Rucker, J.
In this involuntary annexation case the trial court determined, after a bench trial, that a statutory requirement for annexation had not been met. Because the trial court’s judgment is not clearly erroneous, we affirm.
….
Fortville appealed contending: (1) the trial court erred as a matter of law by not giving substantial deference to the municipality’s decision to proceed with annexation, and (2) there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate the Annexation Territory was needed and can be used for Fortville’s development in the reasonably near future. Focusing primarily on this latter claim, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment concluding the trial court failed to apply the proper legal standard in assessing whether Fortville needed and could use the Annexation Territory in the reasonably near future. See Town of Fortville v. Certain Fortville Annexation Territory Landowners, 36 N.E.3d 1176, 1179 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), vacated. Having previously granted transfer we now affirm the judgment of the trial court. Additional facts are set forth below.
….
Based on our review of the record, we are satisfied the trial court fulfilled its obligation to consider only whether the statutory conditions for annexation have been satisfied. We thus turn to Fortville’s second contention.
II.
Indiana Code section 36-4-3-13 outlines in detail the various requirements that must be satisfied before a proposed annexation may take place. As indicated earlier, prior to trial the parties entered into various stipulations concerning the statutory requirements leaving but one for the trial court’s determination: “[t]hat the territory sought to be annexed is . . . needed and can be used by the municipality for its development in the reasonably near future.” I.C. § 36-4-3-13(c)(2) (2013).
….
…The court concluded that “Fortville’s anticipation that residential growth will occur in Fortville based on the growth in Fishers and McCordsville is reasonable. Although the evidence suggests a long-term inevitability to annexation, the evidence does not support a conclusion for the need for annexation in the near future.” Id. at 7, ¶ R. In sum the trial court considered physical as well as non-physical development in reaching its conclusion.
Unrebutted evidence shows that Fortville has no plans to build roads through the territory such as the transportation linkages as in Chidester, Fortville’s Ex. 2 at 11-12 (no additional street lights are currently proposed, no current cost estimate of capital improvements to support road and street improvements because no proposed projects existed); or provide sanitary sewer service until unspecified development moves into the Annexation Territory, Id. at 6; or provide parks and recreation services to the Annexation Territory, Id. at 14 (hypothetical developers will be required to provide green space for future parks and recreation demands, but no current plans).
….
…The evidence supports these findings. For these reasons, the trial court’s decision upholding the remonstrance and denying annexation because Fortville has failed to meet its burden in showing the Annexation Territory is needed and can be used for Fortville’s development in the reasonably near future is not clearly erroneous.
Conclusion
We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Rush, C.J., and Dickson, David and Massa, JJ., concur.