To enact section 3767.52 of the Revised Code to create a complete defense to certain nuisance claims regarding racing facilities and racetracks.
HB639 would add a new section to the Ohio Revised Code creating a complete defense against certain nuisance lawsuits involving racing facilities and racetracks. The defense would apply when a property owner brings a nuisance claim based on ordinary and anticipated activities of a lawfully operating racing facility, such as noise, dust, traffic, lighting, and similar effects, and the claimant bought the property or built on it after the racetrack was already completed. The bill defines the protected area broadly as property within five miles of the racetrack’s perimeter.
The protection would apply even if the racetrack later changes its size, configuration, technology, or type of racing, so long as it remains lawfully operating and the claim concerns ordinary operations. At the same time, the bill expressly preserves compliance with state and federal environmental laws and health and safety regulations, and it does not bar claims for physical damage or personal injury. It also prevents counties and townships from adopting local resolutions that conflict with the new state law.
If enacted, HB639 would preempt local governments from regulating in a way that conflicts with the statute and would significantly limit nuisance litigation against racing facilities and racetracks in Ohio. It would create a statutory defense for operators against claims from later-arriving neighboring property owners, shifting the legal balance in favor of existing motorsport venues and reducing exposure to lawsuits over ordinary operational impacts. The bill would not eliminate all liability, however, because environmental, health, safety, property-damage, and personal-injury claims would remain available.
The bill appears to be framed as a pro-racing-facility measure, with its text focused on protecting lawful racetrack operations from nuisance claims. Because the bill was only introduced and no committee transcript or vote record is available, there is no recorded public debate in the provided materials. Based on the structure of the proposal, the likely support would come from racetrack operators and supporters of motorsports, while opposition would likely come from nearby property owners and local governments concerned about noise, traffic, and land-use impacts.
The main point of contention is the breadth of the immunity-like defense, especially the five-mile radius, the inclusion of broad “ordinary and anticipated activities,” and the rule that the defense applies even after changes in the facility’s size, scope, configuration, technology, or racing type. Critics could argue that this unduly restricts neighboring landowners’ ability to seek relief from substantial impacts, while supporters would likely argue that people who move near an existing racetrack should not later use nuisance law to block normal operations. Another possible issue is the bill’s restriction on county and township action, which limits local control.