43
Winery case to be heard by high court
By PETER H. MILLIKEN
YOUNGSTOWN
The Ohio Supreme Court will determine whether a tiny lakefront winery qualifies for an agricultural exemption from Milton Township zoning laws.
The state’s top court has accepted for review the case of Jenifer Terry, Milton Township zoning inspector, versus Gayle K. Sperry, operator of the Myrrdin Winery, 3020 Scenic Drive.
The Lake Milton winery case was one of only nine cases statewide and the only Mahoning County case, which the top court accepted Wednesday for review.
In earning its place on the high court’s docket, the winery prevailed in its claim that the dispute “raises a substantial constitutional question” and is of significant public interest.
The winery, which grows some of the grapes used in its products near its retail store and tasting room, maintains that it qualifies for an agricultural exemption from township zoning regulations.
Saying every Ohio township resident has a legal right to farm, the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation and Mahoning County Farm Bureau have declared their support for the winery in its multiyear legal battle for survival.
The winery appealed to the supreme court a 7th District Court of Appeals ruling that the winery must cease operating in a residential neighborhood. In June, the Ohio Supreme Court granted a stay, which lets the winery continue to function while its appeal is pending.
In a 2-1 decision in March, the appeals court upheld a ruling by Judge John M. Durkin of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court that barred Sperry from operating the winery at her current location, which is zoned as a single-family residential district.
Terry had sought Judge Durkin’s order based on neighbors’ complaints about the winery’s traffic and retail activity in a residential area.
Noting that 95 percent of the wine Myrrdin sells is made from grapes grown elsewhere, Judge Durkin rejected the winery’s claim to an agricultural exemption from the township zoning code.
Because its primary activities are processing, bottling and selling wine, and not grape cultivation, the appellate court ruled the winery couldn’t be classified legally as an agricultural enterprise that would be exempt from township zoning regulations.
During the lengthy dispute, some of the winery’s neighbors have posted signs saying “Winos go home” and “Uphold Judge Durkin’s ruling. Close this bar.”