In re Barberton-Norton Mosquito Abatement District, 191 Ohio App. 3d 763

Petition filed in 2005 to create Barberton-Norton Mosquito Abatement District for Barberton and Norton.
2005 notice of hearing advertised rights of real estate owners; no objections filed; district formed by judgment decree on June 23, 2005.
2005-2006 board of appraisers prepared report showing benefits to district residents; report did not address land outside the district; court approved report.
2007 petition sought to enlarge district to include New Franklin, Green, Clinton, Lakemore, and portions of several townships, and to rename the district; trial court dismissed the petition for enlargement in 2008 as lacking public necessity.
2009 second petition sought enlargement to Coventry Township (Fairview and Home-wood Ave); hearing held; Coventry opposed; court denied enlargement, noting lack of public necessity and procedural issues.
Appeal followed with three assignments of error challenging enlargement framework, review standard, and reception of non-owner testimony; court affirmed trial court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does R.C. 6115.31 et seq. authorize enlarging an existing sanitary district?	Abatement district argues those provisions permit enlargement.	Coventry Township argues there is no enlargement mechanism distinct from initial formation.	Enlargement provisions do not independently authorize enlargement.
Was the correct standard of review applied to the enlargement denial?	District contends proper standard was misapplied.	Court applied the appropriate standard for enlargement review.	De novo review appropriate; no error in standard applied.
May a non-owner municipality (Coventry Township) testify at the 6115.35 hearing on enlargement?	Testimony from Coventry is improper.	Testimony from interested public entities is permissible and relevant.	Testimony from Coventry properly admitted; no reversible error.

Fisher v. Hasenjager, 116 Ohio St.3d 53 (2007) (statutory provisions must be construed together)