Board of Com'rs of Bartholomew County v. Board of Trustees of Town of Edinburg

• Decision Date: 15 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 1--1073A179,1--1073A179
• Citation: 325 N.E.2d 482
• Parties: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF BARTHOLOMEW, Indiana, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the TOWN OF EDINBURG, Indiana, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 482

325 N.E.2d 482

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the COUNTY OF BARTHOLOMEW Indiana, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF the TOWN OF EDINBURG, Indiana, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1--1073A179.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.

April 15, 1975.

Rehearing Denied May 29, 1975.

Cline, King & Beck, Thompson & Jones, Columbus, for appellants.

James A. Buck, Gary R. Landau, Buck, Berry, Landau & Breuning, Indianapolis, for appellees.

LOWDERMILK, Judge.

Plaintiffs-appellants (County Owners) brought this action against defendants-appellees (Edinburg) seeking to permanently enjoin Edinburg from exercising territorial jurisdiction for all land use control over that portion of land in Bartholomew County which was within two miles of Edinburg. Edinburg sought to exercise control over the area, pursuant to a proviso of IC 1971, 18--7--5--34, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 53--734 (Burns 1973 Supp.) which pertinent parts are as follows:

'. . . Provided further, That any city located in a county with a population of less than 84,000 according to the last decennial census may, at any time, after filing notice with the county recorder and with the county plan commission (which plan commission shall have adopted in accordance with this chapter, a master plan and ordinance covering the unincorporated areas of such county) exercise or reject territorial jurisdiction over all or part of the area within two (2) miles of the corporate limits of such city and within the county in which it is located, whether or not such city plan commission has exercised such jurisdiction at any previous time. Within sixty (60) days after receipt of such notice, said county plan commission and the board of county commissioners shall cause the county master plan and ordinance to be revised to reflect such decision of the city plan commission exercising the option provided for in this proviso.'

After a bench trial the court handed down special findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon, together with a judgment for Edinburg. County Owners timely filed their motion to correct errors; errors claimed were that the statute was unconstitutional as it applied to them because of violations of equal protection, disenfranchisement, improper special laws and improper delegation of legislative powers. The motion to correct errors was overruled.

The statute allows the city plan commission of towns located in counties with a population of less than 84,000 (which would include Bartholomew County), to exercise jurisdiction over unincorporated areas within two miles of the corporate limits without the consent of the county commissioners. Such consent is required if the county has a population in excess of 84,000.

County Owners claim that one effect of the statute is a disenfranchisement of the rights of affected property owners.

This issue, as well as other issues in the case at bar, were recently presented to the Second District of this court in the case of Board of Commissioners of the County of Howard v. Kokomo City Plan Commission (1974), Ind.App., 310 N.E.2d 877. In a well-written majority opinion Judge Sullivan held that orderly planning and development was a community interest and that self government does not require the consent of those affected by extra-territorial municipal planning. Thus, County Owners' argument concerning disenfranchisement must fail.

The second constitutional argument raised by County Owners is that the application of the statute is a denial to them of equal privileges and equal protection of laws. The gist of this argument is that the classification of 84,000 people is arbitrary and has no rational basis and is a special law. The majority opinion in Board of Commissioners of the County of Howard, supra, ably sets out the tests to be used in the present situation;

'Our consideration of the issue thus posed must be in the light of the following well established rules as collected and quoted in Bailey v. Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority Dist. (1960) 240 Ind. 401, 406--407, 166 N.E.2d 520, 523:

'(1) A statute is presumptively valid and will not be overthrown as unconstitutional if it can be...