51 N.E.3d 322
Ind. Ct. App.2016Background
- David and Susan MacFadyen own Lot 6 in J. Darling’s Addition abutting property owned by Trine University; an alley runs east–west behind Lot 6 across both properties.
- The portion of the alley on Trine’s land is unimproved (grass) and lacks a curb cut at University Avenue; the alley section behind the MacFadyens remains unimproved but was not included in Trine’s petition.
- Trine petitioned the Angola Plan Commission to vacate certain lot lines and the portion of the alley lying on its property; the Commission granted the vacation.
- The MacFadyens challenged the Commission’s decision in court, arguing the vacation would substantially and negatively affect their property and access.
- The trial court found the MacFadyens retained ingress and egress to the rear of Lot 6 via the remaining alley portion and that their property value was not diminished; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MacFadyens were "aggrieved" by the Commission's vacation of part of the alley | Vacation of alley portion on Trine's land would substantially reduce access and value to Lot 6 | MacFadyens retain access via remaining alley and suffered no diminution in property value | Not aggrieved; no standing to obtain relief because no substantial grievance or pecuniary injury shown |
| Standard of review for plan commission decisions | (implicit) factual and legal errors should be corrected | Commission's factual findings entitled to deference unless clearly erroneous or unsupported by substantial evidence | Defer to Commission on factual findings; review legal issues de novo; no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Area Plan Comm’n, Evansville - Vanderburgh Cnty. v. Hatfield, 820 N.E.2d 696 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (plan commission decisions reviewed like local zoning decisions)
- Bagnall v. Town of Beverly Shores, 726 N.E.2d 782 (Ind. 2000) (to be "aggrieved" plaintiff must show substantial grievance or pecuniary injury)
- Cook v. Adams Cnty. Plan Comm’n, 871 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (trial court may not substitute its judgment for zoning board; legal errors reviewed de novo)
- Equicor Dev., Inc. v. The Westfield - Washington Twp. Plan Comm’n, 758 N.E.2d 34 (Ind. 2001) (de novo review of trial court factual findings based on paper record)
- Cundiff v. Schmitt Dev. Co., 649 N.E.2d 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (appellant must show agency findings are clearly erroneous to overturn factual conclusions)
- Rice v. Allen Cnty. Plan Comm’n, 852 N.E.2d 591 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (agency decisions not overturned unless unsupported by substantial evidence)
- Burcham v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals Div. I of Marion Cnty., 883 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (appellate court may not reweigh evidence or reassess witness credibility)
- State v. Kimco of Evansville, Inc., 902 N.E.2d 206 (Ind. 2009) (reduction or redirection of traffic is not a compensable taking)