Day v. Ryan, 47A01-8910-CV-391
| Decision Date | 27 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 47A01-8910-CV-391,47A01-8910-CV-391 |
| Citation | 560 N.E.2d 77 |
| Parties | Rebecca K. DAY, et al.; Monroe County Plan Commission, Monroe County, Indiana; Phillip Rogers, Tim Tilton and Joyce Poling, in their capacity as Commissioners of Monroe County; and Jim Young, in his capacity as Sheriff of Monroe County, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. John L. RYAN, Jack K. Ryan, and Theresa J. Ryan, d/b/a Ryan Brothers Livestock, Dorothy Ryan and Carol B. Holmes, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Edward W. Najam, Jr., Lloyd T. Wilson, Jr., Najam & Wilson, David B. Schilling, Monroe County Atty., Bloomington, for plaintiffs-appellants.
David R. Day, Johnson, Smith, Densborn, Wright & Heath, Indianapolis, for defendants-appellees.
Defendant-appellees and cross-appellants John, Jack, and Theresa Ryan, d/b/a Ryan Brothers Livestock, and Dorothy Ryan (the Ryans) own a parcel of land in Monroe County outside Bloomington which they purchased from defendant-appellee and cross-appellant Carol Holmes. The plaintiff-appellants, who are some of the Ryans' neighbors, the Monroe County Plan Commission, the Commissioners of Monroe County, and the Monroe County Sheriff (collectively referred to as the County) brought this declaratory judgment action alleging the Ryans' use of their property as a stockyard was in violation of the Monroe County Zoning Ordinance (the Zoning Ordinance). The Ryans brought a counterclaim, alleging Monroe County Ordinance 89-1 (the Road Ordinance), which prohibits trucks with a wheel base of 40 feet or more from traveling on two county roads leading to the Ryans' property, is unlawful.
We affirm in part and reverse in part.
The parties raise several issues for our review, which we restate as follows:
I. Whether the trial court erred in determining the Ryans had a valid nonconforming use on the date of the re-enactment of the Zoning Ordinance.
II. Whether the Ryans' current use of the property as a stockyard is a permitted agricultural use under the Zoning Ordinance.
III. Whether the trial court erred in ordering the removal of certain structures from the Ryans' property.
IV. Whether the Road Ordinance is a valid exercise of Monroe County's police power.
The property in question is located on North Showers Road, a short distance east of State Route 37 and north of that highway's exit to Bloomington's College Avenue. The property is subject to the Zoning Ordinance, which was re-enacted on August 29, 1986, 1 and falls within one of the Ordinance's agricultural zones.
In 1982, Carol Holmes sold the property by a land contract to the Ryans. At that time, the property was used as a farm, and the Ryans continued that use, raising livestock and growing soy beans, corn, and hay. Prior to the re-enactment of the Zoning Ordinance, the Ryans built a new barn.
John, Jack, and Theresa all held individual livestock dealer's licenses issued by the State Board of Animal Health (the State Board), and they bought and sold livestock in addition to their farming pursuits. The Ryans dealt in, and continue to deal in, cattle, swine, sheep, and goats.
In 1987 and 1988, after the re-enactment of the Zoning Ordinance, the Ryans made several improvements to the property. These included a feed room and a scale house with concrete floors, a 40' X 70' concrete slab, permanent pens with hay feeders on the concrete slab, a holding tank for waste run-off from the pens, an enclosed 2,800 square foot addition to their barn, more pens outside this enclosure, and a concrete path between the barn and the enclosure. As a result, the volume of their livestock business increased markedly, and in the spring of 1988, they began to receive complaints from their neighbors about the smell, noise, and vehicular traffic generated by their business.
On April 1, 1988, the Ryans' individual livestock dealers' licenses expired. On April 5, they applied for relicensure, but they allowed their livestock dealer's bond to expire on April 16, and did not tender renewal fees until May 19. Accordingly, the State Board denied the renewal application. On August 26, 1988, the State Board issued the Ryans a livestock dealer's license During the same period of time, in the late summer of 1988, the Ryans' neighbors began complaining to county officials about the Ryans' use of the property as a stockyard. Subsequently, county zoning authorities and the County Attorney informed the Ryans that their use was not in compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
for a stockyard rather than for individual dealers. Two months later, on October 26, the Ryans and the State Board entered into a consent decree which stipulated, among other things, that the Ryans had begun operation of a stockyard without a license. In the interim, on September 30, 1988, the Ryans received a designation as a livestock market from the United States Department of Agriculture and a federal license for the interstate shipment of swine.
After the Ryans failed to file a petition to attempt compliance with the Zoning Ordinance, the County and neighbors filed their actions. The actions were consolidated, and the resulting amended complaint contained four counts: first, that the Ryans were violating the Zoning Ordinance by conducting a business enterprise in an agricultural zone; second, that the Ryans' use of their property was a nuisance; 2 third, that the Ryans violated the Monroe County Code by enlarging their driveway without a permit; fourth, that the Ryans had enlarged existing facilities without proper building permits.
Because the Ryans' business required transport of large numbers of animals, a large volume of traffic, including tractor trailers, traveled to and from their property. The tractor trailers had difficulty negotiating the intersection of the two county roads leading from the Ryans' property to State Route 37, and, at times, the trailers drove off the road, knocking down utility guide wires, damaging yards, and blocking the intersection. The problems with the tractor trailers led the County to pass the Road Ordinance on January 26, 1989. The Road Ordinance prohibits tractor trailers with a wheel base in excess of 40 feet from traveling over the two county roads between the Ryans' property and State Route 37.
The Ryans responded to the passage of the Road Ordinance by bringing a counterclaim against the County, alleging the Road Ordinance was unlawful. The County then sought an injunction to enforce the Road Ordinance.
On Count I, the trial court found the Ryans had a nonconforming use on the date the Zoning Ordinance was re-enacted, but that the 1987 and 1988 improvements to the property were impermissible expansions of the nonconforming use. Accordingly, the trial court rendered judgment allowing the Ryans to continue their livestock dealing operations without restriction as to volume, but also ordered them to remove the 1987 and 1988 improvements. On Count III, the trial court fined the Ryans for expanding the driveway without a permit. On Count IV, the court rendered judgment for the Ryans, finding that they had complied with all building permit requirements. On the Ryans' counterclaim, the trial court granted the County's request for an injunction, and enjoined the Ryans and anyone acting in concert with them from violating the Road Ordinance.
The nexus of the County's appeal is that the trial court erred in determining the Ryans had a valid pre-existing nonconforming use. On cross-appeal, the Ryans claim their use of the property is a permitted agricultural use, and that the Road Ordinance is an invalid exercise of the County's police power. Neither party has appealed the trial court's judgment on Count III or Count IV.
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
At the time the Zoning Ordinance was re-enacted in 1986, the Ryans were engaged in traditional farming activities as well as livestock dealing operations. The trial court found this use was nonconforming. The trial court did not, however, determine the Ryans were operating a stockyard, either in 1986 or at the time of trial; it merely found the Ryans were engaged in a "livestock dealing operation," which they had impermissibly expanded after 1986. We agree with the Ryans that their use in August of 1986 was a permitted agricultural use under the terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
In the agricultural zone, the Zoning Ordinance allows property to be used for "farm crops-livestock" without restriction. Monroe County, Ind., Zoning Ordinance Sec. 803-7; Record at 694. In construing this and all the language in the Zoning Ordinance, we follow the ordinary rules of statutory construction. Pleasureland Museum, Inc. v. Dailey (1981), Ind.App., 422 N.E.2d 754. Among other things, this requires us to interpret the Zoning Ordinance as a whole and to give its words their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning. Simon v. Auburn Bd. of Zon. App. (1988), Ind.App., 519 N.E.2d 205, 211.
In its usual meaning, agriculture is a broader word than farming. See Fleckles v. Hille (1925), 83 Ind.App. 715, 149 N.E. 915. It is "the art or science of cultivating the soil, including the planting of seed, the harvesting of crops, and the raising, feeding and management of live stock or poultry." Id. 83 Ind.App. at 716, 149 N.E. at 915. See also Downing et....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indiana High School Athletic Ass'n, Inc. v. Schafer
... ... An injunction is an extraordinary remedy that should be cautiously granted and narrowly confined in scope. Day v. Ryan (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 77, 83. This injunction is overbroad because it lacks an endpoint for Schafer's eligibility. Clearly, at some point ... ...
-
Felsher v. University of Evansville
... ... Day v. Ryan, 560 N.E.2d 77, 83 (Ind.Ct. App.1990) ... The reputation of the University is directly proportional to the reputation of the individuals it employs ... ...
-
Stewart v. Jackson
... ... Ryan (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 77, 83. Injunctions are appropriate in cases where a restrictive covenant has been violated. Austin v. Durbin (1974), ... ...
-
Homer v. Guzulaitis
... ... Day, et al. v. Ryan (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 77 ... The Homers argue the trial court erred in admitting the statements Homer made regarding the ... ...