Fifty Six LLC v. Metropolitan Development Commission
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 576
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Landowner (Fifty Six LLC) owns ~21-acre parcel in Millersville neighborhood; community group developed the Millersville at Fall Creek Valley Village and Corridor Plan (the “Millersville Plan”).
- Multiple drafts circulated in early 2012; a Revised Description of Landowner’s parcel was added and finalized in a May 11, 2012 draft; the final draft appeared on the City website May 14, 2012.
- MDC adopted the Millersville Plan by resolution on May 16, 2012, designating Landowner’s parcel in Critical Area #4 with recommended lower densities and transitional uses.
- Landowner sued (June 2012) seeking declaratory relief, alleging MDC failed to (1) use required township advisory committees under Ind. Code § 36-7-4-504.5 and Marion County Ordinance § 231-401 and (2) publish the entire plan at least ten days before the adoption hearing as required by Ind. Code § 36-7-4-507.
- Trial court granted MDC’s cross-motion for summary judgment and denied Landowner’s motion to correct error; Landowner appealed.
- Court of Appeals reversed: held Landowner had standing and MDC failed to comply with the statutory 10‑day publication requirement; remanded for further proceedings. Township advisory committee requirement did not apply to this neighborhood/sub-area plan under the circumstances.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge the comprehensive plan amendment | Landowner: plan’s recommendations directly affect parcel and future land‑use decisions, so Landowner has a personal stake | MDC: Landowner has no present justiciable interest; zoning unchanged and future harms speculative | Held: Landowner has standing because the plan’s recommendations directly impact the parcel and may influence future binding land‑use decisions |
| Requirement to form township advisory committees (Ind. Code § 36‑7‑4‑504.5 / Marion County Ord.) | Landowner: Millersville Plan revises township plans and therefore required township advisory committees | MDC: Millersville is a neighborhood/sub‑area plan amending county comprehensive plan, not a township comprehensive plan; statute thus inapplicable | Held: Township advisory committee requirement did not apply here because the Millersville Plan was a neighborhood/village and corridor plan, not a revision of the Lawrence/Washington township comprehensive plans |
| Ten‑day publication requirement for the entire plan (Ind. Code § 36‑7‑4‑507) | Landowner: final plan was not available to public at least ten days before adoption (final draft available May 11, website May 14; adopted May 16) | MDC: asserted substantial compliance and that affected landowner received prior drafts and specific revised language earlier | Held: MDC failed to comply with the statutory requirement that the entire plan be on file and available for at least ten days before the hearing; reversal and remand granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Ind. Bureau of Motor Vehicles v. Charles, 919 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (standard of review for motion to correct error)
- Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Holmes, 885 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 2008) (abuse of discretion principles)
- Mangold ex rel. Mangold v. Ind. Dep’t of Natural Res., 756 N.E.2d 970 (Ind. 2001) (summary judgment standard)
- Foundations of E. Chicago, Inc. v. City of E. Chicago, 927 N.E.2d 900 (Ind. 2010) (standing where governmental action could set in motion events injuring plaintiff)
- Borsuk v. Town of St. John, 820 N.E.2d 118 (Ind. 2005) (comprehensive plan is a guide, not a direct land‑use control)
- Moryl v. Ransone, 4 N.E.3d 1133 (Ind. 2014) (questions of statutory interpretation reviewed de novo)