LISBON — The city of Salem recently lost its appeal to challenge the denial of a proposed annexation on Beechwood Road, with the Seventh District Court of Appeals agreeing that the Perry Township property wasn’t contiguous to the city, therefore it could not be annexed.

The property in question was owned by Sean and Laurie Butcher, who were told in April 2023 they had to annex due to a deed restriction which said if they ever became contiguous, 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, the city of Salem filed an appeal to Common Pleas Court, then when Common Pleas Court Judge Megan Bickerton affirmed the commissioners’ decision, the city filed the appeal with the Seventh District Court of Appeals.

“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.

He said the letter from Columbiana County Engineer Bert Dawson concluded the Butcher property wasn’t contiguous to the city because it was not adjacent to the south part of Beechwood Road.

Waite and Robb, though, agreed with the judgment issued last June by Bickerton regarding the property not being contiguous and for the annexation not meeting the common good of the property. Besides citing Dawson’s opinion provided to the commissioners showing the property was not contiguous to the city, she agreed with the commissioners’ findings that the general good of the territory would not be served and the annexation would create a street maintenance issue.

She noted the testimony of various witnesses “detailing potential confusion if annexation is permitted. Witnesses testified as to potential confusion for road maintenance issues, snow removal, providing services without cohesiveness, fire services, and police services. Furthermore, it is obvious that, based on the letter written by the Butcher’s, they only filed their petition for annexation under duress and did not want their property annexed into the city of Salem.”

The appellate court agreed, saying 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.