Eastman & Smith Attorneys Prove Business is Agriculture


woman holding flowers in greenhouseKyle D. Tucker, Matthew D. Harper and Barry W. Fissel, members of Eastman & Smith, and associate  Charles E. Hatch III, successfully defended a client’s agricultural business from government overreach.

The core issue was whether the client’s use was, in fact, agricultural.  The client’s primary use of the property is horticultural – the growing of flowers, succulents and house plants in greenhouses for sale at farmer’s markets. 

Township officials took the view the use was commercial, not agriculture, and violated the township’s zoning resolution.  As such, the township moved to permanently stop the use and put an end to the business.  

Eastman & Smith argued the client’s use was agricultural and protected from local zoning regulation by state law.  After weighing the evidence, including expert testimony on horticulture introduced by Eastman & Smith, the court agreed that the client’s use fit within the definition of agriculture and could not be regulated by the township officials. 

Whether a small, family-owned company, or multinational corporation, Eastman & Smith advises Ohio businesses across the state on zoning and land use related matters.  For questions regarding a land use or zoning issue please contact Mr. Tucker, Mr. Harper or Mr. Hatch.