Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 713
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 713.12 (2026)

Zoning regulations notice and hearing

✓ 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:
June 1, 1970
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 159 - 108th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

Before any ordinance, measure, regulation, or amendments thereto, authorized by sections 713.07 to 713.11, inclusive, of the Revised Code, may be passed the legislative authority of the municipal corporation shall hold a public hearing thereon, and shall give at least thirty days' notice of the time and place thereof in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipal corporation. If the ordinance, measure, or regulation intends to re-zone or re-district ten or less parcels of land, as listed on the tax duplicate, written notice of the hearing shall be mailed by the clerk of the legislative authority, by first class mail, at least twenty days before the date of the public hearing to the owners of property within and contiguous to and directly across the street from such parcel or parcels, to the addresses of such owners appearing on the county auditor's current tax list or the treasurer's mailing list and to such other list or lists that may be specified by the legislative authority. The failure of delivery of such notice shall not invalidate any such ordinance, measure, or regulation. During such thirty days the text or copy of the text of such ordinance, measure, or regulation, together with the maps or plans, or copies thereof, forming part of or referred to in such ordinance, measure, or regulation and the maps, plans, and reports submitted by the planning commission, board, or officer shall be on file, for public examination, in the office of the clerk of the legislative authority or in such other office as is designated by the legislative authority. No such ordinance, measure, or regulation which violates, differs from, or departs from the plan or report submitted by the commission, board, or officer shall take effect unless passed or approved by not less than three fourths of the membership of the legislative authority. No ordinance, measure, or regulation which is in accordance with the recommendations, plan, or report submitted by the commission, board, or officer shall be deemed to pass or take effect without the concurrence of at least a majority of the members elected to the legislative authority.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1954–2023 · leading case: Rispo Realty & Dev. Co. v. City of Parma, 564 N.E.2d 425 (Ohio 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rispo Realty & Dev. Co. v. City of Parma, 564 N.E.2d 425 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 9× “For the reasons that follow, we hold that a noncharter municipality may not adopt a zoning ordinance that contains automatic referendum and ward veto provisions since those provisions are in direct conflict with R.C. 713.12 and 731.29. The applicable constitutional provisions…”
State ex rel. Phillips Supply Co. v. Cincinnati, 2012-Ohio-6096. · cites it 8× “The Ordinance Does Not Conflict with R.C. 713.12 {¶52} The Queensgate Businesses next argue that genuine issues of material fact remain as to whether the notwithstanding ordinance was enacted through an exercise of police power that conflicts with Ohio’s general laws.”
Kinzel v. Ebner, 2023-Ohio-164, 205 N.E.3d 1225. · cites it 13× “power to adopt an emergency zoning ordinance effective immediately, or whether such municipality in adopting a zoning ordinance is governed by [R.C. 713.12], which requires the holding of a public hearing and the giving of a 30-day notice of the time and place of such hearing.”
Wilkins v. Harrisburg, 2015-Ohio-5472, 56 N.E.3d 320. · cites it 5× “{¶ 10} The Village defendants argue that summary judgment was appropriately granted for three reasons: (1) appellant's remedy cannot be provided by mandamus; (2) appellant does not have standing under R.C. 713.12 to bring this action as she is not a resident of the municipal…”
Fifth Column v. Vill. of Valley View, 100 F. Supp. 2d 493 (N.D. Ohio 1998). · cites it 8× “Ohio Rev.Code § 713.12 (emphasis added). Together, these two ordinances require that, before an amendment to a “district-ing or zoning” ordinance can become effective, an unchartered municipality must: (1) submit the ordinance to the municipality’s Planning Commission for…”
Singer v. Troy, 587 N.E.2d 864 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1990). · cites it 5× “Appellants argue that R.C. 713.12 governs the procedure for voting upon a zoning change and that Troy Ordinance 1133.”
Hess v. City of Toledo, 729 N.E.2d 823 (Ohio Ct. App. 6th Dist. 1999). · cites it 3× “” Naujock further stated that, prior to March 17, 1998, the city of Toledo was expediting requests for zoning changes, including Home Depot’s request, at the risk of violating the procedure mandated by R.C. 713.12. Accordingly, Naujock listed five specific procedural changes…”
Kinzel v. Ebner, 2020-Ohio-4165, 157 N.E.3d 898. “12-107, Ebner argued that the ordinance was not validly enacted because the city failed to provide the required notice and public hearing, thereby violating R.C. 713.12 and Sandusky Codified Ordinances 1113.”
Pinkney v. Ohio Env't Prot. Agency, 375 F. Supp. 305 (N.D. Ohio 1974). · cites it 2× “Ohio Rev. Code § 713.12. Without reaching the other questions related to the determination of •whether property values or a heathful environment are interests to which procedural due process protection attaches, the Court concludes that plaintiffs have not alleged in their…”
Evans v. Lakeview, 585 N.E.2d 1018 (Ohio Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1990). · cites it 13× “" R.C. 713.12 provides in pertinent part: "Before any ordinance, measure, regulation, or amendments thereto, authorized by sections 713.”
Wilkins v. Harrisburg, 2020-Ohio-886. · cites it 3× “{¶ 13} During the extensive litigation history of this case, the Harrisburg defendants conceded it did not comply with R.C. 713.12 when it failed to notify Wilkins of a public hearing on the two ordinances related to the rezoning of Taylor's property.”
State ex rel. Miami Overlook, Inc. v. Germantown, 2011-Ohio-3419. · cites it 9× “Count I 5 alleged that the zoning ordinance was invalid, because Germantown failed to comply with R.C. 713.12. Count II alleged that enactment of the zoning ordinance rendered the property unfit for use, and Count III alleged that if the ordinance were not declared invalid,…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
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.