DELAWARE — Delaware County Commissioners tabled their review of a petition requesting annexation of 58.4 acres of land from Berkshire Township into the village of Galena.
The delay came after Berkshire Township filed an objection to the annexation petition on the grounds that the annexation would create an “island” of unincorporated area in the township.
Commissioners often follow a two-step procedure related to annexation petitions: First they acknowledge the receipt of annexation petitions, then approve or deny them to move forward after a certain number of days.
But commissioners do not often review if an annexation petition meets requirements laid out in the Ohio Revised Code, Commissioner Jeff Benton said.
Annexation petitions must meet seven requirements, per Ohio law. Those are:
- The petition meets all the requirements set forth in, and was filed in the manner provided in, section 709.021 of the Revised Code.
- The persons who signed the petition are owners of the real estate located in the territory proposed for annexation and constitute all of the owners of real estate in that territory.
- The territory proposed for annexation does not exceed 500 acres.
- The territory proposed for annexation shares a contiguous boundary with the municipal corporation to which annexation is proposed for a continuous length of at least 5% of the perimeter of the territory proposed for annexation.
- The annexation will not create an unincorporated area of the township that is completely surrounded by the territory proposed for annexation.
- The municipal corporation to which annexation is proposed has agreed to provide to the territory proposed for annexation the services specified in the relevant ordinance or resolution adopted.
- If a street or highway will be divided or segmented by the boundary line between the township and the municipal corporation as to create a road maintenance problem, the municipal corporation to which annexation is proposed has agreed as a condition of the annexation to assume the maintenance of that street or highway or to otherwise correct the problem.
Berkshire Township filed the objection because it felt the petition did not meet the fifth condition.
“[The proposed annexation] creates a challenge for the township to continue to service that hole that it creates,” Berkshire Township Administrator Kevin Vaughn said.
Aric Hochstettler, legal counsel to the commissioners, reviewed each condition, and found no concerns with that condition.
“In reviewing the map of the territory, both before the annexation and after, it does appear that an island would be created in the north side of the territory proposed for annexation, but it’s not an island contained within the territory proposed for annexation,” Hochstettler said.
“It’s long been our interpretation that’s since been confirmed by the Supreme Court of Ohio, that an island to violate this condition needs to be contained within the territory of the proposed for annexation,” he said.
Commissioners table review due to road maintenance concerns
However, Hochstettler did find a potential issue in the seventh condition, which led to commissioners tabling their review.
The village of Galena passed an ordinance stating the village would provide planning and zoning services, municipal water service and municipal sewage service to the annexed area.
However, the ordinance did not address whether the village would assume responsibility for maintaining what are now two county roads that fall in the land requested for annexation.
Those roads are Vans Valley Road and Trenton Road, and the county maintains them now.
Tom Hart, agent of the land annexation petitioner, spoke in favor of the annexation request. Hart presented a letter from Galena’s Village Solicitor Kenneth Molnar to the commissioners.
The letter read: “It is my understanding that the village has agreed to negotiate a resolution with the township and/or county, and if no agreement can be reached, that the village would take over responsibility for repair and maintenance of any parts of the roadway which have not been annexed.”
“We don’t anticipate a road maintenance issue, and annexation should not be defeated or rejected because of a hypothetical maintenance issue,” Hart said.
Commissioners tabled the request because the language in the letter was not binding enough.
“It’s not definitive enough for me,” Commissioner Gary Merrell said. “I think we should have more of a black-and-white response.”
Commissioners will review the request again at their Sept. 3 meeting, allowing Galena officials time to provide a definitive statement on the matter of road maintenance.
