No advertising device shall be erected or maintained within six hundred sixty feet of the edge of the right-of-way of a highway on the interstate system except the following:
(A) Advertising devices that are located in commercial or industrial zones traversed by segments of the interstate system within the boundaries of a municipal corporation as such boundaries existed on September 21, 1959, and that conform to rules adopted by the director of transportation;
(B) Advertising devices that are located on the premises of a professional sports facility and that conform to rules adopted by the director.
Pilot Oil Corp. v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 656 N.E.2d 1379 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1995). · cites it 10דBased upon the representations in the site plan, the supervisor approved the proposed sign as a legal on-premise advertising device under R.C. 5516.02 and issued a letter on behalf of ODOT approving the proposed sign.”
Weir v. Rimmelin, 472 N.E.2d 341 (Ohio 1984). · cites it 6דR.C. 5516.02 provides generally that “[n]o advertising device shall be *61 erected or maintained within six hundred sixty feet of the edge of the right of way on the interstate system * * *.”
Hurst v. Liberty-Bel, Inc., 690 N.E.2d 40 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1997). · cites it 12דIn July 1983, sometime after the erection of the advertising structure, a field representative of the Ohio Department of Transportation (“ODOT”) contacted Daniel Oljaca and informed him that the off-premises advertising appellants displayed on the billboard was illegally located…”
Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Wray, 636 N.E.2d 424 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1994). · cites it 15דIn November 1991, appellants received a letter from Jerry Wray, of ODOT, notifying them that the billboard violated R.C. 5516.02. This letter further gave appellants thirty days to remove the billboard.”
Powlette v. Dayton Bd. of Bldg. Appeals, 2020-Ohio-5357, 162 N.E.3d 964. “ODOT had exercised its discretion in interpreting R.C. 5516.02(C) and had determined that appellant's proposed sign complied with that statutory provision.”
In re Columbus Outdoor Advert. Co., 367 N.E.2d 920 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1977). · cites it 4ד§§5516.02 (D), and 5516.09 do not prevent a municipality from having more restrictive zoning regulations than either the Federal or State governments have enacted.”
Ghaster Props., Inc. v. Preston, 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 425 (Ohio 1964). · cites it 2דUnlike in the zoning cases, their continued use for such purposes will not merely be a lawful use that does not conform with a zoning restriction but a use that is unlawful and a nuisance either in or out of any zoning district, except as specified in Section 5516.02(D), Revised…”
Ohio Rev. Code § 5516.02(A): 1 case
Weir v. Rimmelin, 472 N.E.2d 341 (Ohio 1984). “R.C. 5516.02 provides generally that “[n]o advertising device shall be *61 erected or maintained within six hundred sixty feet of the edge of the right of way on the interstate system * * *.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 5516.02(C): 3 cases
Pilot Oil Corp. v. Ohio Dep't of Transp., 656 N.E.2d 1379 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1995). “Based upon the representations in the site plan, the supervisor approved the proposed sign as a legal on-premise advertising device under R.C. 5516.02 and issued a letter on behalf of ODOT approving the proposed sign.”
Midwest Pride IV, Inc. v. Wray, 636 N.E.2d 424 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1994). “In November 1991, appellants received a letter from Jerry Wray, of ODOT, notifying them that the billboard violated R.C. 5516.02. This letter further gave appellants thirty days to remove the billboard.”
Powlette v. Dayton Bd. of Bldg. Appeals, 2020-Ohio-5357, 162 N.E.3d 964. “ODOT had exercised its discretion in interpreting R.C. 5516.02(C) and had determined that appellant's proposed sign complied with that statutory provision.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 5516.02(D): 4 cases
Hurst v. Liberty-Bel, Inc., 690 N.E.2d 40 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 1997). “In July 1983, sometime after the erection of the advertising structure, a field representative of the Ohio Department of Transportation (“ODOT”) contacted Daniel Oljaca and informed him that the off-premises advertising appellants displayed on the billboard was illegally located…”
Weir v. Rimmelin, 472 N.E.2d 341 (Ohio 1984). “R.C. 5516.02 provides generally that “[n]o advertising device shall be *61 erected or maintained within six hundred sixty feet of the edge of the right of way on the interstate system * * *.”
In re Columbus Outdoor Advert. Co., 367 N.E.2d 920 (Ohio Ct. App. 10th Dist. 1977). “§§5516.02 (D), and 5516.09 do not prevent a municipality from having more restrictive zoning regulations than either the Federal or State governments have enacted.”
Ghaster Props., Inc. v. Preston, 176 Ohio St. (N.S.) 425 (Ohio 1964). “Unlike in the zoning cases, their continued use for such purposes will not merely be a lawful use that does not conform with a zoning restriction but a use that is unlawful and a nuisance either in or out of any zoning district, except as specified in Section 5516.02(D), Revised…”
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.