LISBON –The Supreme Court of Ohio recently passed on hearing a case regarding a proposed annexation on Beechwood Road, with the city of Salem losing its attempt to challenge the denial of the annexation the city required for water and sewer service.

“Upon consideration of the jurisdictional memoranda filed in this case, the court declines to accept jurisdiction of the appeal,” the one-line entry signed by Chief Justice Sharon L. Kennedy said.

The city of Salem filed the notice of appeal in April to challenge a 2-1 decision by the Seventh District Court of Appeals which denied the city’s appeal of a decision in Common Pleas Court. Common Pleas Court upheld the commissioners’ decision to deny the annexation petition.

Commissioners claimed the property in question on Beechwood in Perry Township was not contiguous to the city and could not be annexed, with the Common Pleas Court and appellate court agreeing with that decision.

The Perry Township property in question is owned by Sean and Laurie Butcher, who were told in April 2023 they had to annex due to a deed restriction which said if their property ever became contiguous to the city of Salem, they had to seek annexation to keep the water and sewer service provided by the city.

The city claimed their property became contiguous because of an approved annexation of property in the Industrial Park for LLN Holdings. The property was located across the street to the south of the Butcher property, separated by the street.

“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,” Seventh District Court Judges Cheryl L. Waite and Carol Ann Robb ruled.

Judge Mark A. Hanni dissented, saying the trial court lacked evidence to determine the contiguous factor, pointing to reliance on the county engineer’s opinion which he said wasn’t supported by the facts. Hanni wrote that the Butchers’ annexation petition included the northern half of Beechwood Road, which the engineer’s report did not address.

The city’s memorandum in support of jurisdiction by the Supreme Court of Ohio outlined three issues of public and great general interest, noting that if the appellate court’s decision were permitted to stand, new legal precedents would be established that “would prevent municipalities from annexing land in neighboring townships where the municipal boundary is a public roadway.”

The second proposition of law claimed by the city was that it’s not detrimental to the general good of the territory or surrounding area for a municipality to enforce deed restrictions that obligate property owners to petition for annexation as a condition of receiving water and sewer services.

The third argument claimed that the city complied with law by adopting an ordinance agreeing to accept responsibility for maintaining a road that may became divided or segmented as a result of annexation.

The answer filed by legal counsel for the the commissioners and Perry Township said the city failed to prove the property was contiguous.

“They failed to submit any expert testimony as to contiguity. They failed to submit any testimony at all as to contiguity. The Columbiana County Engineer submitted an expert opinion that the property was not contiguous. The county commissioners reasonably relied upon the expert testimony of the county engineer. Petitioners now attempt to paper over their failure to prove contiguity by shifting to an argument over road ownership,” the argument against Supreme Court of Ohio jurisdiction said.

In regard to the second claim that the city said it’s not detrimental to the general good of the territory, the counsel for the commissioners and township wrote “the only evidence in the record that could be categorized as a ‘benefit’ was the growth of Salem.”

The counsel for commissioners and the township also took issue with the ordinance the city passed regarding agreeing to take responsibility for the road, saying the city failed to agree as a condition of annexation, therefore failing to follow statutory language.

The commissioners and township urged the higher court to decline jurisdiction.