91 N.E.3d 1053
Ind. Ct. App.2018Background
- Milco filed for a special-exception permit to build and operate a 1,400-head CAFO (dairy) with 17.4 million gallons of open-air waste lagoons in Rush County; IDEM and the local drainage board approved related plans.
- House of Prayer Ministries (a summer religious youth camp located 1/2 mile downwind) objected at BZA hearings, arguing health risks, odors, nuisance, and decreased property value; it sought judicial review after the BZA granted the special exception with conditions.
- The BZA granted the special exception subject to mitigation conditions (manure management, shelterbelt/berm, truck entrance, capped herd size, and signed land agreements for spreading), finding the project served the countywide public interest.
- At an April 2016 hearing, a county commissioner attempted to speak to a BZA member during a recess; the member testified he did not hear or engage, and the record showed no effective ex parte communication.
- The trial court denied House of Prayer’s petition for judicial review; the court of appeals reviewed the BZA decision for substantial-evidence support and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BZA properly considered the public interest | BZA ignored health/nuisance evidence and overemphasized countywide economic benefits | BZA reasonably balanced local nuisances against county economic development and imposed mitigation | Affirmed — BZA’s public-interest finding supported by substantial evidence and within discretion |
| Whether BZA considered impacts on surrounding properties | CAFO will harm neighbors’ health and property values; BZA disregarded that evidence | BZA weighed competing evidence and found proposed mitigation adequate | Affirmed — BZA’s compatibility finding supported by evidence |
| Whether BZA misapplied setback rule (1 mile for "school") to exclude House of Prayer camp | "School" should include summer camps, so 1-mile setback applies | Ordinance ambiguous; BZA’s narrower interpretation (excluding the camp) is reasonable | Affirmed — BZA’s interpretation reasonable and not an Article 1 §23 violation |
| Whether attempted communication created an impermissible ex parte contact | Commissioner’s approach tainted impartiality of BZA member Trent | Member did not hear or engage; no evidence of an actual communication | Affirmed — record shows no ex parte communication |
| Whether denial violated religious rights (RLUIPA, RFRA, Indiana Const.) | Grant imposes substantial burden on religious exercise (health/attendance/ability to worship) and unequal treatment | RLUIPA inapplicable (no property interest); on RFRA BZA held hearing and found mitigation prevents substantial burden | Affirmed — RLUIPA unavailable (House of Prayer has no property interest in Milco’s land); RFRA claim rejected because BZA’s factual finding that mitigation avoids substantial burden is supported by substantial evidence; state-constitutional claims fail as well |
Key Cases Cited
- Crooked Creek Conservation and Gun Club, Inc. v. Hamilton County N. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 677 N.E.2d 544 (Ind. Ct. App.) (standard: zoning board decisions reviewed for substantial evidence)
- Equicor Dev., Inc. v. Westfield-Washington Twp. Plan Comm’n, 758 N.E.2d 34 (Ind.) (courts may not reweigh administrative factual findings)
- St. Charles Tower, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Evansville-Vanderburgh Cty., 873 N.E.2d 598 (Ind.) (deference to BZA interpretations and substantial-evidence review)
- MacFadyen v. City of Angola, 51 N.E.3d 322 (Ind. Ct. App.) (review principles for zoning board decisions)
- Whistle Stop Inn, Inc. v. City of Indianapolis, 51 N.E.3d 195 (Ind.) (two-part test for Equal Privileges and Immunities under Art. 1, § 23)
- Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (U.S.) (RFRA/RLUFA strict-scrutiny framework and focused inquiry for burdens on religious exercise)
- Carcieri v. Salazar, 555 U.S. 379 (U.S.) (courts must follow plain statutory text when interpreting federal statutes)
- Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564 (U.S.) (avoid absurd statutory constructions)