The village of Lordstown does not have to consider a proposed data center’s request for a site-plan review that was submitted days before the village imposed a moratorium on data centers, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled today.

In a unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court ruled that Lordstown officials were within their rights to stop processing the site-plan review requested by Bristolville 25 Developer, which was the first step toward obtaining a permit to construct four three-story data centers and ancillary structures in an area of the Trumbull County village zoned for industrial use.

Bristolville initiated the first step in October 2025 under Lordstown’s codified ordinances to construct the data centers and was notified the next day by the village planning and zoning administrator that a ban on data centers was pending before the village council. Two weeks later, the village council adopted the ban, which it later converted to a moratorium on data centers.

Bristolville sought a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court to compel the village to follow its site plan review process and act upon it under the village’s pre-moratorium ordinances. The company argued the village must follow the zoning law in effect on the day the company submitted its plan, which at that time did not prohibit data centers.

The Court stated that Bristolville’s arguments may have prompted a duty for the village to act on the request had the company completed all the steps required to apply for a zoning permit. Because the company had not completed the required preliminary steps to apply for a permit, the village was under no obligation to consider its proposal.

Village Halts New Data Centers
In November 2025, Lordstown passed an ordinance banning data centers within the corporate boundaries. The ordinance defined data centers and indicated that the ban did not apply to any existing data centers or any data center under construction at the time the ordinance took effect.

In January 2026, the village repealed the total ban and replaced it with a six-month moratorium on data center construction, which was set to expire on July 4, 2026. Before its expiration, the council extended the moratorium through the remainder of 2026.

Developer Engages Village to Construct Complex
Bristolville purchased land from BHGH Properties in February 2025 to construct the data center complex.

The village provided Bristolville with its two-page “Overview of Lordstown Village Site Plan Review Process.” Under village law, an applicant for a zoning permit for new construction must undergo a site plan review overseen by the village zoning and planning office.

The village explained it has a four-step process that requires a developer to share its project plans, which are reviewed by the village engineer and other village officials. Once the village officials and the developer agree to more detailed planning, such as utility, stormwater management, and safety plans, the village engineer and the planning and zoning administrator provide written comments pointing out any deficiencies or requesting additional information.

Village officials submit a final site plan review for approval by the village’s planning and zoning commission. If the commission approves the site plan, then a developer can file for a zoning permit. No construction can begin until a zoning permit is issued.

Bristolville delivered its draft site plan to begin the permitting process in October 2025. It emailed a copy to the village solicitor, Matthew Ries, the same day. The village planning and zoning administrator responded, notifying Bristolville about the pending ban, and stated the office could not begin the site plan review until the village council decided on the ban.

Bristolville responded by asking the planning and zoning office to proceed because, at that time, data centers were still permitted under village law.

After the ban passed, the planning and zoning administrator forwarded the draft site plan to the village engineer for review.

Ries notified Bristolville that the village officials were proceeding with the site plan, but indicated that, based on the newly enacted ban, the proposal would likely be prohibited. Once the ban was transformed into a moratorium, the village suspended any further review of Bristolville’s plan.  While the moratorium was in effect, the village’s obligations to conduct site-plan reviews or to act on any application for a permit for data-center construction were suspended.  The company then asked the Supreme Court to order the village to move forward with the review.

Supreme Court Analyzed Zoning Process
Because it submitted its site plan for review before the moratorium, Bristolville argued that the village had a legal duty to proceed with the review. The Court stated that Lordstown does not have a duty to act on the request, “unless the moratorium is unenforceable as to Bristolville’s submission.”

Bristolville cited two Supreme Court decisions to argue it had a legal right to proceed with the permitting process. It cited the Court’s 1960 Gibson v. Oberlin decision dealing with the issuance of a building permit for an apartment complex. In that case, the Court held that the building owner’s right to a permit is secured “upon the filing of the application for the permit.”

The company also cited the Court’s 1941 State ex rel. Fairmount Ctr. Co. v. Arnold decision, in which a property owner obtained a permit to construct a commercial building. The permit expired before construction began, and after its expiration, but before construction, the city council passed an emergency ordinance that would have prohibited the commercial building. The Court directed the city to grant the owner the permit, finding that the city did not follow its established process for making a zoning change, and that, had it not been for the emergency rezoning ordinance, the owner would have qualified for a second permit.

Today’s opinion stated that Bristolville misapplied the Gibson and Fairmount Ctr. cases. In Gibson, the owner met all the city’s legislative requirements to obtain a permit and applied for a permit. In Fairmount Ctr., the owner had satisfied all the requirements for a permit and would have qualified for a construction permit had the emergency ordinance not been passed.

In contrast, Bristolville has not met the requirements to obtain a permit, the Court ruled. The company has not obtained the right to apply for a zoning permit from the village because it has not yet completed the village’s required site review.

“Under the moratorium, the village is under no legal duty to proceed with a site-plan review of Bristolville’s project under Lordstown Cod.Ord. 1115.04 and relators have not shown a clear legal right to have Bristolville’s site plan reviewed under the premoratorium zoning ordinance,” the Court concluded.

2025-1497. State ex rel. Bristolville 25 Developer LLC v. Lordstown, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-4073.

Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion, but only for noteworthy cases. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of court opinions. The full text of this and other court opinions are available online.