Hills v. Area Plan Commission of Vermillion County

• Decision Date: 12 February 1981
• Docket Number: No. 1-880A219,1-880A219
• Citation: 416 N.E.2d 456
• Parties: Elvin HILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF VERMILLION COUNTY, the Board of Commissioners of the County of Vermillion, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 456

416 N.E.2d 456

Elvin HILLS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The AREA PLAN COMMISSION OF VERMILLION COUNTY, the Board of

Commissioners of the County of Vermillion,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1-880A219.

Court of Appeals of Indiana, First District.

Feb. 12, 1981.

Larry C. Thomas, Clinton, for plaintiff-appellant.

Don R. Darnell, Newport, Joe E. Beardsley II, Beardsley & Stengel, Clinton, for defendants-appellees.

RATLIFF, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Elvin Hills appeals from an adverse judgment entered in his action seeking declaratory judgment that the actions of the Area Plan Commission of Vermillion County and the Board of Commissioners of Vermillion County in denying Hills' application for rezoning were invalid and directing the Plan Commission and County Commissioners to grant the rezoning. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

On January 11, 1979, Hills presented his application to the Plan Commission for rezoning of a certain six acre tract in Section 28, Township 15 North, Range 9 West from agricultural (A) classification to urban residential (U-1). Hills' purpose in obtaining Hills then petitioned the County Commissioners to grant the rezoning. Pursuant to published notice, the Commissioners held a public hearing on the proposed rezoning on March 19, 1979. Hills appeared in person and by counsel. At the hearing before the Commissioners, the minutes of the Plan Commission meeting wherein the rezoning was rejected were presented, together with a map showing residences in the neighborhood, a drawing of the proposed apartment complex, letters from realtors stating that no adverse affect on surrounding property values would result, letters attesting to adequacy of water supply and to availability of police and fire protection in the area, a soil report concerning septic system feasibility, and a letter from Hills' grantor stating there were no use restrictions prohibiting apartment construction in the conveyance to Hills. Hills testified in support of his application. He also introduced copies of minutes of Plan Commission meetings approving similar rezoning applications for two other landowners in different areas in the county and minutes of Board of Zoning Appeals' meetings granting special exceptions for apartment complexes in those areas. Also, a number of area residents presented objections to the rezoning, again stating concern over increased traffic, congestion, water supply, change in the character of the neighborhood, depreciation of property values, effect on water table, drainage, and interference with the agricultural character of the general vicinity.

                such rezoning was to construct an apartment complex on the tract in question.  1  At this meeting of the Plan Commission, the zoning administrator presented a sketch of the area involved, a soil report prepared by the District Conservationist was available for Commission inspection and was discussed by a Commission member, and Hills was called upon to explain where the subject land was located.  Several landowners in the area then appeared in opposition to the proposed rezoning voicing objections that such rezoning and construction of the apartment complex might adversely affect the value of their real estate, would increase traffic, water usage, garbage, overburden existing facilities, and change the prevailing rural character of the area.  The Plan Commission determined to recommend rejection of the rezoning application by a unanimous vote
                

The Commissioners took the matter under advisement until their meeting of April 2, 1979, when the Commissioners denied Hills' application by unanimous vote. The minutes of the Commissioners' April 2, 1979, meeting state: "Richard Fultz said he could find no error in the decision of the Area Plan Commission to not grant Elvin Hills (sic) request for rezoning from A to U-1. In light of their decision and what he personally had heard (he) now made a motion to deny said petition. Howard Shew seconded the motion. Elmo Riggen made said motion unanimous."

Neither the Plan Commission nor the Board of Commissioners made or entered any special findings of fact supporting their actions. The rejection of the rezoning by the Commissioners precipitated this action for declaratory judgment. The trial court entered the following findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment:

"FINDINGS OF FACT

"The Court, having had this matter under advisement and having heard the evidence and arguments of counsel and being duly advised, does now make the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Judgment:

"1. The plaintiff is the owner of approximately six (6) acres of real estate situate in Sec. 28, Twp. 15 N, Range 9 W, Vermillion County, Indiana.

"2. Said real estate was classified as agricultural real estate pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of Vermillion County, Indiana.

"3. The plaintiff filed a petition to the Vermillion County Area Plan Commission requesting that said real estate be reclassified and rezoned from agricultural to urban residential.

"4. The plaintiff intended to erect an apartment complex on said real estate in the event said land were (sic) reclassified.

"5. On January 11, 1979, at a meeting of the Vermillion County Area Plan Commission said petition and request for reclassification was submitted to the said Commission, and the petitioner and his counsel were given an opportunity to address said Commission in support of his application, but the plaintiff did not present any other evidence to the Commission in support of his petition for reclassification, although Soils (sic) Report was considered by the Commission.

"6. There were present at said meeting a number of property owners living near the property of the plaintiff who made objection to the proposed reclassification.

"7. The Area Planning Commission of Vermillion County then voted upon said petition and denied the same unanimously, and thereby recommended that said reclassification not be made.

"8. There were no written Findings of Fact made by the Area Plan Commission.

"9. Subsequently the plaintiff submitted his application to the Board of County Commissioners of Vermillion County, Indiana, asking the Board to reverse the Commission and in effect requesting that an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance of Vermillion County to permit the rezoning of the six (6) acre tract of real estate in question from agricultural to urban residential (sic).

"10. The Board of County Commissioners set said petition for public hearing on March 19, 1979, and gave due notice by publication of the same.

"11. On March 19, 1979, a public hearing was had by the Board of County Commissioners of Vermillion County, Indiana, to consider said application and petition, and said Board, after hearing the evidence presented, took the same under advisement.

"12. On April 2, 1979, the Board of County Commissioners denied said petition to amend said Zoning Ordinance and reverse the action of the Vermillion County Area Plan Commission.

"13. The Board of County Commissioners did not make any specific Findings of Fact with respect to said petition.

"14. The Area Plan Commission by other separate action have (sic) approved rezoning requests of a man named Henry Shortridge and a man named Harold Grubbs on other parcels of real estate in Vermillion County, Indiana, to erect multiple family units, and the plaintiff claims that thereby he has been denied equal protection under the Constitution.

"CONCLUSIONS

"Based upon the above Findings of Fact, the Court does now conclude:

"1. The law is with the defendants and against the plaintiff.

"2. There is no evidence that the action of the Vermillion County Area Plan Commission, in denying the petition of the plaintiff, acted arbitrarily or capricious (sic) or outside the scope of its authority.

"3. The Commission was not required under the law to make special Findings of Fact.

"4. In its action herein to refuse to amend the Zoning Ordinance of Vermillion County, the Board of County Commissioners was acting as a legislative body, and it was not required to make any Findings of Fact under the law.

"5. There is no evidence that the Board of County Commissioners of Vermillion County acted irrationally or outside the scope of its authority or arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the petition of the plaintiff.

"6. The plaintiff has not been denied equal protection by the action of either the Area Plan Commission or the Board of County Commissioners in this case.

"JUDGMENT

"Based upon the above Findings and Conclusions, the Court does now ORDER, ADJUDGE AND DECREE that the plaintiff take nothing by his claims, all at plaintiff's cost."

From this judgment Hills appeals.

ISSUES

The issues present for our consideration are ²

1. Whether the court erred in determining that the County Area Plan Commission when acting on the proposed rezoning had not acted outside the scope of its authority.

2. Whether the Court erred in determining that the Area Plan Commission when acting on the proposed rezoning had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously.

3. Whether the Court erred when it determined that the decision of the Board of Commissioners on the proposed rezoning was not arbitrary or capricious.

4. Whether the Court erred when it determined that neither the Board of Commissioners nor the Plan Commission was required to make written findings of fact when they denied the rezoning petition.

5. Whether the Court erred when it determined that Landowner was not denied equal protection by the actions of the Area Plan Commission and the Board of Commissioners.

6. Whether the Court erred when it determined that a zoning decision can be determined solely by a poll of public sentiment in the neighborhood.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Issue One

The Plan Commission did not act outside the scope of its authority. Under the applicable statutes, ³ the Plan Commission was required to review the application for rezoning and make its recommendations and...