« Courts - "Ohio Judges See More Do-It-Yourself Divorces and System Slowdown " | Main | Ind. Gov't. - East Chicago case an issue in campaign for AG seat »

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Ind. Courts - "Despite protest and possible legalities, Randolph to build courthouse annex"

When last we hear of the Randolph County Courthouse project, it was July 16th and the Muncie Star-Press had thrown up its hands in an editorial titled "It's time for courthouse saga to come to an end."

Today the always excellent Joy Leiker of the Star-Press, whose beat appears to center on the Randolph County Courthouse and CAFOs, reports:

WINCHESTER -- Attempts to stop or change the Randolph County Courthouse project have failed, and on Monday county commissioners voted 2-1 to continue plans to renovate the existing courthouse, add an annex and build an elevator tower to connect the old and new.

It's a plan county officials have long envisioned, but failed to execute. They last voted on the same idea in March 2007.

But even now, this latest vote is not a clear ticket to construction. * * *

[A]ctual construction is months away. Architect Ron Ross said that the earliest commissioners are likely to review and possibly award a construction contract is their Oct. 20 meeting.

In the meantime, there's a legal fight and interpretation game to be settled on the board of zoning appeals' denial of a variance for the project, and specifically on wording in the Unified Zoning Ordinance.

The Star-Press story today includes an artist rendering of the Courthouse with the proposed annex.

Today's online main story is accompanied by a sidebar labeled "Legal opinions aplenty":

As Randolph County commissioners voted to pursue their preferred plan Monday, an annex on the downtown square next to the existing courthouse, a legal battle remains. Can the project continue as planned, or does the county still need a variance from the board of zoning appeals?

The south side of the proposed annex is less than 25 feet away from the Franklin Street right of way, and when the county sought a variance to build as planned, the board of zoning appeals denied it.

Since then, County Attorney John Tanner has contended the county never needed a variance, because the setback rules only apply on Main Street, or the courthouse's front side.

Area Planning Commission Executive Director Cathy Flatter and APC attorney Bob Oliver disagree, and insist there are setbacks on all four sides of the courthouse square.

Tanner asked an attorney from Baker and Daniels in Indianapolis, the firm hired as bond counsel for the courthouse project, to review the Unified Zoning Ordinance. Steven Hardin from Baker Daniels agreed with Tanner that the setback only applies on Main Street.

Tanner also sought the opinion of Meeks Cockerill, the attorney for the city of Winchester. In a letter Monday Cockerill wrote that Hardin's position "would be a legitimate interpretation" of the ordinance and that Oliver's position "is supported by certain sections of the ordinance."

The final interpretation might come down to a request for a declaratory judgment by a court judge. And if that happens, one thing is certain -- Randolph County judges won't want to make the decision.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 22, 2008 09:33 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts