Key Points

  • The Supreme Court of Ohio unanimously denied a writ of mandamus sought by Bristolville 25 Developer, L.L.C. and BHGH Properties, L.L.C. against the Village of Lordstown and its planning-and-zoning administrator.
  • Lordstown's data-center moratorium, Ord. Nos. 1-2026 and 29-2026, suspends the village's obligation to conduct site-plan review for data centers while it is in effect.
  • Under Gibson v. Oberlin, a developer has no vested right to a particular zoning ordinance until it has met the legislative requirements for a permit, and a submitted draft site plan does not meet them.
  • The court distinguished State ex rel. Fairmount Ctr. Co. v. Arnold because the owner there would have been entitled to a permit but for the stop-gap ordinance.
  • The court rejected the village's arguments that the case was a disguised declaratory-judgment action, was moot, or sought an act already performed, denied leave to file rebuttal evidence, and granted judicial notice.

The Ohio Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to order the Village of Lordstown to review a developer's plans for a large data center, holding that a temporary moratorium the village adopted after the developer filed its first papers relieved Lordstown of any clear duty to proceed.

All seven justices joined the unsigned per curiam opinion, which denied Bristolville 25 Developer LLC's request for a writ of mandamus. The court held that Bristolville had no vested right because it had not yet met the requirements for a permit. Bristolville "does not have a vested right to the application of any particular zoning ordinance until it has met the legislative requirements to obtain a permit," the court wrote.

The decision reads a 1960 precedent, Gibson v. Oberlin, as protecting only property owners who have satisfied every legislative requirement for a permit. A draft site plan filed at the opening step of Lordstown's review did not qualify, so the village could suspend review under a later moratorium.

Bristolville acquires and develops property for large-scale data centers across the United States. In February 2025 it agreed to buy an industrially zoned parcel in Lordstown from BHGH Properties LLC, which joined the suit. Lordstown's ordinances require the village Planning Commission to approve a site plan before a developer may apply for a zoning permit to build.

On Oct. 20, 2025, Bristolville hand-delivered a narrative outline of the project and a draft site plan, the first of four steps in a village guidance document. The next day, planning-and-zoning administrator Kellie D. Bordner replied that a proposed ban on data centers was before the village council and that "the Planning & Zoning Office would not be able to proceed until Council makes a decision on the ban at the next Council meeting."

On Nov. 3, the council passed Ordinance No. 57-2025, an emergency measure prohibiting data centers anywhere in the village, set to take effect Dec. 3. Village solicitor Matthew Ries wrote Bristolville's lawyers on Nov. 12 that the village was not refusing review but that the project "w[ould] likely be prohibited by Village of Lordstown's Ordinance No. 57-2025." Bristolville and BHGH then filed suit directly in the Supreme Court.

The council repealed the ban before it took effect and unanimously enacted a moratorium of up to 180 days on issuing new permits for data centers and on receiving and processing their permit applications. The measure "suspends any obligations or requirements to act . . . upon an application for a permit and/or in the site plan review approval process for Data Centers." The council also voted not to approve the village engineer's work authorization, which review requires. On June 15, 2026, the council extended the moratorium another 180 days, through 2026.

The court first rejected the village's arguments that the suit was a disguised declaratory-judgment action outside the court's original jurisdiction, that the ban's repeal made it moot, and that the village was already reviewing the plan. Bristolville and BHGH had "done little to disguise their desire that we declare that they have a vested right," the court wrote, but the complaint sought to compel official action, which mandamus permits.

On the merits, the moratorium controlled. "As long as a duly enacted moratorium ordinance is in effect, the village does not have a clear legal duty to proceed with a review of Bristolville's site plan, unless the moratorium is unenforceable as to Bristolville's submission," the court wrote.

Bristolville argued that the moratorium could not reach its submission, relying first on Gibson. In that case, a building inspector refused a permit for a 12-suite apartment building, and while the owner's appeal was pending, the city amended its zoning ordinances to make the proposed building an impermissible use. The Supreme Court held that an owner who had complied with all legislative requirements had a right to the permit, a right that vested on filing the application.

"Relators misapply Gibson," the court wrote. Bristolville "has not yet applied for a permit to begin construction, much less met all legislative requirements for obtaining such a permit," the court said, because Planning Commission approval of a site plan must come first.

The court also distinguished State ex rel. Fairmount Center Co. v. Arnold, a 1941 decision that struck down a city's emergency "stop-gap" ordinance blocking a permit while a rezoning was pending. The owner in that case would have been entitled to the permit but for the ordinance. Rejecting Bristolville's reading of that case as an application of the Ohio Constitution's ban on retroactive laws, the court wrote that "the moratorium is not giving retroactive effect to any zoning change" because Bristolville had "no entitlement to a permit even under the premoratorium law."

Bristolville also argued that the village's position "would eliminate all protection that a zoning applicant has against changes in law throughout the application process" and could encourage localities to stall. "The remedy for relators' policy concern, however, is not a writ of mandamus," the court wrote, quoting a 2025 decision for the rule that "the creation of a duty enforceable in mandamus is a legislative and not a judicial function."

The court denied Bristolville's motion to file rebuttal evidence about another developer's site-plan review. It took judicial notice of the extension and of a 2026 ordinance under which a consultant would help amend the village's planning and zoning code, which Bristolville said would "specifically provide for regulations related to data centers."

Lawyers for Bristolville and BHGH included Lynn Rowe Larsen of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, L.L.P. The village was represented by Frank H. Scialdone and John D. Pinzone of Mazanec, Raskin & Ryder Co., L.P.A.

The court denied the writ without deciding the village's further argument that Bristolville had an adequate remedy through an administrative appeal. Under the ruling, the village has no clear legal duty to review Bristolville's site plan while the moratorium, extended through 2026, remains in effect.