Riverside Meadows I, LLC v. City of Jeffersonville, Indiana Board of Zoning Appeals
72 N.E.3d 534
Ind. Ct. App.2017Background
- Riverside Meadows I, LLC owns a historic 14‑bedroom building in Jeffersonville used as a rooming house for 11 adults; the property is zoned M‑1 and the City said the use violated zoning.
- Riverside applied to the Jeffersonville Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) for a use variance to continue operating as a rooming house; the BZA denied the request after a public hearing.
- The BZA’s official minutes and a preprinted findings form both recorded the members’ votes on statutory criteria but did not include specific, tailored factual findings; the space for specific findings on the form was left blank.
- Riverside petitioned for judicial review in Clark Circuit Court; the trial court affirmed the BZA and denied Riverside’s motion to correct error.
- On appeal, Riverside argued the BZA’s findings were merely verbatim recitations of statutory criteria and thus insufficient to permit judicial review; the appellate court analyzed whether the written findings met the required specificity.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the BZA’s findings were inadequate and reversed, remanding with instructions to enter specific, fact‑tailored findings within 45 days (no new hearing ordered).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BZA entered sufficient written findings to permit judicial review of a denied use variance | Riverside: BZA’s written findings are mere recitations of statutory language and lack specific factual support, so judicial review is impossible | BZA: Statute only requires written findings generally; the vote form and minutes satisfy the requirement and incorporate hearing minutes | Court: Findings insufficient — mere repetition of statutory criteria without specific factual findings fails to permit adequate judicial review; remand for specific findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlton v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of City of Indianapolis, 245 N.E.2d 337 (Ind. 1969) (board must set out specific factual findings to permit adequate judicial review)
- Wastewater One, LLC v. Floyd Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 947 N.E.2d 1040 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (findings that merely repeat ordinance language are insufficient)
- Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Div. II, Marion Cty. v. Gunn, 477 N.E.2d 289 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985) (repeating statutory criteria in findings is inadequate)
- Burcham v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals Div. I of Marion Cty., 883 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (appellate review limited to errors of law; factual findings by BZA generally accepted)