v. Clark Cty. Zoning Dept., 66 Ohio St.2d 259 (Ohio 1981) (exemptions from zoning construed in property owner’s favor; strict construction of restrictions)
- Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Dayton Freight Lines, Inc., 112 Ohio St.3d 52 (Ohio 2006) (statutory interpretation requires plain meaning; enforce as written when unambiguous)
- Hubbard v. Canton City School Bd. of Edn., 780 N.E.2d 543 (Ohio 2002) (interpretation of statutory provisions; public policy considerations)
- Yorkavitz v. Bd. of Columbia Twp. Trustees, 142 N.E.2d 655 (Ohio 1957) (governing township police/power and limits on zoning authority)
- Bd. of Bainbridge Twp. Trustees v. Funtime, Inc., 55 Ohio St.3d 106 (Ohio 1990) (limits on township zoning authority; agriculture-related regulations)
- Moore Oil Co. v. Dauben, 99 Ohio St.4th 406 (Ohio 1919) (liberal construction of exemptions from restrictive zoning)