Ohio law empowers real property owners, acting collectively, to petition their local board of county commissioners to annex real property out of a township and into a municipality. If the subject property is less than 500 acres, shares at least 5% of its border with the annexing municipality, and does not contain an “island” of property that would remain within the township’s jurisdiction, the board of commissioners may not reject the annexation.
In 2024, a developer caused approximately 300 acres to be annexed from Bethel Township into the City of Huber Heights using a procedure known as an “Expedited Type-2 Annexation.” Reacting to this annexation, Rep. Adam C. Bird, representing House District 63 (Clermont County), and Rep. Jonathan Newman, representing House District 80 (Miami County), introduced House Bill 113 (“HB 113”), which will radically limit the power of property owners in a township to choose to annex their property into a municipal corporation.
Under HB 113, if adopted, a township opposing an annexation will require the county board of commissioners to determine that the proposed annexation serves the “general good” of the property and whether that “general good” outweighs the “detriments to the territory proposed to be annexed and the surrounding area[.]”A board’s findings on these questions are dispositive of whether it will accept a petition for Expedited Type-2 Annexation.
Will HB 113 have any substantive limitation on the power of county commissioners to refuse an Expedited Type-2 Annexation, especially given the broad deference courts afford to local governments? First, what is the “general good?” Does it serve the “general good” of a property to require that it continue being subject to township property tax rates instead of municipal tax rates? Does one zoning regime serve a property better than another? Does access to sewage services, instead of relying upon a septic system, better promote the “general good” for a property? Similar questions arise as to whether an annexation is to the “detriment” of the annexed and surrounding properties. Is an annexation to the detriment of surrounding properties if it eliminates a portion of the tax base of a vestigial governmental unit? Is it to the detriment of the surrounding property to annex real property into a jurisdiction that promotes development? Is it to the detriment of the annexed property to be subject to municipal tax rates and zoning? Currently, property owners choosing an Expedited Type-2 Annexation provide the answers to these questions. Under HB 113, though, county commissioners will have the final word.
In addition to empowering county governments to veto, and townships to filibuster, annexations, HB 113 inculcates other sea changes to Expedited Type-2 Annexations. The bill reduces the maximum acreage that may be annexed by 60% and increases the contiguous border requirements by 400%. HB 113 also extends the base timeline for Expedited Type-2 Annexations by at least 45 days, and potentially much longer, thus altering the opportunity cost of a given project.
Most important, though, is what HB 113 does not do. Ohio law currently requires that those petitioning for Expedited Type-2 Annexation “waive[] their right to appeal*** from the board of county commissioners’ entry of any resolution pertaining to this special annexation procedure[.]” HB 113 leaves this required waiver in place. As a result, once a board of commissioners denies an annexation petition, an owner cannot challenge that decision before a court on any grounds whatsoever. In other words, a board of commissioners’ decision as to whether annexation serves the “general good” of a property is absolute and final, even if that reason arises from animus towards a property owner or another unlawful motivation.
The changes wrought by HB 113 are adverse to those involved in real estate development and property owners generally; townships and counties may hold property hostage, even when landowners and municipalities express overwhelming and unanimous support for annexation. In the long term, HB 113 will make annexations more contentious, expensive, and time consuming. In the immediate term, HB 113 will subject property owners petitioning for annexation to the arbitrary and unreviewable discretion of county commissioners.
KMK Law articles and blog posts are intended to bring attention to developments in the law and are not intended as legal advice for any particular client or any particular situation. The laws/regulations and interpretations thereof are evolving and subject to change. Although we will attempt to update articles/blog posts for material changes, the article/post may not reflect changes in laws/regulations or guidance issued after the date the article/post was published. Please consult with counsel of your choice regarding any specific questions you may have.
ADVERTISING MATERIAL.
© 2025 Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. All Rights Reserved
- Partner
Tom Tepe has been successful in obtaining significant real estate value reductions throughout Ohio and in several other states. He has obtained significant reductions for property owners of major office complexes, downtown ...
- Partner
Richard C. Spoor practices in the Real Estate Group with an emphasis on advising public and private clients on complex real estate development financing transactions.
Richard advises public entities, underwriters, and private ...
- Associate
Alex Johnson practices in the firm’s Real Estate Group where he advises clients on a wide variety of commercial real estate and business transactions, including the acquisition, sale, public and private financing, development ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Real Estate Law
- Ohio Revised Code Section 5709.56
- Ohio House Bill 113
- Environmental Law
- U.S. EPA
- Clean Water Act
- Tax Credit
- CERCLA
- Coronavirus
- SEC Enforcement
- ESA
- Environmental Site Assessment
- Economic Development
- Taxation
- Energy
- Opportunity Zone
- Incentives
- Investors
- JOBS Act
- Tax Abatement
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Toxic Substances Control Act
- TSCA
- Wetland
- Lenders
- Receivership Statute
- Employment Law
- CDEs
- CDFI Fund
- Community Development Entities
- Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
- Hazardous Waste
- New Markets Tax Credit
- NMTC
- NMTC Financing
- Pre-Start Construction
- RCRA
- Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
- Title Insurance
- USEPA Guidance
- Construction Litigation
- Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act
- LEED Certification
- Brownfield
- Underground Storage Tank
- Storm Water
Recent Posts
- Ohio Revised Code § 5709.56
- Ohio House Bill 113, 136th General Assembly, Regular Session
- Recent SEC Enforcement Actions Highlight Continuing Disclosure Obligations of Municipal Bond Underwriters
- Ohio Governor Mike DeWine Signs Executive Order Requesting Relief for Small Business Commercial Tenants and Commercial Real Estate Borrowers
- COVID-19 and Commercial Real Estate
- Columbus, Ohio ICSC 2020 Recap – The LLC Membership Interest “Loophole”
- Issues for Residential Landlords Attempting to Navigate Cincinnati's New Security Deposit Legislation
- Legal Alert: EPA Repeal of 2015 "Waters of the United States" Rule
- Columbus, Ohio ICSC 2019 Recap – Land Assemblage Best Practices
- Proposed Creation of the Economic Development Bond Bank