Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 519
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211 (2026)

Limits on township zoning power - telecommunications towers

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
September 23, 2008
Latest Legislation:
House Bill 562 - 127th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) Except as otherwise provided in division (B) or (C) of this section, sections 519.02 to 519.25 of the Revised Code confer no power on any board of township trustees or board of zoning appeals in respect to the location, erection, construction, reconstruction, change, alteration, maintenance, removal, use, or enlargement of any buildings or structures of any public utility or railroad, whether publicly or privately owned, or the use of land by any public utility or railroad, for the operation of its business. As used in this division, "public utility" does not include a person that owns or operates a solid waste facility or a solid waste transfer facility, other than a publicly owned solid waste facility or a publicly owned solid waste transfer facility, that has been issued a permit under Chapter 3734. of the Revised Code or a construction and demolition debris facility that has been issued a permit under Chapter 3714. of the Revised Code.

(B)(1) As used in this division, "telecommunications tower" means any free-standing structure, or any structure to be attached to a building or other structure, that meets all of the following criteria:

(a) The free-standing or attached structure is proposed to be constructed on or after October 31, 1996.

(b) The free-standing or attached structure is proposed to be owned or principally used by a public utility engaged in the provision of telecommunications services.

(c) The free-standing or attached structure is proposed to be located in an unincorporated area of a township, in an area zoned for residential use.

(d)(i) The free-standing structure is proposed to top at a height that is greater than either the maximum allowable height of residential structures within the zoned area as set forth in the applicable zoning regulations, or the maximum allowable height of such a free-standing structure as set forth in any applicable zoning regulations in effect immediately prior to October 31, 1996, or as those regulations subsequently are amended.

(ii) The attached structure is proposed to top at a height that is greater than either the height of the building or other structure to which it is to be attached, or the maximum allowable height of such an attached structure as set forth in any applicable zoning regulations in effect immediately prior to October 31, 1996, or as those regulations subsequently are amended.

(e) The free-standing or attached structure is proposed to have attached to it radio frequency transmission or reception equipment.

(2) Sections 519.02 to 519.25 of the Revised Code confer power on a board of township trustees or board of zoning appeals with respect to the location, erection, construction, reconstruction, change, alteration, removal, or enlargement of a telecommunications tower, but not with respect to the maintenance or use of such a tower or any change or alteration that would not substantially increase the tower's height. However, the power so conferred shall apply to a particular telecommunications tower only upon the provision of a notice, in accordance with division (B)(4)(a) of this section, to the person proposing to construct the tower.

(3) Any person who plans to construct a telecommunications tower in an area subject to township zoning regulations shall provide both of the following by certified mail:

(a) Written notice to each owner of property, as shown on the county auditor's current tax list, whose land is contiguous to or directly across a street or roadway from the property on which the tower is proposed to be constructed, stating all of the following in clear and concise language:

(i) The person's intent to construct the tower;

(ii) A description of the property sufficient to identify the proposed location;

(iii) That, no later than fifteen days after the date of mailing of the notice, any such property owner may give written notice to the board of township trustees requesting that sections 519.02 to 519.25 of the Revised Code apply to the proposed location of the tower as provided under division (B)(4)(a) of this section.

If the notice to a property owner is returned unclaimed or refused, the person shall mail the notice by regular mail. The failure of delivery of the notice does not invalidate the notice.

(b) Written notice to the board of township trustees of the information specified in divisions (B)(3)(a)(i) and (ii) of this section. The notice to the board also shall include verification that the person has complied with division (B)(3)(a) of this section.

(4)(a) If the board of township trustees receives notice from a property owner under division (B)(3)(a)(iii) of this section within the time specified in that division or if a board member makes an objection to the proposed location of the telecommunications tower within fifteen days after the date of mailing of the notice sent under division (B)(3)(b) of this section, the board shall request that the fiscal officer of the township send the person proposing to construct the tower written notice that the tower is subject to the power conferred by and in accordance with division (B)(2) of this section. The notice shall be sent no later than five days after the earlier of the date the board first receives such a notice from a property owner or the date upon which a board member makes an objection. Upon the date of mailing of the notice to the person, sections 519.02 to 519.25 of the Revised Code shall apply to the tower.

(b) If the board of township trustees receives no notice under division (B)(3)(a)(iii) of this section within the time prescribed by that division or no board member has an objection as provided under division (B)(4)(a) of this section within the time prescribed by that division, division (A) of this section shall apply to the tower without exception.

(C) Sections 519.02 to 519.25 of the Revised Code confer power on a board of township trustees or board of zoning appeals with respect to the location, erection, construction, reconstruction, change, alteration, maintenance, removal, use, or enlargement of any buildings or structures of a public utility engaged in the business of transporting persons or property, or both, or providing or furnishing such transportation service, over any public street, road, or highway in this state, and with respect to the use of land by any such public utility for the operation of its business, to the extent that any exercise of such power is reasonable and not inconsistent with Chapters 4901., 4903., 4905., 4909., 4921., and 4923. of the Revised Code. However, this division confers no power on a board of township trustees or board of zoning appeals with respect to a building or structure of, or the use of land by, a person engaged in the transportation of farm supplies to the farm or farm products from farm to market or to food fabricating plants.

(D) Sections 519.02 to 519.25 of the Revised Code confer no power on any township zoning commission, board of township trustees, or board of zoning appeals to prohibit the sale or use of alcoholic beverages in areas where the establishment and operation of any retail business, hotel, lunchroom, or restaurant is permitted.

(E)(1) Any person who plans to construct a telecommunications tower within one hundred feet of a residential dwelling shall provide a written notice to the owner of the residential dwelling and to the person occupying the residence, if that person is not the owner of the residence stating in clear and concise language the person's intent to construct the tower and a description of the property sufficient to identify the proposed location. The notice shall be sent by certified mail. If the notice is returned unclaimed or refused, the person shall mail the notice by regular mail. The failure of delivery does not invalidate the notice.

(2) As used in division (E) of this section:

(a) "Residential dwelling" means a building used or intended to be used as a personal residence by the owner, part-time owner, or lessee of the building, or any person authorized by such a person to use the building as a personal residence.

(b) "Telecommunications tower" has the same meaning as in division (B)(1) of this section, except that the proposed location of the free-standing or attached structure may be an area other than an unincorporated area of a township, in an area zoned for residential use.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1989–2025 · leading case: Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Smyth, 87 Ohio St. 3d 549 (2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Smyth, 87 Ohio St. 3d 549 (2000). · cites it 37× “211 has been amended by the General Assembly three times since AT&T decided to build the tower that concerns us here, all versions have preserved the general rule exempting public utilities from township zoning regulation. 2 The limited exception to the general rule exempting…”
Rumpke Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. State, 2010-Ohio-6037, 128 Ohio St. 3d 41. · cites it 24× “Accordingly, Colerain argues that it has a direct legal interest in the outcome of the action seeking to enjoin those amendments from taking effect and consequently urges that the trial and appellate courts erred in finding that it had no interest in Rumpke’s action and in…”
Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 654 N.E.2d 1327 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1995). · cites it 11× “In his second assignment of error, Ecker contends that the trial court erred in entering a final judgment because issues of fact remain as to whether his PUCO-regulated trucking business is a public utility exempt from township zoning pursuant to R.C. 519.211(A). R.C. 519.211(A)…”
Campanelli v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 85 Ohio St. 3d 103 (1999). · cites it 20× “The sole issue to be determined by this court is whether wireless telecommunications providers, such as appellees, AT&T and Ameritech, are public utilities for the purposes of R.C. 519.211. Appellant, Nicholas R. Campanelli, asserts that wireless telecommunications providers are…”
GTE Wireless of Midwest Inc. v. Anderson Twp., 731 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1999). · cites it 26× “1 In support of their arguments, appellants highlight and rely on the provisions of R.C. 519.211. Under this statute, a township generally has no authority to regulate buildings and structures of any public utility.”
Leppla v. Sprintcom, Inc., 806 N.E.2d 1019 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2004). · cites it 14× “Second, he claims that the trial court erred in refusing to consider the constitutionality of R.C. 519.211, which provides that a township lacks regulatory authority over cell towers located in certain areas.”
Franklin Twp. v. Meadows, 720 N.E.2d 1011 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1998). · cites it 8× “was an early case construing the public utility exemption from township zoning regulation pursuant to R.C. 519.211. The Ohio Supreme Court has refined that case.”
Bench Signs Unlimited, Inc. v. Lake Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 777 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2002). · cites it 8× “{¶ 15} ■ Even if we were to conclude that appellant had a valid contract with SARTA, this court has previously concluded that the exemption in R.C. 519.211(A) 1 runs only to the utility and, therefore, appellant cannot bootstrap into the protection of the statutory exemption by…”
Trs. of Washington Twp. v. Davis, 95 Ohio St. 3d 274 (2002). · cites it 27× “Based upon our review of R.C. 519.211 and our prior decisions, we consider such a classification to be unwarranted in this circumstance and therefore affirm the appellate court’s judgment.”
A & B Refuse Disposers, Inc. v. Bd. of Ravenna Twp. Trs., 64 Ohio St. 3d 385 (1992). · cites it 3× “*387 Former R.C. 519.211 expressly exempts public utilities from township zoning regulation and land use controls.”
Washington Twp. Trs. v. Davis, 2002-Ohio-2123, 95 Ohio St. 3d 274. · cites it 27× “Based upon our review of R.C. 519.211 and our prior decisions, we consider such a classification to be unwarranted in this circumstance and therefore affirm the appellate court’s judgment.”
Collins v. Swackhamer, 600 N.E.2d 1079 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1991). · cites it 7× “2d 635 , and R.C. 519.211. In doing so, the trial court stated in part that: “In the Court’s opinion, Defendants have by a preponderance of evidence demonstrated that BAE, USA Mobile and Video Services are subject to regulatory control by either state or federal agencies, that…”
Show all 33 citing cases →
Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211(A): 16 cases
Coventry Twp. v. Ecker, 654 N.E.2d 1327 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1995). “In his second assignment of error, Ecker contends that the trial court erred in entering a final judgment because issues of fact remain as to whether his PUCO-regulated trucking business is a public utility exempt from township zoning pursuant to R.C. 519.211(A). R.C. 519.211(A)…”
Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Smyth, 87 Ohio St. 3d 549 (2000). “211 has been amended by the General Assembly three times since AT&T decided to build the tower that concerns us here, all versions have preserved the general rule exempting public utilities from township zoning regulation. 2 The limited exception to the general rule exempting…”
Rumpke Sanitary Landfill, Inc. v. State, 2010-Ohio-6037, 128 Ohio St. 3d 41. “Accordingly, Colerain argues that it has a direct legal interest in the outcome of the action seeking to enjoin those amendments from taking effect and consequently urges that the trial and appellate courts erred in finding that it had no interest in Rumpke’s action and in…”
Franklin Twp. v. Meadows, 720 N.E.2d 1011 (Ohio Ct. App. 9th Dist. 1998). “was an early case construing the public utility exemption from township zoning regulation pursuant to R.C. 519.211. The Ohio Supreme Court has refined that case.”
Bench Signs Unlimited, Inc. v. Lake Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 777 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2002). “{¶ 15} ■ Even if we were to conclude that appellant had a valid contract with SARTA, this court has previously concluded that the exemption in R.C. 519.211(A) 1 runs only to the utility and, therefore, appellant cannot bootstrap into the protection of the statutory exemption by…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211(B): 6 cases
Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Smyth, 87 Ohio St. 3d 549 (2000). “211 has been amended by the General Assembly three times since AT&T decided to build the tower that concerns us here, all versions have preserved the general rule exempting public utilities from township zoning regulation. 2 The limited exception to the general rule exempting…”
GTE Wireless of Midwest Inc. v. Anderson Twp., 731 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1999). “1 In support of their arguments, appellants highlight and rely on the provisions of R.C. 519.211. Under this statute, a township generally has no authority to regulate buildings and structures of any public utility.”
Campanelli v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 85 Ohio St. 3d 103 (1999). “The sole issue to be determined by this court is whether wireless telecommunications providers, such as appellees, AT&T and Ameritech, are public utilities for the purposes of R.C. 519.211. Appellant, Nicholas R. Campanelli, asserts that wireless telecommunications providers are…”
Trs. of Washington Twp. v. Davis, 95 Ohio St. 3d 274 (2002). “Based upon our review of R.C. 519.211 and our prior decisions, we consider such a classification to be unwarranted in this circumstance and therefore affirm the appellate court’s judgment.”
Washington Twp. Trs. v. Davis, 2002-Ohio-2123, 95 Ohio St. 3d 274. “Based upon our review of R.C. 519.211 and our prior decisions, we consider such a classification to be unwarranted in this circumstance and therefore affirm the appellate court’s judgment.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211(B)(1): 1 case
GTE Wireless of Midwest Inc. v. Anderson Twp., 731 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1999). “1 In support of their arguments, appellants highlight and rely on the provisions of R.C. 519.211. Under this statute, a township generally has no authority to regulate buildings and structures of any public utility.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211(B)(1)(b): 2 cases
Trs. of Washington Twp. v. Davis, 95 Ohio St. 3d 274 (2002). “Based upon our review of R.C. 519.211 and our prior decisions, we consider such a classification to be unwarranted in this circumstance and therefore affirm the appellate court’s judgment.”
Washington Twp. Trs. v. Davis, 2002-Ohio-2123, 95 Ohio St. 3d 274. “Based upon our review of R.C. 519.211 and our prior decisions, we consider such a classification to be unwarranted in this circumstance and therefore affirm the appellate court’s judgment.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211(B)(1)(c): 2 cases
Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Smyth, 87 Ohio St. 3d 549 (2000). “211 has been amended by the General Assembly three times since AT&T decided to build the tower that concerns us here, all versions have preserved the general rule exempting public utilities from township zoning regulation. 2 The limited exception to the general rule exempting…”
Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Smyth, 705 N.E.2d 366 (Ohio 1999).
Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211(B)(1)(d)(i): 1 case
Symmes Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Smyth, 87 Ohio St. 3d 549 (2000). “211 has been amended by the General Assembly three times since AT&T decided to build the tower that concerns us here, all versions have preserved the general rule exempting public utilities from township zoning regulation. 2 The limited exception to the general rule exempting…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211(B)(2): 3 cases
GTE Wireless of Midwest Inc. v. Anderson Twp., 731 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1999). “1 In support of their arguments, appellants highlight and rely on the provisions of R.C. 519.211. Under this statute, a township generally has no authority to regulate buildings and structures of any public utility.”
Trs. of Washington Twp. v. Davis, 95 Ohio St. 3d 274 (2002). “Based upon our review of R.C. 519.211 and our prior decisions, we consider such a classification to be unwarranted in this circumstance and therefore affirm the appellate court’s judgment.”
Washington Twp. Trs. v. Davis, 2002-Ohio-2123, 95 Ohio St. 3d 274. “Based upon our review of R.C. 519.211 and our prior decisions, we consider such a classification to be unwarranted in this circumstance and therefore affirm the appellate court’s judgment.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211(B)(3): 2 cases
GTE Wireless of Midwest Inc. v. Anderson Twp., 731 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1999). “1 In support of their arguments, appellants highlight and rely on the provisions of R.C. 519.211. Under this statute, a township generally has no authority to regulate buildings and structures of any public utility.”
TowerCo 2013, LLC v. Berlin Twp. Bd. of Trs., No. 23-3799 (6th Cir. Aug. 6, 2024).
Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211(B)(4): 1 case
GTE Wireless of Midwest Inc. v. Anderson Twp., 731 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1999). “1 In support of their arguments, appellants highlight and rely on the provisions of R.C. 519.211. Under this statute, a township generally has no authority to regulate buildings and structures of any public utility.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211(B)(4)(a): 3 cases
GTE Wireless of Midwest Inc. v. Anderson Twp., 731 N.E.2d 201 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1999). “1 In support of their arguments, appellants highlight and rely on the provisions of R.C. 519.211. Under this statute, a township generally has no authority to regulate buildings and structures of any public utility.”
Trs. of Washington Twp. v. Davis, 95 Ohio St. 3d 274 (2002). “Based upon our review of R.C. 519.211 and our prior decisions, we consider such a classification to be unwarranted in this circumstance and therefore affirm the appellate court’s judgment.”
Washington Twp. Trs. v. Davis, 2002-Ohio-2123, 95 Ohio St. 3d 274. “Based upon our review of R.C. 519.211 and our prior decisions, we consider such a classification to be unwarranted in this circumstance and therefore affirm the appellate court’s judgment.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211(C): 3 cases
Bench Signs Unlimited, Inc. v. Lake Twp. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 777 N.E.2d 912 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2002). “{¶ 15} ■ Even if we were to conclude that appellant had a valid contract with SARTA, this court has previously concluded that the exemption in R.C. 519.211(A) 1 runs only to the utility and, therefore, appellant cannot bootstrap into the protection of the statutory exemption by…”
Superior Hauling, Inc. v. Allen Twp. Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 874 N.E.2d 1216 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 2007).
Fields v. Bloom Twp., 797 N.E.2d 555 (Ohio Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2003).
Ohio Rev. Code § 519.211(b)(3): 1 case
TowerCo 2013, LLC v. Berlin Twp., No. 2:22-cv-03294 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 18, 2023).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.