|
northeastern Ohio | Last September, I posted about Spectrum wanting to lay cable in the road right of way. I think they need an easement. Here is the original post: https://talk.newagtalk.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1212974&posts=...
They began the project in my township in April, but not on my property. The first week, they hit 2 natural gas lines while boring which caused some evacuations. I put up signs along my property that said "Danger: Buried utilities, call (Jay's phone) before digging". They then put up signs along some roads to try to shift liability to the landowners. See pic below.
Soon after, my township trustee called and said Spectrum was not going to install cable on any of my properties.
Today, I got a call from a Spectrum rep. She wants me to meet with the third party installer. She says they avoided my properties everywhere they could, but they have one area they NEED. I asked where? She didn't know. I told her that when she figured out a location, I would meet the contractor there. I told her that I would also have an easement agreement prepared so that the contractor could sign it....
Anyone here have a recent easement agreement that is landowner friendly? If so, please share here or email to [email protected]
I believe that since Spectrum’s installation goes outside the established right-of-way in some areas and creates a new burden beyond roadway purposes then compensation or an easement is required.
Supporting cases in Ohio:
1. Lochner v. City of Dayton, 2 Ohio St. 2d 16 (1965) A roadway easement does not automatically permit all utility uses if the use imposes an additional burden beyond the scope of the original roadway dedication.
2. Brown v. Scioto County Board of Commissioners, 87 Ohio App.3d 704 (4th Dist. 1993) If the public holds only an easement for roadway purposes, the underlying property owner retains rights that cannot be expanded without compensation.
3. Masheter v. Kebe, 49 Ohio St.2d 148 (1976) When a roadway right-of-way is only an easement, adding uses beyond transportation purposes can require compensation if they materially increase the burden on the servient estate.
4. Ogle v. Ohio Power Co., 180 Ohio App.3d 44 (2008) Utility installations inside a right-of-way are permitted unless they materially interfere with the landowner’s residual rights.
There is probably other case law that might pertain to this issue.
One issue that tends to add confusion to the matter is the fact that they (Spectrum) are allowed to do this inside a city because the roads inside of a city are owned by the city in fee simple. However, I believe that township roads are held by easement and that supports my argument with the cases listed above.
Edited by Jay NE Ohio 5/20/2026 10:23
 (IMG_9462 (full).jpg)
 (spectrum (full).jpg)
Attachments
----------------
 IMG_9462 (full).jpg (163KB - 11 downloads)
spectrum (full).jpg (156KB - 9 downloads)
| |
|
Update to Spectrum wanting to lay cable in road ROW
