Login | May 15, 2025
Supreme Court decision may help spur growth in Ohio winemaking
RICHARD WEINER
Legal News Reporter
Published: September 26, 2011
With the explosion of the Ohio wine industry, it was probably only a matter of time until a winery case came in front of the state’s Supreme Court. The case, Terry v. Sperry, Slip Opinion No. 2011-Ohio-3364.], may help spur even further growth in the state’s winemaking business.
There are currently over 110 commercial wineries in operation in Ohio. There are five designated American viticultural areas partially or completely located within the state. Many of these wineries operate well out in the country, where they are under the jurisdiction of various township zoning rules.
Ohio’s commercial wine industry began before 1820; by the time of the American Civil War, Ohio was the largest wine-producing state in the country. Prohibition, of course, put an end to that.
The industry was restarted in the 1960s with a boost from the Ohio State University-Wooster agriculture program, which planted French varietals in the state. The Ohio Wine Producers Association was formed in 1975 (www.ohiowines.org).
Myrddin Winery (www.myrddinwine.com) is located on a small parcel of land around Lake Milton, in Berlin Center Township in eastern Mahoning County. It is a small, family-owned winery, like many in northeast Ohio, owned and operated by Kristopher and Evelyn Sperry on property owned by Kristopher’s mother, Gayle. All three operate the business.
The property was in a township R-1 residential zoning.
Before starting the winery, Kristofer Sperry contacted the Milton Township zoning inspector at the time and inquired whether a winery could be located on his mother's property. According to the record of the case, the township told him that the business was allowed on that property, and that a written approval or permit did not need to be issued. The Sperrys then procured federal and state permits to operate a winery on their property.
The business used both grapes that were grown on the property (only about 20 vines) and juice and other products from elsewhere. In total, about 5 percent of the wines made and sold at the winery were directly from the grapes grown on the property.
Neighbors started complaining to the township about the fact that there was a winery on the premises. In January 2008, the township zoning inspector filed a complaint for preliminary and permanent injunction seeking to enjoin the Sperrys' use of the property as a retail business and restaurant.
In their motions for summary judgment, the parties stipulated to the issues, which were, essentially:
“1. Are the winery activities conducted on the property an Agricultural Use of the Property as defined in Section 519.01 of the Ohio Revised Code?
2. Is the Myrddin Winery exempt from zoning regulation by Milton Township pursuant to Section [519.21(A) ] of the Ohio Revised Code?”
The trial court and the appellate court both held for the township on both of those issues.
Both courts broke the issue down to whether the primary use of the property was viticulture (the growing of grapes), which would fit under the zoning regulations, or vinting, which is the making and selling of wine, and which would not fit under those regulations.
Both courts held that the Sperrys were vinting, and therefore that their business violated the zoning regulations.
In overturning the 7th District’s decision, the Ohio Supreme Court took an entirely different approach.
In a lengthy analysis, the court concluded viticulture equated to agriculture, and that, therefore, any grape-growing property was not subject to township zoning regulations at all, under R.C. 519.21(A).
The court quotes R.C. 519.21(A), which, “ specifically provides that the township has no power to prohibit the ‘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.’”
The court found that the percentage of the business dedicated to grape growing was irrelevant, specifically holding that, “a township may not prohibit the use of buildings for the vinting and selling of wine on a property as long as the property also cultivates grapes for wine making.”
It would now appear that, and several people have been quoted as saying, that, as long as a vintner has a grape vine growing on a piece of property, a township cannot regulate a winery business on that property through zoning.
This decision may be the greatest boost ever to the Ohio winemaking industry.