Proposed Ordinance No. 26-04 would permanently ban all livestock and give residents just 30 days to comply — directly conflicting with Ohio state law. The final council vote is on May 11. Sign the petition now.
Time until the May 11 council vote
What the Ordinance Does
This isn’t an abstract policy debate. It targets families who have raised animals for years — and gives them almost no time to comply.
Horses, goats, sheep, cattle, pigs, llamas, alpacas — all permanently banned. No exceptions, no limits on size of herd, no distinction between one animal or fifty.
Section 7 gives you just 30 days after passage to find a new home for animals you may have raised for years. There is no flexibility, no hardship extension built into the text.
After the 30-day window closes, you face fines of up to $50 every single day your animals remain — indefinitely, with no cap on total penalties.
The ordinance grants code enforcement authority to issue removal notices with no built-in process for residents to contest a decision or present their case.
Why This Can Be Stopped
The Village Council does not have unlimited authority. Ordinance 26-04 conflicts with Ohio state statute, the Ohio Constitution, and the U.S. Constitution — and each conflict is a ground for legal challenge.
Ohio law requires municipalities to allow “nonconforming uses” — lawful activities that existed before a new ordinance — to continue. Section 7 of Ordinance 26-04 directly violates this state statute by mandating removal of pre-existing livestock within 30 days instead of permitting their continuation.
Conflicts with: Ordinance §7 (Nonconforming Use)
The Ohio Constitution declares that “private property shall ever be held inviolate.” Livestock represent real economic value — sometimes thousands of dollars. Forcing their removal without compensation, grandfathering, or a reasonable transition period fails the constitutional standard that any interference with property rights must be proportionate and serve a legitimate public interest.
Conflicts with: Ordinance §4 (Prohibited Animals)
When a regulation effectively destroys the economically beneficial use of property, it can constitute a “regulatory taking” requiring compensation under Lucas v. South Carolina (1992) and Penn Central (1978). The Village has proposed zero compensation for residents whose animal-keeping operations this ordinance would eliminate.
Conflicts with: Ordinance §4 & §7
Due process requires that before government action deprives you of property, you must have meaningful notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Ohio Supreme Court has struck down similar village provisions (Sunset Estate Properties v. Lodi, 2015) for exactly this reason. Ordinance 26-04 includes no variance, no hardship exception, and no appeal process.
Conflicts with: Ordinance §5 & §6
Time Is Running Out
Three public readings are required before the final vote. Each meeting is an opportunity for residents to attend and make their voices heard in person.
Take Action
This petition will be submitted at each scheduled reading. If you haven’t signed yet — now is the time. It takes less than 30 seconds.
Official Legal Document
This formal objection will be submitted to Village Council, the Fairfield County Prosecutor’s Office, and other relevant authorities on behalf of all signatories.
This letter serves as a formal objection to Proposed Ordinance No. 26-04, currently scheduled for three readings before the Village Council of West Rushville, Ohio, on March 9, 2026, April 13, 2026, and May 11, 2026. The undersigned are property owners and residents of the Village of West Rushville who have lawfully kept livestock on their properties prior to the proposal of this ordinance. We respectfully submit this objection to be entered into the public record at each reading.
We write not only to express our strong opposition to this ordinance, but to formally notify the Village Council that multiple provisions of Ordinance No. 26-04 directly conflict with Ohio statutory law, the Ohio Constitution, and the United States Constitution. Should this ordinance be adopted in its current form, the undersigned are prepared to challenge its legality through all available administrative and judicial remedies, including but not limited to declaratory judgment actions, injunctive relief, and claims for compensation.
The most significant legal deficiency in Ordinance No. 26-04 is found in Section 7 (“Nonconforming Use”), which states that livestock lawfully kept within the Village prior to the effective date “shall not be permitted to continue and must be removed within 30 days of adoption unless otherwise required by state law.”
This provision is in direct conflict with Ohio Revised Code § 713.15, which governs nonconforming uses in municipal corporations, including villages. ORC § 713.15 provides, in pertinent part:
“The lawful use of any dwelling, building, or structure and of any land or premises, as existing and lawful at the time of enacting a zoning ordinance or an amendment to the ordinance, may be continued, although such use does not conform with the provisions of such ordinance or amendment.”
ORC § 713.15 further provides that nonconforming uses may only be deemed discontinued if they are voluntarily discontinued for two years or more (or such shorter period of not less than six months as the municipality may provide by ordinance). The statute also requires that any zoning ordinance must “provide for the completion, restoration, reconstruction, extension, or substitution of nonconforming uses upon such reasonable terms as are set forth in the zoning ordinance.”
Ordinance No. 26-04 does the opposite of what ORC § 713.15 requires. Rather than allowing pre-existing lawful uses to continue, it mandates their immediate forced elimination within 30 days. This is not a gradual phase-out, not a voluntary discontinuance provision, and not a reasonable amortization period. It is an outright prohibition retroactively applied to lawful, pre-existing uses in direct defiance of state law.
A village ordinance that contradicts state statute is void and unenforceable to the extent of the conflict. The Ohio Supreme Court has consistently held that municipal ordinances may not contravene the general laws of the state. Section 7, as drafted, is legally invalid on its face.
Article I, Section 19 of the Ohio Constitution provides that “Private property shall ever be held inviolate, but subservient to the public welfare.” While this provision acknowledges that private property rights may yield to legitimate public welfare concerns, it also establishes a constitutional standard requiring that any interference with property rights be reasonable, proportionate, and rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
Livestock owned by residents represent personal property of substantial value. Horses, goats, sheep, and other animals may represent investments of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars. Requiring the forced removal of lawfully held personal property within 30 days, without any compensation, without any grandfathering provision, and without any reasonable amortization period, constitutes a deprivation of property that cannot be justified under the police power. The ordinance provides no evidence, findings, or basis for the assertion that the mere keeping of livestock by existing owners presents a present danger to public health, safety, or welfare sufficient to justify this extraordinary measure.
Article I, Section 16 of the Ohio Constitution provides that “All courts shall be open, and every person, for an injury done him in his land, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law; and justice administered without denial or delay.” The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution further prohibits any state from depriving any person of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
Substantive Due Process. Even under a rational basis standard of review, the forced elimination of pre-existing, lawful uses without any transitional period, compensation, or grandfathering provision is unreasonable and arbitrary. The Ohio Supreme Court has recognized that zoning ordinances that deprive a property owner of vested property rights in pre-existing lawful uses are subject to constitutional challenge. In State ex rel. Sunset Estate Properties, L.L.C. v. Lodi, 2015-Ohio-790, the Court struck down a village ordinance provision that impermissibly deprived owners of the right to continue lawful nonconforming uses, holding that such deprivation violates due process.
Procedural Due Process. The ordinance provides no mechanism for affected property owners to seek a variance, apply for an exception, or otherwise be heard on an individual basis before their property rights are extinguished. A blanket mandate to remove all livestock within 30 days, without any individualized hearing or process, fails to satisfy minimum procedural due process requirements.
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that private property shall not “be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Ohio Constitution Article I, Section 19 contains a corresponding protection.
Where a regulation eliminates all economically beneficial use of property, or where it goes “too far” in burdening private property for public benefit, it constitutes a regulatory taking requiring compensation. For residents whose properties were acquired, improved, or maintained specifically for the purpose of keeping livestock, the forced prohibition of that use may destroy the primary economic value and intended purpose of the property. The Supreme Court of the United States in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), and Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), established frameworks under which such government actions may constitute compensable takings.
The Village has proposed no compensation whatsoever for affected property owners. To the extent that Ordinance No. 26-04 destroys the value of property rights held by existing livestock owners, it is subject to challenge as a regulatory taking.
Even in jurisdictions where forced elimination of nonconforming uses has been permitted (and Ohio is not such a jurisdiction under ORC § 713.15), courts uniformly require a reasonable amortization period that allows the property owner to recoup their investment. Thirty days is, by any legal standard, unreasonably short. It does not allow adequate time to locate suitable alternative housing for animals, arrange transportation, negotiate sale or transfer, or mitigate the financial losses associated with forced relocation.
Moreover, the forced, rushed removal of livestock raises animal welfare concerns. The Ohio Revised Code, Chapter 959, prohibits cruelty to animals and requires that animals be maintained in a humane manner. A 30-day forced removal mandate could compel owners to make hasty arrangements that may compromise the health and well-being of the animals involved.
Ordinance No. 26-04 contains no provision for variances, conditional use permits, hardship exceptions, or an appeal process. Well-drafted animal control ordinances across Ohio and the nation routinely include such provisions to ensure that the ordinance is applied fairly and does not produce unjust results in individual cases. The absence of any such safeguards further supports the conclusion that this ordinance, as drafted, is unreasonable and constitutionally deficient.
In summary, Proposed Ordinance No. 26-04, as currently drafted, suffers from the following legal deficiencies:
The undersigned respectfully demand that the Village Council take one of the following courses of action:
PLEASE BE ADVISED that if Ordinance No. 26-04 is adopted in its current form, the undersigned intend to pursue all available legal remedies, which may include but are not limited to:
We urge the Village Council to carefully consider the legal exposure this ordinance creates for the Village. Legal challenges are costly for small municipalities. The undersigned would strongly prefer to resolve this matter cooperatively, through reasonable amendments to the ordinance that respect both the Village’s interest in public health and sanitation and the rights of existing property owners who have invested in and relied upon the lawful use of their property for the keeping of animals.
This letter is submitted in good faith and with the sincere hope that the Village Council will act to correct the constitutional and statutory deficiencies identified herein before passage of the ordinance. We request that this letter be read into the record and preserved as part of the official proceedings for each of the three scheduled readings.
Respectfully submitted,
The Undersigned Residents and Property Owners of West Rushville, Ohio
CC:
Community Support
No signatures yet. Be the first to sign above.