MIAMISBURG, Ohio – Pumpkin patches, corn mazes, U-Pick operations, hay rides – they’re all forms of agritourism. Other examples included dude ranches, agricultural museums, petting zoos, bed and breakfasts, living history farms, winery tours, garden tours and demonstration farms.

Stoney Hill Farm in Miamisburg rests on 26 acres and produces various crops. It is the home to alpacas, horses and other farm animals of interest to visitors.

“We specialize in farm-themed events,” farm owner Darren Powlette contends.

However, earlier this month, a Montgomery County judge ruled against owners of the farm for hosting weddings, adding that it is prohibited from renting, leasing or otherwise operating for a fee at the barn “for weddings, receptions, graduation parties or other celebratory events.”

According to The Ohio State University’s College of Food, Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, in order for property owners to be covered under Ohio’s Agritourism Statues, they “have to meet the definition of a farm. This means at least 10 acres devoted to agricultural production or a gross average income of at least $2,500 from such production. That has to be in place before an agriculturally related activity is added, whether education, historical, cultural, recreational or for entertainment.”

Common Pleas Judge Richard Skelton sided with Miami County township officials, saying Stoney Hill Farm’s activities at a former “horse barn” on Upper Miamisburg Road are not covered under the state’s agritourism law.

“The defendants’ activities are not ‘agriculturally related’ activities within the meaning of the statutory language,” Skelton wrote. “The activities are for business use prohibited in Article 8 of the Zoning Resolution and not incident to agricultural activities.”

Powlette plans to appeal and continue to hold events in 2022. He said the appeal process will likely take a year. That won’t be the only litigation involving his business and Miami Township, he said. Last month, he filed a lawsuit against the township seeking damages for malicious prosecution in a separate case involving a bed-and-breakfast business also operated on the farm.

In addition, he’ll use the Ohio Supreme Court’s 2017 ruling that those who have a winery and a vineyard and sell a bottle of wine to a bride or groom can thereafter hold a wedding on their farm.

“We planted our vineyard three years ago, we made wine last year and we should have a wine license by the end of this month, so every single contract we have for 2020, they’re required to buy our wine for their wedding.”

Under Ohio law, ORC 901.80 states:

“Agritourism means an agriculturally related educational, entertainment, historical, cultural, or recreational activity, including you-pick operations or farm markets, conducted on a farm that allows or invited members of the general public to observe, participate in or enjoy that activity.”

Such grievances pertaining to weddings hosted on farms is common in the state. In 2020, the question of agritourism was faced by Ohio’s Second District Court of Appeals in a legal battle between Caesarscreek Township and the Lusardis, owners of a 13.5-acre property in Caesarscreek Township. The property contains a pole barn and outbuilding, a one-acre pond, several acres of woods, an eight-acre hayfield on which the Lusardis had produced hay for several years. Their plan was to offer corn mazes, hayrides and celebratory events like weddings and receptions on the property.

According to Peggy Kirk Hall, Ohio State associate professor of agricultural and resource law, the Lusardis had to demonstrate to the township’s Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) that their activities fit within Ohio’s definition of tourism according to that law.

“The township BZA agreed with the zoning inspector and it was determined that the Lusardi’s corn maze and hayride activities qualified as agritourism, but held that any celebratory events such as weddings would not be ag related to the property and thus did not fit the definition of agritourism and could not take place on the property,” Hall said.

The Lusardis appealed but to no avail. The Greene County Court of Common Pleas found the BZA’s conclusion reasonable and upheld the decision.

More than half of the states have enacted statues that address agritourism. These statues vary from liability protections for agritourism operators to tax credits to zoning requirements. Familiarity with these statutes is essential to anyone who engages in agritourism.

For info about agritourism in each state, visit https://nationalaglawcenter.org/state-compilation/agritourism.