Advertisement

May 23, 2013

Environmental Law Alert - Ohio Supreme Court Decision Finds Local Zoning Law is Applicable to Private Landfill

On Sept. 5, 2012, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled in the case of Rumpke Sanitary Landfill, Inc. vs. Colerain Township, Ohio, Case No. 2011-0181, that the landfill operated by Rumpke was subject to local zoning regulations and was not an exempt “public utility.” The decision essentially thwarts future expansion of the landfill and allows the local zoning commission to regulate the facility based on quality of life issues for surrounding neighbors.

After pursuing an action in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court against the Township Trustees for denying the company’s application for expansion of its nearly 350 acre landfill operation, the Common Pleas Court ruled that the landfill was exempt from local zoning regulations because it fell within the legal definition of a “public utility”. The First District Court of Appeals upheld the Trial Court’s decision and the Township appealed again. The Ohio Supreme Court reversed the lower courts and found that Rumpke Sanitary Landfill does not meet the definition of a “public utility” according to the Ohio Revised Code Section 519.211 and therefore is subject to local zoning requirements.

The Court’s analysis focused on determining whether the facility met the standards for a “public utility” including considering the factors related to the “public service” and “public concern” characteristics of a public utility. The Supreme Court further analyzed whether the landfill was regulated as a “public utility” and citing a 1939 case found that:

“factors utilized in determining whether an enterprise conducts itself in such a way as to become a matter of public concern including the good or service provided, competition in the local marketplace, and regulation by governmental authority. None of these factors is controlling. Nevertheless, in a case where the business enterprise serves such a substantial part of the public that its rates, charges and methods of operation become a public concern, it can be characterized as a public utility.”

The Court found that the Rumpke Sanitary Landfill operates as a private sanitary landfill and is not regulated as a public utility because of the lack of governmental regulation over the public-service and public-concern factors. In a 7 to 0 decision, the Ohio Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Court’s decision affirming the Trial Court’s declaration that Rumpke is a “public utility” and not subject to local zoning requirements and remanded the case back to the Trial Court for further proceedings.

© 2013 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

About the Author

Partner

Charles M. Denton is a partner in the Grand Rapids office of Barnes & Thornburg LLP and is an administrator of the firm’s Environmental Law Department in Michigan and Northern Indiana. He focuses his practice on environmental agency enforcement defense, toxic torts and class action litigation, “Brownfields” redevelopment, compliance counseling, insurance coverage, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

616-742-3974

About the Author

Of Counsel

Charles R. Dyas, Jr. is an of counsel member of Barnes & Thornburg LLP’s Columbus office, where he practices in the firm’s Finance, Insolvency and Restructuring Department and the Environmental Law Department.

Mr. Dyas concentrates his practice on all aspects of Chapter 11 bankruptcy and work-out matters, receiverships, business and commercial litigation, administrative law, environmental law, and real property and zoning. He has represented creditors and creditor committees in Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings; assisted financial institutions with commercial foreclosures,...

614-628-1408

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: P