Ohio Rev. Code » Chapter 709
Ohio Revised Code

Ohio Rev. Code § 709.033 (2026)

Commissioners' resolution granting or denying annexation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORCcodes.ohio.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Effective:
December 20, 2005
Latest Legislation:
Senate Bill 107 - 126th General Assembly
PDF:
Download Authenticated PDF
 

(A) After the hearing on a petition for annexation, the board of county commissioners shall enter upon its journal a resolution granting the annexation if it finds, based upon a preponderance of the substantial, reliable, and probative evidence on the whole record, that each of the following conditions has been met:

(1) The petition meets all the requirements set forth in, and was filed in the manner provided in, section 709.02 of the Revised Code.

(2) The persons who signed the petition are owners of real estate located in the territory proposed to be annexed in the petition, and, as of the time the petition was filed with the board of county commissioners, the number of valid signatures on the petition constituted a majority of the owners of real estate in that territory.

(3) The municipal corporation to which the territory is proposed to be annexed has complied with division (D) of section 709.03 of the Revised Code.

(4) The territory proposed to be annexed is not unreasonably large.

(5) On balance, the general good of the territory proposed to be annexed will be served, and the benefits to the territory proposed to be annexed and the surrounding area will outweigh the detriments to the territory proposed to be annexed and the surrounding area, if the annexation petition is granted. As used in division (A)(5) of this section, "surrounding area" means the territory within the unincorporated area of any township located one-half mile or less from any of the territory proposed to be annexed.

(6) No street or highway will be divided or segmented by the boundary line between a township and the municipal corporation as to create a road maintenance problem, or, if a street or highway will be so divided or segmented, the municipal corporation has agreed, as a condition of the annexation, that it will assume the maintenance of that street or highway. For the purposes of this division, "street" or "highway" has the same meaning as in section 4511.01 of the Revised Code.

(B) The board of county commissioners shall enter upon its journal a resolution granting or denying the petition for annexation within thirty days after the hearing provided for in section 709.032 of the Revised Code. The resolution shall include specific findings of fact as to whether each of the conditions listed in divisions (A)(1) to (6) of this section has been met. Upon journalization of the resolution, the clerk of the board shall send a certified copy of it to the agent for the petitioners, the clerk of the legislative authority of the municipal corporation to which annexation is proposed, the fiscal officer of each township in which the territory proposed for annexation is located, and the clerk of the board of county commissioners of each county in which the territory proposed for annexation is located other than the county in which the petition is filed. The clerk of the board shall take no further action until the expiration of thirty days after the date of journalization.

(C) After the expiration of that thirty-day period, if no appeal has been timely filed under section 709.07 of the Revised Code, the clerk of the board of county commissioners shall take one of the following actions:

(1) If the board granted the petition for annexation, the clerk shall deliver a certified copy of the entire record of the annexation proceedings, including all resolutions of the board, signed by a majority of the members of the board, the petition, map, and all other papers on file, the recording of the proceedings, if a copy is available, and exhibits presented at the hearing relating to the annexation proceedings, to the auditor or clerk of the municipal corporation to which annexation is proposed.

(2) If the board denied the petition for annexation, the clerk shall send a certified copy of its resolution denying the annexation to the agent for the petitioners and to the clerk of the municipal corporation to which the annexation was proposed.

(D) If an appeal is filed in a timely manner under section 709.07 of the Revised Code from the determination of the board of county commissioners granting or denying the petition for annexation, the clerk of the board shall take further action only in accordance with that section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 63 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trs., 693 N.E.2d 219 (Ohio 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trs., 693 N.E.2d 219 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 12× “That statute establishes specific standards to be applied by the board to the evidence before it in annexation proceedings, and grants to the board the discretion to make only those factual determinations specifically called for in the statute.”
Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. v. Doughman, 64 Ohio St. 3d 585 (Ohio 1992). · cites it 15× “After the hearing, the board decides whether to grant or deny the petition pursuant to R.C. 709.033 based upon the following factors: “(A) The petition contains all matter required in section 709.”
Eaton Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. KNG, Ltd., 2023 Ohio 1621 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 22× “” R.C. 709.033. {¶6} Eaton argues in its third assignment of error that KNG and Grafton (collectively “Petitioners”) failed to meet R.”
Miami Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Caton, 556 N.E.2d 1140 (Ohio 1990). · cites it 5× “R.C. 709.033 requires that the board of county commissioners must find that the number of valid signatures upon the petition for annexation constitutes a majority of the owners of real estate in the territory proposed to be annexed.”
Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trs., 1998 Ohio 340 (Ohio 1998). · cites it 14× “] Municipal corporations—Annexation of territory—In considering annexation petition filed under R.C. 709.033, board of county commissioners must grant the annexation, when—Board of county commissioners shall not consider impact of schools in deciding whether the annexation is…”
In Re Annexation of 1,544.61 Acres, 470 N.E.2d 486 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 3× “’ ” In discharging the duties prescribed by the annexation statutes for the board of county commissioners, the Summit County Council was governed by the provisions of R.C. 709.033, which provides, in part, as follows: “After the hearing on a petition to annex, the board of…”
In Re Petition for Annexation of 162.631 Acres, 556 N.E.2d 200 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 4× “The court of common pleas erred in upholding the Board of Franklin County Commissioners’ finding that R.C. 709.033 had been complied with.” Several landowners in Blendon Township approached Westerville about having their land annexed to Westerville and obtaining its water…”
Tuscarawas Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2011 Ohio 5581 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 23× “02(A) and R.C. 709.033 were not met because the property owner adjacent to the City of Massillon, TJ & MG Properties, LLC, did not sign the petition and objected to the annexation; (3) the annexation was unreasonably large in violation of R.”
City of Cleveland v. City of Fairview Park, 545 N.E.2d 1287 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “R.C. 709.033 also shows the intent of the legislature in this matter.”
Taylor v. City of London, 723 N.E.2d 1089 (Ohio 2000). · cites it 2× “Following the evidentiary hearing, the commissioners must approve or deny the petition based upon factors contained in R.C. 709.033. 4 If the petition is approved, the commissioners must deliver the petition and a certified transcript of the proceedings to the auditor or clerk…”
State ex rel. Xenia v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3423 (Ohio 2020). · cites it 2× “Interpreting virtually identical language found in R.C. 709.033’s predecessor, we observed that such language presents a “question of fact within the discretion of the board.”
Bartchy v. State Bd. of Educ., 897 N.E.2d 1096 (Ohio 2008). “The discussion in Smith cited by CPSD addressed whether a “board of county commissioners [should] consider the impact of schools” in deciding whether to approve an annexation petition pursuant to R.C. 709.033. See Smith, 81 Ohio St.3d at 616 , 693 N.”
Show all 63 citing cases →
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.033(A) — 7 cases
Sugarcreek Twp. v. City of Centerville, 921 N.E.2d 655 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
Kunkel v. Bd. of Commissioners, 895 N.E.2d 905 (Ohio Ct. App. 2008).
In Re Annexation of 343.2255 Acres From Symmes Twp., 666 N.E.2d 593 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
Eaton Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. KNG, Ltd., 2023 Ohio 1621 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “” R.C. 709.033. {¶6} Eaton argues in its third assignment of error that KNG and Grafton (collectively “Petitioners”) failed to meet R.”
Tuscarawas Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2011 Ohio 5581 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “02(A) and R.C. 709.033 were not met because the property owner adjacent to the City of Massillon, TJ & MG Properties, LLC, did not sign the petition and objected to the annexation; (3) the annexation was unreasonably large in violation of R.”
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.033(A)(1) — 2 cases
Tuscarawas Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2011 Ohio 5581 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “02(A) and R.C. 709.033 were not met because the property owner adjacent to the City of Massillon, TJ & MG Properties, LLC, did not sign the petition and objected to the annexation; (3) the annexation was unreasonably large in violation of R.”
Salem v. Columbiana Cty. Bd. of Cmmrs., 2026 Ohio 579 (Ohio Ct. App. 2026).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.033(A)(2) — 1 case
City of All. v. Lexington Twp. Bd. of Trs., 923 N.E.2d 1172 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.033(A)(4) — 2 cases
Tuscarawas Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2011 Ohio 5581 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “02(A) and R.C. 709.033 were not met because the property owner adjacent to the City of Massillon, TJ & MG Properties, LLC, did not sign the petition and objected to the annexation; (3) the annexation was unreasonably large in violation of R.”
City of All. v. Lexington Twp. Bd. of Trs., 923 N.E.2d 1172 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.033(A)(5) — 6 cases
State ex rel. Xenia v. Greene Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (Slip Opinion), 2020 Ohio 3423 (Ohio 2020). “Interpreting virtually identical language found in R.C. 709.033’s predecessor, we observed that such language presents a “question of fact within the discretion of the board.”
Witschey v. Medina Cnty. Bd. of Commissioners, 862 N.E.2d 535 (Ohio Ct. App. 2006).
Eaton Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. KNG, Ltd., 2023 Ohio 1621 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “” R.C. 709.033. {¶6} Eaton argues in its third assignment of error that KNG and Grafton (collectively “Petitioners”) failed to meet R.”
Tuscarawas Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2011 Ohio 5581 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “02(A) and R.C. 709.033 were not met because the property owner adjacent to the City of Massillon, TJ & MG Properties, LLC, did not sign the petition and objected to the annexation; (3) the annexation was unreasonably large in violation of R.”
Hinckley Twp. v. Calvin, 2025 Ohio 504 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.033(A)(6) — 6 cases
Eaton Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. KNG, Ltd., 2023 Ohio 1621 (Ohio Ct. App. 2023). “” R.C. 709.033. {¶6} Eaton argues in its third assignment of error that KNG and Grafton (collectively “Petitioners”) failed to meet R.”
Tuscarawas Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2011 Ohio 5581 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “02(A) and R.C. 709.033 were not met because the property owner adjacent to the City of Massillon, TJ & MG Properties, LLC, did not sign the petition and objected to the annexation; (3) the annexation was unreasonably large in violation of R.”
Ray v. Warren, 2019 Ohio 4654 (Ohio Ct. App. 2019).
Hinckley Twp. v. Calvin, 2025 Ohio 504 (Ohio Ct. App. 2025).
City of All. v. Lexington Twp. Bd. of Trs., 923 N.E.2d 1172 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.033(B) — 2 cases
Tuscarawas Twp. Bd. of Trs. v. Stark Cty. Bd. of Commrs., 2011 Ohio 5581 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011). “02(A) and R.C. 709.033 were not met because the property owner adjacent to the City of Massillon, TJ & MG Properties, LLC, did not sign the petition and objected to the annexation; (3) the annexation was unreasonably large in violation of R.”
All. v. Lexington Twp. Bd. of Trs., 2011 Ohio 3328 (Ohio Ct. App. 2011).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.033(C) — 5 cases
Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. v. Doughman, 64 Ohio St. 3d 585 (Ohio 1992). “After the hearing, the board decides whether to grant or deny the petition pursuant to R.C. 709.033 based upon the following factors: “(A) The petition contains all matter required in section 709.”
In Re Annexation of 948.885 Acres From Lemon Twp., 665 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
In Re Annexation of 343.2255 Acres From Symmes Twp., 666 N.E.2d 593 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
In Re Petition for Annexation of 368.08 Acres of Land, More or Less, 706 N.E.2d 1 (Ohio Ct. App. 1997).
In re Petition to Annex 320 Acres to the Vill. of S. Lebanon, 1992 Ohio 134 (Ohio 1992).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.033(C)(1) — 1 case
State ex rel. Young v. Ducro, 2020 Ohio 5471 (Ohio Ct. App. 2020).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.033(D) — 7 cases
Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. v. Doughman, 64 Ohio St. 3d 585 (Ohio 1992). “After the hearing, the board decides whether to grant or deny the petition pursuant to R.C. 709.033 based upon the following factors: “(A) The petition contains all matter required in section 709.”
In Re Appeal of Jefferson Twp. Bd. of Trs., 605 N.E.2d 435 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992).
Bd. of Trs. v. City of Centerville, 602 N.E.2d 1136 (Ohio 1992).
Joreski v. Teeple, 577 N.E.2d 419 (Ohio Ct. App. 1989).
In re Petition to Annex 320 Acres to the Vill. of S. Lebanon, 1992 Ohio 134 (Ohio 1992).
— Ohio Rev. Code § 709.033(E) — 17 cases
Smith v. Granville Twp. Bd. of Trs., 693 N.E.2d 219 (Ohio 1998). “That statute establishes specific standards to be applied by the board to the evidence before it in annexation proceedings, and grants to the board the discretion to make only those factual determinations specifically called for in the statute.”
City of Middletown v. McGee, 530 N.E.2d 902 (Ohio 1988).
Cincinnati Milacron, Inc. v. Doughman, 64 Ohio St. 3d 585 (Ohio 1992). “After the hearing, the board decides whether to grant or deny the petition pursuant to R.C. 709.033 based upon the following factors: “(A) The petition contains all matter required in section 709.”
City of Cleveland v. City of Fairview Park, 545 N.E.2d 1287 (Ohio Ct. App. 1988). “R.C. 709.033 also shows the intent of the legislature in this matter.”
Bd. of Trs. v. for Incorporation of Holiday City, 70 Ohio St. 3d 365 (Ohio 1994).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.