House of Prayer Ministries, Inc. v. Rush Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals
Decision Date | 16 January 2018 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 21A01–1707–MI–1693 |
Parties | HOUSE OF PRAYER MINISTRIES, INC. d/b/a Harvest Christian Camp, Appellant–Petitioner, v. RUSH COUNTY BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, Appellee–Respondent, Milco Dairy Farm, LLC, Appellee–Intervenor. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorneys for Appellant : Kim E. Ferraro, Samuel J. Henderson, Hoosier Environmental Council, Valparaiso, Indiana
Attorney for Appellee–Respondent : Grant M. Reeves, Barada Law Offices LLC, Rushville, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee–Intervenor : Todd J. Janzen, Brianna J. Schroeder, Janzen Agricultural Law LLC, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] House of Prayer Ministries, Inc., d/b/a Harvest Christian Camp ("House of Prayer"), appeals from the trial court's denial of its petition for judicial review from the decision of the Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") to grant a special exception to Milco Dairy Farm, LLC ("Milco")1 in Milco's construction and operation of a concentrated animal feeding operation ("CAFO"), which was a dairy operation consisting of 1,400 head of cattle. House of Prayer raises three issues for our review, which we restate as the following five issues:
[2] We affirm.
[3] In November of 2015, Milco filed a permit with the BZA for a special exception to Rush County zoning ordinances in order to obtain local approval for the construction and operation of a new CAFO. Over two public meetings in March and April of 2016, the BZA heard evidence and testimony for and against Milco's permit request. The evidence established that Milco sought to maintain 1,400 head of cattle at the proposed CAFO location. To accommodate the waste produced by the livestock, Milco proposed to construct on-site storage for 17.4 million gallons of waste in open-air lagoons. Milco's plans further provided that no run-off would occur from the property. Milco presented evidence of mitigation efforts it planned to take to reduce noxious odors from its proposed CAFO, and its plans were approved by both the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the local drainage board.
[4] House of Prayer appeared at those meetings as a remonstrator against Milco's permit request. House of Prayer operates a religious summer youth camp certified by the Indiana Department of Health. House of Prayer can host up to 768 children per summer at its camp, which consists of several "multi-day or week long overnight programs for children and teens over eight years old." Appellant's App. Vol. IV at 138. House of Prayer holds its summer camp outdoors on property that is one-half mile, and downwind, from Milco's proposed CAFO. House of Prayer objected to Milco's permit request on the basis that the waste produced by the CAFO would be dangerous to attendees at House of Prayer's events and that the prevailing winds in the area would make the CAFO both a nuisance to House of Prayer and a risk to its attendees. House of Prayer also asserted that the construction of the CAFO would diminish House of Prayer's property value.
[5] After all interested parties had presented to the BZA at the April 2016 hearing, the BZA called for a twenty-minute break before holding a vote on the permit request. During that break, Rush County Commissioner Mark Bacon approached BZA member Craig Trent and attempted to speak to Trent. But Trent promptly informed Bacon that Trent "couldn't speak to him" and Trent directed Bacon to speak to the BZA's attorney. Appellant's App. Vol. VI at 118. Trent later testified that he "d[id not] know" what Bacon had tried to say to him and that he "didn't listen" to Bacon. Id. at 119. Rather, Trent "walked away." Id. Bacon also later testified that he had no reason to doubt Trent's statement that Trent did not hear what Bacon had attempted to say. Id. at 143. After the recess, the BZA held its vote and granted Milco's petition for a special exception. In July of 2016, the BZA entered findings of fact in support of its decision and granted the special exception subject to various conditions of approval.
[6] House of Prayer filed a petition for judicial review from the BZA's decision and also sought declaratory judgment. The parties filed briefs for and against House of Prayer's petition and designated evidence in support of their briefs. After argument to the court, the court entered findings of fact and conclusions thereon in which the court denied House of Prayer's petition for judicial review and request for declaratory judgment. This appeal ensued.
[7] House of Prayer appeals from the trial court's denial of its petition for judicial review.3 As our Supreme Court has explained:
A trial court and an appellate court both review the decision of a zoning board with the same standard of review. Crooked Creek Conservation and Gun Club, Inc. v. Hamilton County N. Bd. of Zoning Appeals , 677 N.E.2d 544, 547 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997), trans. denied , 690 N.E.2d 1182 (Ind. 1997) (table). A proceeding before a trial court or an appellate court is not a trial de novo ; neither court may substitute its own judgment for or reweigh the evidentiary findings of an administrative agency. Id. See also Equicor Dev., Inc. v. Westfield–Washington Twp. Plan Comm'n , 758 N.E.2d 34, 37 (Ind. 2001). The appropriate standard of review, "whether at the trial or appellate level, is limited to determining whether the zoning board's decision was based upon substantial evidence." Crooked Creek Conservation , 677 N.E.2d at 547.
MacFadyen v. City of Angola , 51 N.E.3d 322, 325–26 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Where, as here, the trial court has entered factual findings based only on a paper record, this Court will conduct its own de novo review of that record. Cook v. Adams Cty. Plan Comm'n , 871 N.E.2d 1003, 1006 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied .4
[8] House of Prayer raises a number of challenges to the BZA's decision to grant a special exception to Milco. In particular, House of Prayer raises the following arguments on appeal: (1) the BZA did not properly evaluate the public interest when it decided to grant a special exception to Milco; (2) the BZA did not properly consider the impact on surrounding properties; (3) the BZA did not properly consider setback requirements; (4) Trent's participation in the BZA vote after the attempted ex parte communication with Bacon violated House of Prayer's rights; and (5) the BZA's decision violates House of Prayer's religious rights under RLUIPA, RFRA, and the Indiana Constitution. We address each argument in turn.
[9] We first consider House of Prayer's argument that the BZA did not properly consider the public interest when it granted Milco the special exception. Pursuant to Rush County's zoning ordinances: "[a] special exception shall not be granted ... unless and until ... [t]he Board of Zoning Appeals shall make a finding ... that the granting of the Special Exception will not adversely affect the public interest." Appellant's App. Vol. VI at 24. In considering the public interest here, the BZA found as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial- Crowder v. State
-
Drew v. Southgate Dev.
... ... Development LLC and Charlestown Enterprises, Inc., Appellees-Defendants. No. 21A-PL-2642Court of ... Drew appeals and presents three issues for our review, which ... that record." House of Prayer Ministries, Inc. v ... Rush ... Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 91 N.E.3d 1053, 1058 ... ...
-
Drew v. Southgate Dev.
... ... Development LLC and Charlestown Enterprises, Inc., Appellees-Defendants. No. 21A-PL-2642Court of ... Drew appeals and presents three issues for our review, which ... that record." House of Prayer Ministries, Inc. v ... Rush ... Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 91 N.E.3d 1053, 1058 ... ...
-
Rockwood v. Crown Point Holdings, LLC
... ... Casey, and the Steuben County Board of Zoning Appeals, Appellees-Defendants. No. 22A-PL-1492 ... St. Charles Tower, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of ... -Vanderburgh Cnty. , 873 N.E.2d 598, 600 (Ind ... 2007) ... discretion ... House of Prayer Ministries, Inc. v. Rush Cnty. Bd. of ... ...