BOARD OF COM'RS OF LaPORTE COUNTY v. Town & Country Utilities

• Decision Date: 10 July 2003
• Docket Number: No. 46A04-0212-CV-585.,46A04-0212-CV-585.
• Citation: 791 N.E.2d 249
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Parties: BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LaPORTE COUNTY, Indiana and LaPorte County Board of Zoning Appeals, Appellants-Defendants, v. TOWN & COUNTRY UTILITIES, INC., Appellee-Plaintiff, Kingsbury Utility Corporation, Intervenor.

791 N.E.2d 249

BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF LaPORTE COUNTY, Indiana and LaPorte County Board of Zoning Appeals, Appellants-Defendants, v. TOWN & COUNTRY UTILITIES, INC., Appellee-Plaintiff, Kingsbury Utility Corporation, Intervenor.

No. 46A04-0212-CV-585.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

July 10, 2003.

Michael A. Wukmer, Terri A. Czajka, Scott D. Matthews, Ice Miller, Indianapolis, IN, Shaw Friedman, Robert Szilagyi, Schoof Szilagyi & Davis, LaPorte, IN, Attorneys for Appellants.

James W. Kaminski, Matthew J. Hagenow, LaPorte, IN, Intervenor Kingsbury Utility Corporation.

Richard W. Paulen, James W. Tuesley, Barnes & Thornburg, Elkhart, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION

SHARPNACK, Judge.

The Board of Commissioners of LaPorte County, Indiana, ("Board of Commissioners") and the LaPorte County Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") appeal the trial court's grant of summary judgment to Town and Country Utilities, Inc., ("Town and Country"). The Board of Commissioners and the BZA raise two issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether the Board of Commissioners acted within its statutory authority when it adopted Section 8-20 of the LaPorte County Zoning and Master Plan ("Master Plan") making Section 8-20 a zoning ordinance; and

II. Whether the Home Rule Act preempts the application of Section 8-20.

We reverse and remand.

The relevant facts follow. On November 10, 1998, the Board of Commissioners adopted Ordinance Number 98-20, known as the Master Plan. The Master Plan became effective on January 1, 1999. The Master Plan's express purpose "is to compile all zoning ordinances and other ordinances that leave enforcement to the Building Commissioner, Plan Commission, or the [BZA.]" Appellants' Appendix at 49. Section 8-20 of the Master Plan establishes a procedure for a petitioner, who is seeking to develop a sanitary landfill or solid waste facility, to receive a variance or special exception. First, the petitioner must provide to the BZA written approval from the LaPorte Solid Waste District Board ("Local Solid Waste District Board") regarding the need for the sanitary landfill or solid waste disposal facility and that the landfill will meet the District's criteria. Next, the petitioner must meet the variance or special exception requirements of Section 8-18 of the Master Plan.

Town and Country entered into a contract to purchase real estate located in LaPorte County with the intent to construct and operate a sanitary landfill for the disposal of solid waste on the property. Accordingly, Town and Country filed a petition for a special exception with the BZA seeking approval to place and construct the landfill. On August 21, 2001, the BZA declined to hear Town and Country's petition because the BZA had not received a letter from the Local Solid Waste District Board, as required by Section 8-20. However, the BZA gave Town and Country the option to either withdraw its petition or request a continuance. Town and Country requested a continuance.

Subsequently, on September 20, 2001, Town and Country filed a complaint for declaratory relief against the Board of Commissioners and the BZA seeking a declaratory judgment that Section 8-20 is void and unenforceable. On June 7, 2001, Town and Country filed a motion for partial summary judgment on Count I of its complaint, which had alleged that Section 8-20 was preempted by Indiana law and that the adoption of Section 8-20 constituted improper local legislation. Specifically, Town and Country had alleged in its complaint that, because the Indiana General Assembly delegated the responsibility of siting, construction, operation, closing, and monitoring of landfills in Indiana to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management ("IDEM") and the Indiana Solid Waste Management Board ("State Solid Waste Management Board"), the entire field of regulation and rulemaking on landfills was preempted. Accordingly, Town and Country contended that "[t]he enactment and subsequent enforcement of Section 8-20[was] in violation of the preemption over the entire field of regulation and control of the siting and construction of landfills in Indiana, which is vested with the [IDEM] and the [State Solid Waste Management Board.]" Id. at 31. In response, the Board of Commissioners and the BZA filed a cross-motion for partial summary judgment seeking a determination that the Board of Commissioners had the authority to adopt Section 8-20 because the Board of Commissioners may adopt zoning ordinances and the Local Solid Waste District Board has the statutory authority to consider the need for a landfill in LaPorte County.

On October 9, 2002, the trial court granted partial summary judgment to Town and Country and denied the Board of Commissioners' and the BZA's motion for partial summary judgment. The trial court's order provided, in pertinent part, as follows:

6. [Town and Country] is entitled to judgment as a matter of law for the following reasons:

a) the condition precedent to the [BZA's] consideration of a request for a special exception to operate a sanitary landfill or solid waste disposal facility—the determination of "need" and the satisfaction of the [Local Solid Waste District Board]—is preempted by state statutes which:

1) provide that the [IDEM] and its companion entity, [the State Solid Waste Management Board,] have been granted the authority [to] grant permits for the construction of solid waste management facilities [Ind.Code 13-15-3-1 et seq.,] to "establish requirements for the issuance of permits to control solid waste" [Ind.Code 31-15-1-3] and to determine the "need" that would be satisfied by the construction of a given solid waste facility. [Ind. Code 13-20-1-2, 3, and 4];

2) provide that "a unit [of local government] does not have" ... "[t]he power to regulate conduct that is regulated by a state agency, except as provided by statute." Ind.Code 36-1-3-8(7). See Triple G. Landfills, Inc. v. Board of Comm'rs of Fountain County, 774 F.Supp. 528 (N.D.Ind.1991).

b) The procedural condition precedent established by Section 8-20 in fact establishes the "second permit" requirement rejected in Triple G Landfills, supra;

c) Those powers that are granted to local governmental units must be exercised in accordance with the statutory provisions that grant such authority. Ind.Code 36-1-3-6(a). Here, the imposition of a procedural condition precedent that precludes the [BZA] from any consideration of a special exception to establish a solid waste disposal facility contravenes the statutorily-defined role of the [BZA] [See Ind.Code 36-7-4-900 et seq.] and the language of the [Master Plan] itself which, consistent with state statute, "leave [ ] enforcement to the Building Commissioner, Plan Commission, or the [BZA.]" [Master Plan, Section 8-1.] In that respect, the abdication of that function of the [BZA] to the [Local Solid Waste District Board] via the condition precedent is not a zoning ordinance at all, notwithstanding its inclusion in the master zoning plan; accordingly, the [Board of Commissioners's and BZA's] reliance on Pro-Eco, Inc. v. Board of Comm'rs of Jay County, 956 F.2d 635 (7th Cir.1992) and City of Crown Point v. Lake County, 510 N.E.2d 684 (Ind.1987) and the proposition that zoning statutes are not subject to preemption via Home Rule provisions is without merit.

Id. at 7-9 (citations in brackets in original). The trial court entered final judgment on Count I on November 6, 2002.

The Board of Commissioners and the BZA appeal the trial court's grant of partial summary judgment to Town and Country, and its denial of their motion for partial summary judgment. The purpose of summary judgment is to end litigation where no factual dispute exists that may be determined as a matter of law. Choung v. Iemma, 708 N.E.2d 7, 11 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999), reh'g denied. When reviewing a trial court's grant of summary judgment, we apply the same standard as the trial court. Georgetown Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Keele, 743 N.E.2d 301, 303 (Ind.Ct.App. 2001). Summary judgment should only be granted when the designated evidentiary material demonstrates that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. (citing Ind. Trial Rule 56(C)). Id. We resolve all doubts about facts, or inferences therefrom, in favor of the party that opposed summary judgment. Id.

Where a trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions thereon in granting a motion for summary judgment, as the trial court did in this case, the entry of specific findings and conclusions does not alter the nature of our review. Id. Rather, in the summary judgment context, we are not bound by the trial court's specific findings of fact and conclusions thereon. Rice v. Strunk, 670 N.E.2d 1280, 1283 (Ind.1996). They merely aid our review by providing us with a statement of reasons for the trial court's actions. Id. In addition, "[t]he fact that the parties [made] cross-motions for summary judgment does not alter our standard of review. Instead, we must consider each motion separately to determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Ind. Farmers Mut. Ins. Group v. Blaskie, 727 N.E.2d 13, 15 (Ind.Ct.App.2000).

Because we are analyzing the language of Section 8-20 of the Master Plan, a brief review of our rules of statutory construction is also necessary to our analysis of this case. Interpretation of an ordinance is subject to the same rules that govern the construction of a statute. Ragucci v. Metro. Dev. Comm'n of Marion County, 702 N.E.2d 677, 681 (Ind.1998). The cardinal rule of statutory construction is to ascertain the intent of the drafter by giving effect to the ordinary and plain meaning of the language used. T.W. Thom Const., Inc. v. City of Jeffersonville, 721 N.E.2d 319, 324 (Ind.Ct.App.1999). Accordingly, if the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, it is not subject to judicial interpretation. State v. Rans, 739...