A recent decision by the Ohio Court of Appeals has clarified the responsibilities and rights of property owners and township officials regarding zoning permits and agricultural exemptions. The case centered on whether proper zoning permits were obtained for three buildings constructed by a local property owner, raising questions about administrative procedures and legal interpretations that affect both landowners and local governments.
The complaint was filed by Geoffrey Surber in Darke County Common Pleas Court against the Greenville Township Board of Trustees, with proceedings culminating in an appellate opinion issued on April 10, 2026.
According to court documents, Geoffrey Surber purchased a 15.2-acre property at 1468 Sater Street in Greenville, Ohio, in January 2019. The land includes tillable farmland used for growing corn or soybeans under a cooperation agreement with two other parties. The property is located within an I-1 Industrial Zoning District governed by Greenville Township.
In March 2019, Surber erected Building A on his property after submitting a zoning permit application and paying an $864 fee. Although initially used for personal storage, Building A began operating as Dean’s Auto Service later that year—a use permitted under township regulations for industrial districts. However, around the same time as receiving his commercial permit, Surber also submitted documentation indicating an ‘Agricultural Use’ for Building A to county authorities and received a refund of his permit fee.
In spring 2020, Surber constructed Buildings B and C without applying for separate zoning permits or paying fees but did submit ‘Building Notices’ that included certifications for agricultural use. Building B was primarily used as Surber’s farm office with some rental storage space; Building C was leased to Kraut Creek Natural Feed Company for livestock feed operations.
Curtis Yount served as township zoning inspector until September 2019 when Scott Peele took over. Upon review of records from previous years, Peele determined that all three buildings had been granted agricultural exemptions despite not meeting requirements under state law or township regulations. On June 30, 2021, Peele issued a violation notice to Surber stating he had failed to obtain necessary zoning permits prior to construction. A second notice followed in August reiterating these points and revoking any previously issued exemptions based on agricultural use.
Surber appealed these notices first to the township’s Board of Zoning Appeals (the Board), which held a hearing attended by both parties’ counsel as well as current and former inspectors. At this hearing, Yount stated it was county policy not to question requests for agricultural permits if forms were signed; Peele argued that what had been issued were not valid permits but improper exemptions since the buildings were not used primarily for agriculture.
The Board found that none of the three buildings had proper zoning permits and ordered Surber to obtain them within thirty days. Surber then appealed this decision administratively to Darke County Common Pleas Court.
After reviewing transcripts and additional depositions—including those from Surber himself—the trial court ruled that Building A was properly permitted but Buildings B and C were not eligible for agricultural exemption because their primary uses did not meet statutory definitions of agriculture or uses incidental thereto under Ohio Revised Code section 519.21(A). The trial court also declined to apply equitable estoppel or laches against the township due to its governmental function status.
Both sides appealed aspects of this ruling: Greenville Township challenged the reversal regarding Building A while Surber contested findings related to Buildings B and C as well as procedural decisions about evidence admissibility.
On appeal, Judge Robert G. Hanseman wrote that although there were technical errors in how parties were named during initial filings—such as designating only the Board rather than including township officials—these did not deprive courts of jurisdiction nor bar participation or appeals by necessary parties who had been properly notified throughout proceedings.
The appellate court found substantial evidence showing that Surber had requested an agricultural exemption for Building A after initially obtaining a commercial permit (and refunding its fee), thereby voiding its status as properly permitted under industrial district rules. For Buildings B and C, judges agreed with lower courts that their main functions—office work unrelated directly to farming activities or processing products sourced elsewhere—did not qualify them for exemption from standard permitting requirements under state law definitions of agriculture.
Additionally, claims invoking equitable estoppel or laches against enforcement actions by local government were rejected based on established precedent holding such doctrines do not apply when political subdivisions are performing governmental functions like enforcing zoning codes.
As a result, the appellate panel reversed the trial court’s judgment concerning Building A (requiring new permitting) while affirming decisions regarding Buildings B and C (upholding violations). Costs were assigned to appellee/cross-appellant Surber per court order.
Attorneys involved included Kathleen F. Ryan and Hanna R. Puthoff representing Greenville Township Board of Trustees et al., while Nicole L. Pohlman represented Geoffrey Surber. The case was identified as Trial Court Case No. 21-CV-475; appellate numbers 2025-CA-11; 2025-CA-12.
Source: 2026Ohio1305_Surber_v_Greenville_Township_Board_of_Trustees_Opinion_Ohio_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
