Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Summit County council dismisses Coventry Township annexation petition over procedural gaps
Summary
After petitioner testimony, council member Joe Kajian moved to dismiss an annexation petition for two Robinson Avenue parcels, saying required notices and a Barberton ordinance on services were not provided; the council voted to dismiss and said the petition can be reheard when in proper order.
Summit County Council voted to dismiss a petition to annex 1.01 acres in Coventry Township into the city of Barberton after council members said required procedural steps had not been completed.
Chair Liz Walters opened the public hearing on the petition, which covers two parcels listed in the petition as 1252 and 1262 Robinson Avenue. The chair said the county received the annexation petition on Feb. 17, 2026 and invited the petitioner to present. Two people identified themselves and spoke in favor of annexation, with Melissa Naglick saying the properties are already serviced by Barberton utilities, maintenance crews and police and that annexation would place the parcels on Barberton’s tax map to align services and taxation.
Council member Joe Kajian, speaking for unannexed residents, said the record did not show that the petitioners had served written notice to Coventry Township, filed the affidavit of service with county council, or mailed notice to adjacent property owners — steps Kajian said are required under state law. He also said Barberton had not provided the council with an ordinance committing the city to the specific services it would provide if the property were annexed. "I would move to dismiss the petition at this time because it's not ready under the law," Kajian said, and the motion carried on a voice vote.
Walters said the council would hear the petition again when it is in proper order. The council did not take evidence on the merits of the annexation; its dismissal was based on the procedural deficiencies Kajian cited.
Authorities referenced in the hearing included the applicable Ohio Revised Code annexation provisions (cited in discussion as R.C. 709.03). The petitioners did not provide city ordinance language or documentation of the notices the council said are statutorily required.
