Wednesday, August 12, 2015
Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 1 opinion(s) today (and 5 NFP memorandum decisions)
For publication opinions today (1):
In Fifty Six LLC, individually and, alternatively, in the name of the State of Indiana on relation of Fifty Six LLC v. The Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County, a 20-page opinion, Judge Brown writes:
Landowner asserts that the MDC should be estopped from asserting that it lacks standing, that Landowner is the type of person the township advisory committee and notice provisions were intended to protect, that Landowner’s interests are affected and have suffered injury because the Millersville Plan is a factor that determines land use, and that there is a disputed issue of fact as to whether Landowner had more than ten days notice of the language describing the parcel before the hearing at which the Millersville Plan was approved and adopted. The MDC contends that Landowner cannot show that it was injured by the adoption of the Millersville Plan because none of its rights in the land have been altered, as the zoning remains the same as it was prior to the plan’s adoption, and that the MDC has not waived the lack of standing defense because Landowner had the opportunity to respond to the defense and responded to it at the April 24, 2014 oral argument on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. * * *
Landowner has shown that Landowner’s Parcel is or would be directly impacted by the recommendations of the Millersville Plan. Accordingly, we conclude that Landowner has standing to challenge the Millersville Plan. See Foundations of East Chicago, 900 N.E. 2d at 903 (“The fact that Section 302 has the potential to set in motion events under which the Commission might eliminate that flow of money is sufficient to find standing under these circumstances.”). * * *
We conclude that the Millersville Plan did not comply with the requirement that the plan be published in its entirety ten days prior to a hearing pursuant to Ind. Code § 36-7-4-507. On this basis, we reverse the trial court’s order granting the MDC’s cross-motion for summary judgment and its order denying Landowner’s motion to correct error and remand for further proceedings.
In summary, we conclude that Landowner had standing to challenge the Millersville Plan, and that the MDC did not comply with the statutorily required notice and hearing provisions prior to the hearing on the Millersville Plan’s adoption. * * * Reversed and remanded.
NFP civil decisions today (1):
NFP criminal decisions today (4):
Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 12, 2015 10:35 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions