In State ex rel. Fox v. Orwig (Sept. 15, 1995), 11th Dist. No. 94-T-5100, 1995 Ohio App, the Court held that the operation of a landscaping business was not an agricultural use of property. In so doing, we relied on the dictionary definitions of floriculture and horticulture, which are defined as "'the cultivation and management of ornamental and flowering plants,' and 'the science and art of growing fruits, vegetables, flowers, or ornamental plants.'" Appellants urge that the case sub judice is factually distinguishable, since O'Shaughnessy uses the property primarily for the storage of equipment, the storage and processing of mulch used in landscaping jobs, and since no sales are made from the premises. In Orwig, the Court did not rely on the aforementioned factors in determining that appellant's landscaping business was not an agricultural use of the property. Rather, we relied on the fact that "the trees, shrubbery, sod, and other plants were not grown on the land" and "the compost was made from yard waste, leaves and other material returned from landscaping jobs." Thus, "these activities i.e. the cultivation, processing and storage of mulch were merely an accommodation to appellants' landscaping business."