469 N.E.2d 914 | Ohio Ct. App. | 1983
This appeal results from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Greene County wherein the court affirmed the decision of the Greene County Commissioners denying a petition of annexation of approximately 38.8 acres of Sugarcreek Township to the city of Centerville.
In denying the annexation petition, the Greene County Commissioners made the following findings:
"1. The area sought to be annexed is contiguous to the City of Centerville as required by Section
"2. The plat and legal description are satisfactory as required by Section
"3. At the time the petition for annexation was circulated there was a majority of property owner signatures on the petition.
"4. None of the owners took action to have their names removed as allowed in Section
"5. That the petition did contain all matters required in Ohio Revised Code Section
"6. That notice of original petition was not published in accordance with
"7. That the general good of the territory sought to be annexed will not be served if the annexation is granted." (Emphasis sic.)
The court of common pleas affirmed these findings and appellant, Russell E. Fisher, the designated agent representing the petitioners for annexation, has appealed to this court asserting two assignments of error.
Assignment of Error No. I states:
"The trial court erred in sustaining the board of county commissioners' finding that notice of the original petition was not published in accordance with Section
R.C.
"The board of county commissioners shall set the time and place for hearing the petition, which time shall be not less than sixty nor more than ninety days after the petition is filed in the office of the county auditor, and shall immediately notify the agent of the petitioners of such time and place. The agent for the petitioners shall cause a notice containing the substance of the petition, and the time and place where it will be heard, to be published once a week for a period of four consecutive weeks in a newspaper of *361 general circulation in the county prior to the time fixed for the hearing, and shall deliver a copy of the notice to the clerk of each township any portion of which is included within the territory sought to be annexed and to the clerk of the legislative authority of the municipal corporation to which annexation is proposed. * * *"
Appellant submits that the petitioners have fully complied with all the requirements mandated by R.C.
R.C.
The record before us reveals that the original petition for annexation was filed with the Board of County Commissioners of Greene County on March 12, 1982. On March 19, 1982, the Greene County Engineer advised the petitioners for annexation that the petition's legal description of the land in issue required certain changes. These changes were made and an amended petition, dated April 29, 1982, was filed with the board of commissioners.
On April 30, 1982, notice of the amended petition for annexation was personally served upon the clerks of the legislative authority of Sugarcreek Township and the city of Centerville by the agent for the petitioners. Notice of the amended petition was also published in the Dayton Daily News, a newspaper of general circulation in Greene County, once a week beginning May 3, 1982, for four consecutive weeks. The public hearing on the amended petition for annexation was held on June 3, 1982, and was continued on July 8, 1982.
At the July 8, 1982, annexation hearing, Lawrence Weller, the President of the Sugarcreek Township Trustees, appellees herein, testified that notice of the original petition for annexation was never filed with the Sugarcreek Township Clerk as required by R.C.
Based upon these facts as presented in the record below, we conclude the commission was correct in determining that the Sugarcreek Township Clerk did not receive notice of the original annexation petition. Although notice of the amended petition was subsequently made to all parties pursuant to R.C.
Therefore, the commission was correct in its determination that the petitioners for the annexation failed to comply with the notice requirements of R.C.
Assignment of Error No. II provides:
"The trial court erred in sustaining the board of county commissioners' finding that [the] general good of the territory *362 sought to be annexed will not be served if the annexation is granted."
R.C.
In the present case, the board of commissioners conducted two public hearings upon the proposed annexation petition at which time any interested parties were encouraged to voice their opinions and relate any facts they felt were relevant to the proposed annexation. At the conclusion of these hearings, the board determined that the notice requirements of R.C.
The board of commissioners is required to apply the standards enumerated in R.C.
The record before us demonstrates that sufficient evidence was produced at the two hearings before the commission to support its finding that annexation in this situation would not result in the general good to the property sought to be annexed. Testimony was presented that the proposed annexation would not be in the best interests of the proposed area of annexation in that no benefits would result to the area as a result of annexation. In addition, testimony was presented that the proposed annexation could result in increased costs to the residents of the area sought to be annexed. Several residents of the proposed area of annexation who had originally signed the annexation petition appeared under oath in compliance with R.C.
As conflicting credible evidence was presented to the commission, we conclude that the judgment of the trial court, affirming the decision of the Greene County Board of Commissioners, was lawful.
Assignment of Error No. II is overruled.
The judgment of the trial court is hereby affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
BROGAN, P.J., WILSON and WEBER, JJ., concur. *363