Amended ordinance doesn't apply to travel plaza

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An Allen Superior Court correctly ruled that a travel plaza had a vested right to develop its plans under an original zoning ordinance, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed today.

The case of City of New Haven Board of Zoning Appeals v. Flying J. Inc., No. 02A03-0905-CV-74, came before the appellate court again after the Court of Appeals ruled that all of the proposed services Flying J wanted to offer at its 17.7-acre site were permitted under the zoned C-1 District. The New Haven Board of Zoning Appeals determined certain proposed services weren't permitted under the C-1 zoning ordinance.

The case was remanded to enter a final order in favor of Flying J, but while the litigation was under way, New Haven amended its C-1 zoning ordinance restricting the size of service stations to 2 acres or less. As applied, the amended ordinance affected only Flying J.

Flying J was unaware of the zoning changes and submitted its development plan to the BZA; the board rejected it citing the amended ordinance. The trial court reversed.

At issue is whether the amended zoning ordinance is applicable to Flying J's planned travel plaza. The BZA argued because Flying J hadn't begun construction on the plaza, it had no vested right to develop it pursuant to the original zoning ordinance; Flying J argued it had a vested right, its plaza is a nonconforming use, and the amended zoning ordinance doesn't apply.

The Court of Appeals relied on several cases including the three involving the Metropolitan Development Commission of Marion County v. Pinnacle Media. In Pinnacle I, 836 N.E.2d 422, 424 (Ind. 2006), the Indiana Supreme Court emphasized that the developer had yet to begin construction on the billboards in question. In Pinnacle II, 846 N.E.2d 654, 655-56 (Ind. 2006), the high court further explained vested rights may well accrue prior to filing of certain applications. The Court of Appeals determined in Pinnacle III, 868 N.E.2d 894, 900-01 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), that there is no bright-line rule that construction has to begin to show a vested right and that the existence of vested rights is fact-dependent.

"We read the Pinnacle cases to mean that, while construction definitely does establish a vested right, mere preliminary work, including filing of a building permit, does not. In situations falling between these two extremes, courts must engage in a fact-sensitive analysis to determine whether vested rights have accrued prior to application for a building permit or construction," wrote Judge Paul Mathias.

In the instant case, Flying J hadn't begun construction but it had spent millions of dollars to prepare for construction, including surveying and engineering costs. These costs could give rise to a vested right, wrote the judge.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate court couldn't say the trial court erred in finding the amended zoning ordinances were subject to Flying J's vested right in the property and the amended ordinance wasn't applicable to the plaza.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?