SALEM — The city of Salem will attempt to plead its case regarding the denied annexation of a .7917-acre Beechwood Road property to the Ohio Supreme Court.

Following an approximately 40-minute executive session for the discussion of pending legal matters, City Councilman Jim Harrington motioned to appeal the ruling of the Seventh District Court of Appeals in February affirming the Columbiana County commissioners decision to deny the annexation of a property owned by Sean and Laurie Butcher. The motion was seconded by Trent Tice and passed by a vote of five to one, with Councilman Jeff Stockman providing the lone dissenting vote and Councilwoman Jayne Bricker not in attendance.

Stockman previously voted against appealing the case to the Seventh District Court in the city council’s June 10 meeting, and against appealing the decision to the Columbiana County Court of Common Pleas before that in the city council’s Nov. 11 meeting.

Harrington said he motioned to appeal the case further because he felt the ruling stunted Salem’s growth and risked setting a precedent that would impact other communities as well.

“Disallowing annexations in this fashion will hamper the economic development of Salem and set a precedent for hampering the economic development of other townships and municipalities,” said Harrington.

Stockman declined to comment on the reason for his dissenting vote.

Mayor Cyndi Baronzzi Dickey said that the supreme court will have to decide if it would take the case, and that there was no timeline for when such a decision might be reached.

The dispute between the city and Perry Township surrounding the property began in April of 2023 when Sean and Laurie Butcher were notified by the city that they had to seek annexation or have their water and sewer service cut off in accordance with a deed restriction mandating they annex into the city should their property ever become contiguous with the city in exchange for receiving city water and sewer stemming back to when the properties were originally developed. Had the Butchers’ petition for annexation, which they testified to the commissioners was filed under duress, not been denied on Oct. 23, 2024 three more properties with similar restrictions would also have become contiguous, beginning a chain reaction which would cause 33 properties in stages to eventually become contiguous and likewise be forced to annex.

The city has argued that Butchers’ property became contiguous following the completion of a 29.54-acre property into the city’s industrial park more than a year ago. However, Perry Township officials contend that the property is not actually contiguous to the city, and is therefore legally un-annexable, and has obtained two legal opinions – one from the Columbiana County Prosecutor’s Office and one from Wayne Boyer, an attorney with Canton-based law firm KWGD – that both state the two properties are separated by the northern half of Beechwood Road.

When the commissioners denied the petition, they did so under the grounds that the property was not sufficiently contiguous and that the annexation would not serve the general good of the territory. In the Seventh District Court of Appeals ruling Judges Cheryl L. Waite and Carol Ann Robb agreed with the commissioners’ assessment of the properties’ contiguity.

“Because the northern portion of Beechwood Road is owned by Perry Township and acts as a barrier between the Butcher property and Salem, the Butcher property is not contiguous and annexation was properly denied. Additionally, the board did not abuse its discretion in deciding annexation would not benefit the general good. Salem’s arguments are without merit and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed,” the appellate ruling said.

However, Judge Mark A. Hanni dissented, writing in a dissenting opinion that the trial court lacked evidence to determine the contiguity of the property and relied instead on an opinion from Columbiana County Engineer Bert Dawson which he said wasn’t supported by the facts. Hanni wrote that the Butchers’ annexation petition included the northern half of Beechwood Road, and that Dawson’s letter concluding the property wasn’t contiguous to the city because it was not adjacent to the southern portion of Beechwood Road and did not address that included section of the road.

Waite and Robb also agreed with the assessment that the annexation would not meet the common good of the area, writing that a review of the record showed “the only fact supporting a benefit is allowing Salem to reach its goal to grow its jurisdictional boundaries. The facts reflecting harm include: opposition from the property owners, opposition from a large sector of the neighborhood, the creation of jurisdictional islands with the same street, future issues with the response time of emergency services, and concerns with road maintenance.”

“In weighing these facts, it is abundantly clear that the board did not abuse its discretion in finding the detrimental concerns outweigh any benefit, and this also weighs against annexation,” the appellate court decision said.

The city council will meet next at 7 p.m. on March 17.