Ohio Supreme Court Rules Lordstown Can Reject Data Center Site-Plan Review Filed Before Moratorium

The Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled unanimously that the village of Lordstown is under no obligation to complete a site-plan review for a proposed data center complex whose application was submitted just days before local officials imposed a moratorium on such facilities, a decision that clarifies how municipal zoning authority interacts with pending development applications in a state that has become a major destination for hyperscale data center investment.

In a per curiam opinion issued by the full court, the justices found that Lordstown officials acted within their rights when they halted processing of the site-plan review requested by Bristolville 25 Developer. The developer had sought the review as the first step toward obtaining a permit to construct four three-story data centers and ancillary structures on land in the Trumbull County village zoned for industrial use. Bristolville purchased the land from BHGH Properties in February 2025 for the project.

The dispute began in October 2025, when Bristolville initiated the first step of Lordstown's codified site-plan review process. The village's planning and zoning administrator notified the company the following day that a ban on data centers was pending before the village council. Two weeks later, the council adopted the ban, which it subsequently converted into a moratorium on data center construction. The village had provided Bristolville with a two-page overview of its site-plan review process, which requires developers to submit project plans for review by the village engineer and other officials, followed by detailed planning on utilities, stormwater management and safety before a final review by the planning and zoning commission. No construction can begin until a zoning permit is issued.

Bristolville argued before the court that because it had submitted its site plan before the moratorium took effect, the village had a legal duty to proceed with the review under the zoning law in force on the day of submission, when data centers were still permitted. The company sought a writ of mandamus to compel the village to act, citing the court's 1960 Gibson v. Oberlin decision and its 1941 State ex rel. Fairmount Ctr. Co. v. Arnold ruling, both of which established that a property owner's right to a permit is secured upon filing a complete application.

The court, however, distinguished those precedents, noting that in both prior cases the owners had satisfied all requirements to obtain a permit. Bristolville, by contrast, had not completed the village's required preliminary site-review steps and therefore had not obtained the right to apply for a zoning permit. "Under the moratorium, the village is under no legal duty to proceed with a site-plan review of Bristolville's project," the court concluded, adding that the developer had not shown a clear legal right to have its plan reviewed under the pre-moratorium zoning ordinance. The case is State ex rel. Bristolville 25 Developer LLC v. Lordstown, Slip Opinion No. 2026-Ohio-4073.

Lordstown first passed a total ban on data centers within its corporate boundaries in November 2025, defining the facilities and exempting existing data centers and those already under construction. In January 2026, the village repealed the ban and replaced it with a six-month moratorium set to expire on July 4, 2026, which the council later extended through the remainder of the year. The ruling underscores the leverage local governments retain over data center siting even as demand for computing capacity drives rapid development across Ohio and other Midwestern states, and it signals that developers rushing to secure approvals ahead of restrictive zoning measures may find little recourse if their applications are incomplete when new rules take effect.