The main issue in this case is whether township trustees and/or other disappointed parties may appeal the allowance of a landowners’ petition for annexation pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2506. For the reasons that follow, we answer such query in the negative.
Statutory Remedies
R.C. Chapter 2506 Appeal vs. R.C. 709.07 Injunction
We decided in In re Petition to Annex 320 Acres to the Village of S. Lebanon (1992),
II
Township Trustees’ Standing to Appeal Pursuant to R.C. Chapter 2506
Appellees maintain in their sеcond proposition of law that R.C. 505.62, as amended in 1984, confers standing upon boards of township trustees to appeal deсisions of boards of county commissioners on the annexation of township territory, regardless of whether the decision was to аllow or disallow the annexation, pursuant to R.C. 709.07 or Chapter 2506. Thus, appellees maintain that trustees have a choice оf appellate remedies. We disagree.
In In re Appeal of Bass Lake Community, Inc. (1983),
“From these provisions it can be seen that the General Assembly has afforded a considerable right of appeal to those whose rights are directly affeсted. In contrast, the General Assembly has provided a carefully limited form of relief for other persons to oppose аn annexation petition which has been granted. The General Assembly intended these other persons to contest the petition only by meeting the stiffer standards required for an injunction and thus R.C. 709.07 is their sole remedy. There is no protection afforded the township trustees under R.C. Chapter 2506.” Id.,
In 1984 the General Assembly, in direct response to this court’s decision in Bass Lake, amended R.C. 505.62 to provide:
“A board of township trustees may enter into a contraсt with, and appropriate township general revenue fund moneys for the services of, an attorney to represent the tоwnship at annexation hearings before the board of county commissioners and upon any appeal of the board’s dеcision pursuant to section 709.07 or Chapter 2506. of the Revised Code.
“The board of township trustees of a township that includes territory that is proposed to be annexed has standing in any appeal of the board of county commissioners’ decision on thе annexation of township territory that is taken pursuant to section 709.07 or Chapter 2506. of the Revised Code, if the board of township trustеes was represented at the annexation hearing before the board of county commissioners.”
The Legislative Servicе Commission’s Analysis of Sub. H.B. No. 175 states, with regard to the purpose behind amending R.C. 505.62, that:
“[The Substitute House Bill] confers standing upon boards of township trustees in an appeal of a decision denying the annexation of township territory, under the Local Government Appellаte Procedure Act.”
Furthermore, the Legislative Service Commission Analysis explains:
“Current law permits a board of township trustees to pay an attorney from township general revenue fund moneys to represent the township at annexation hearings before the board of county commissioners, and at any appeal of the commissioners’ decision allowing an annexation pursuant tо a statute establishing procedures for an injunction against annexation under these circumstances. But the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled, in In re Appeal of Bass Lake Community,
“The bill should confirm standing upon a board of township trustees in an apрeal of a denial of an annexation petition as well as in an appeal of a decision granting such a petition.* * * ” (Emphasis sic.)
The above analysis indicates that R.C. 505.62, as amended, was only a response to this court’s prior determination that township trustees lacked standing in an appeal from the denial of a petition for annexation. The
In the case sub judice appellees brought an R.C. Chapter 2506 appeаl from the allowance of a landowners’ petition for annexation. Since we have determined that the approрriate remedy for appellees in this situation is an R.C. 709.07 injunction action, we reverse the court of appeals’ determination to allow the appeal to proceed under R.C. Chapter 2506.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the trial court’s order is reinstated.
Judgment reversed.