LISBON — The city of Salem officially filed a notice of appeal with the Supreme Court of Ohio last Friday to challenge the denial of a proposed annexation on Beechwood Road, claiming three legal issues related to Ohio’s annexation statutes would be undermined if not addressed by the high court.

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.

When Columbiana County commissioners denied the annexation, claiming the property wasn’t contiguous, the city of Salem filed an appeal to Common Pleas Court, then when county Common Pleas Court Judge Megan Bickerton affirmed the commissioners’ decision, the city filed the appeal with the Seventh District Court of Appeals.

The Seventh District Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision denied the city’s appeal, agreeing the 

property was not contiguous to the city and could not be annexed as a result.

“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.

The ruling was signed by Seventh District Court Judges Cheryl L. Waite and Carol Ann Robb, but with Judge Mark A. Hanni dissenting. Hanni wrote in a dissenting opinion that 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 outlines 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 is 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 claims 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.

Attorneys for the commissioners will have the opportunity to submit their own memorandum regarding whether the Supreme Court should accept jurisdiction.

When contacted about the appeal being filed, Commissioner Mike Halleck said, “I just think it’s unfortunate. We should be working together.”

He talked about how unfortunate it is that the city is suing the county government and how it’s going to cost both entities money for attorney fees, saying the city won’t recoup the money spent for that one piece of property.

“Absolutely a waste of taxpayer money,” Halleck said.