Johnson County Plan Com'n v. RamsHead Corp., 4-882A255

• Court: Indiana Appellate Court
• Writing for the Court: MILLER
• Citation: Johnson County Plan Com'n v. RamsHead Corp., 463 N.E.2d 295 (Ind. App. 1984)
• Decision Date: 15 May 1984
• Docket Number: No. 4-882A255,4-882A255
• Parties: JOHNSON COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION, Ethan P. Teeters, Myrtle A. Teeters, James P. Reum and Darlene J. Reum, and other remonstrators of Record, Appellants, v. RAMSHEAD CORPORATION, Appellee.

Page 295

463 N.E.2d 295

JOHNSON COUNTY PLAN COMMISSION, Ethan P. Teeters, Myrtle A Teeters, James P. Reum and Darlene J. Reum, and other remonstrators of Record, Appellants, v. RAMSHEAD CORPORATION, Appellee.

No. 4-882A255.

Court of Appeals of Indiana Fourth District.

May 15, 1984.

R.M. Gholston, Franklin, for appellants.

Joe N. Van Valer, George E. Purdy, Van Valer, Wicker & Williams, Greenwood, for appellee.

MILLER, Judge.

The Johnson County Plan Commission and intervening remonstrators (collectively labelled "Commission") appeal a trial court judgment against them and in favor of RamsHead Corp. whereby the court mandated the approval of a preliminary subdivision plat. The Commission had denied approval of RamsHead's proposed plat, citing various deficiencies in procedure and substance, which indicated noncompliance with pertinent ordinances and the county's comprehensive land use plan. Upon consideration of the allegations in RamsHead's petition for writ of certiorari, the trial court determined there was not sufficient evidence to support the Commission's findings of fact and conclusions of law, reversed its decision, and mandated approval of the plat. On the whole, we are inclined to agree with the trial court's conclusions that most of the plat's deficiencies were encouraged, if not actually occasioned, by the Commission's failure to follow its own procedures. Thus, we affirm that part of its decision reversing the Commission's disapproval. However, we must remand for new proceedings before the Commission because RamsHead indeed failed to comply with the subject ordinances.

ISSUES

The fundamental questions the Commission asks us to examine are:

1. Was the trial court barred from considering the Commission's disapproval of the plat on the grounds such was not a final administrative decision and therefore not reviewable?

2. Did the trial court err when it reversed the Commission's decision for lack of substantial evidence to support its findings and conclusion?

3. Did the trial court err when it mandated the Commission to approve the preliminary plat?

FACTS

RamsHead is desirous of constructing a subdivision of 153 lots on a 45-acre tract of land in White River Township in Johnson County. On October 28, 1980, in pursuit of that goal, RamsHead filed "Application for P.U.D. [Planned Unit Development] & Preliminary Approval of Plat of Proposed Subdivision of Land" with the Commission. The Commission set this application for public hearing to be held at its November 10 meeting. In the meanwhile, RamsHead published legal notice of the hearing in the local newspaper, describing its application as a "petition [which] requests preliminary plat approval for residential development," and sent copies of it and an accompanying letter to surrounding landowners. At the public hearing, several remonstrators from among the surrounding landowners and other interested witnesses testified to current, as well as feared, drainage and flooding problems in the neighborhood and to alleged traffic hazards, which would be generated by the increased number of automobiles in the area. In addition, various procedural defects in RamsHead's application were itemized. As a result of this testimony, the Commission voted to deny its approval of the preliminary plat.

RamsHead petitioned for writ of certiorari to Johnson Circuit Court, which court issued an order for the Commission to file its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Those findings and conclusions are, in substantially edited form:

"1. APPLICATION: The application for Planned Unit Development is controlled by the Johnson County Subdivision Control Ordinance and by Section 315 of the Zoning Ordinance....

"2. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Notice to the surrounding landowners is required informing them of the nature of the proceedings before the Plan Commission. Evidence disclosed that notice was not given to all surrounding landowners, namely, Mary Jane Teeters, so notice as required by the Zoning Ordinance was not given. In addition, the legal notice mailed to the adjoining landowners stated only that the Petitioner 'requests preliminary plat approval for residential development.' Notice was not complete to inform the surrounding landowners of the nature of the proposed hearing.

"3. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS:

"a. Petitioner failed to provide the Plan Commission five copies of the preliminary proposal as required by Section 402 of the Subdivision Control Ordinance.

"b. Petitioner failed to present proof that the Plan Commission had been notified ten days prior to the public hearing, that the Petitioner intended to proceed with preliminary plat approval as required by Section 403.2.

"4. AFFECT [sic] ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES: Plan Commission after hearing evidence of all the parties finds the following:

"a. The area under consideration for the Planned Unit Development is zoned R-3 and that the proposed lots in the Planned Unit Development do not meet R-3 standards as far as size, width, and depth nor do they all have the square footage per lot as required in the Zoning Ordinance for R-3 zoning, that is to say, 12,000 square feet with 80 feet of frontage per lot.

"b. The proposed subdivision does not meet the requirements of Subdivision Control Ordinance Section 702.4 relating to sidewalks required for subdivisions where the subdivision contains more than three lots per acre land plotted into lots.

"c. The Planned Unit Development does not provide for adequate drainage as required by Subdivision Control Ordinance Section 703....

"d. ... Additional water placed in the natural drainage system would injure adjacent property.

"e. ... one drainage retention pond which was designed to drain water across a cultivated farm field would prevent full use of the field for production of row crops.

"5. TRAFFIC FLOW AND SAFETY FEATURES: The proposed subdivision in the Planned Unit Development has high density use for residential purposes.... The following facts were found to exist in reference to the Planned Unit Development as far as traffic is concerned.

"a. ... view of the proposed exit from the subdivision obscured for eastbound traffic as a resulting traffic hazard for those using the exit to the subdivision and to those using Smith Valley Road.

"b. The other exit from the subdivision is onto Berry Road.... This road is not designed for heavy traffic use and is inadequate to carry the increase in traffic and in addition, ... [t]he intersection of the county road system presents a hazard to those using the county road system in the area and this hazard would be increased by the proposed Planned Unit Development.

"6. CONCLUSION:

"a. The procedural requirements of the Johnson County Master Plan for the amendment of the Master Plan as far as notice to surrounding landowners of the nature of the application filed by the Petitioner and further the lack of adherence to the rules and regulations of the Ordinance requiring copies of the plan to be on file ten (10) days ahead of time with written favorable recommendation from the Technical Committee of the Plan Commission were not met.

"b. The proposed preliminary planned subdivision does not meet the standards for R-3 zoning and the proposed subdivision does not present a plan consistent with the purpose of this Ordinance.

"c. The properties adjacent to the Planned Unit Development will be adversely affected as far as drainage of surface water is concerned and will be adversely affected as far as increased traffic because of the nature and design of the arterial streets and roads in the area are concerned and because of the topography of the Smith Valley Road and the heavy traffic existing on that roadway.

"For these reasons, the Planned Unit Development requires an amendment to the Johnson County Master Plan and shall not be recommended to the Commissioners for Johnson County as an amendment to the Master Plan and further that the subdivision as proposed in the Planned Unit Development shall be denied as not meeting the planned criteria of the Master Plan and that the proposed subdivision adversely affects adjoining land owned by others."

Record, pp. 286-91. After hearing to the trial court, the judge rendered the following, from which we have excised all additional (and therefore irrelevant) facts presented at that hearing:

"FINDINGS OF FACT

"1. Petitioner properly mailed notice letters to each surrounding landowner entitled to notice whose addresses appeared in the records of the Treasurer of Johnson County....

"While petitioner's notice letters to surrounding landowners did not specifically mention the P.U.D. request, the notice sufficiently informed the landowners of the nature of petitioner's application.

"2. ... Despite the absence of the report from the Technical Committee as required by Sec. 403.1 of the Ordinance, the respondent proceeded to conduct a public hearing on petitioner's Application on November 10, 1980.

"3. The Comprehensive Plan of Johnson County provides for medium-density residential use of the real estate here involved. The Thoroughfare Plan of the Comprehensive Plan was designed to accomodate traffic flowing from such use.

"4. The P.U.D. requested in petitioner's Application does not increase the overall density of the real estate beyond the R-3 provisions for which it is zoned.

* * *

* * *

"6. Section 402.1 of the Ordinance does not require that sidewalks be shown or included on a preliminary plat."

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

"1. Petitioner satisfied the notice requirements of 403.2(d) of the Subdivision Control Ordinance of Johnson County (hereinafter 'Ordinance').

"2. It was the responsibility of respondent's Technical Committee to see that the preliminary plat submitted by petitioner complied with the pertinent provisions of the Ordinance, and petitioner was entitled to notice at least ten days prior to hearing if any non-conformity was found by the Technical Committee.

"The responden...