ILNews

Absence of a plan foils development proposal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A plan commission did not overstep its authority when it turned down a proposal to build a 300-unit apartment complex, in part, because the developer did not submit a preliminary plan for the project.  

Brookview Properties LLC filed a development plan with the town of Plainfield for a multi-family housing complex in the 25-acre Hearthview parcel of the Metropolis Plan Unit Development.

After a public hearing, the commission denied Brookview’s petition.

A trial court entered a judgment in favor of the commission, but Brookview appealed to the Indiana Court of Appeals claiming the plan commission exceeded its authority when it decided the apartment was inappropriate for the Metropolis PUD.

To support its argument, Brookview pointed out that only the Plainfield Town Council has the power to zone. The plan commission serves an advisory role and has no ability to create zoning districts or rezone land.

However, Brookview does not dispute the commission’s contention that approval of a preliminary plan is required to determine a use for the Hearthview parcel. Since no preliminary plan was approved, the parcel had not designated use.

The plans filed with the PUD do not meet the requirements for a preliminary plan and, a commissioner member noted, Brookview’s petition contained only a concept plan.

Although Brookview argued there is no significant difference between a concept plan and a preliminary plan, the Indiana Court of Appeals declined to ignore the distinction.

“Each of Brookview’s arguments on the issue of whether the Hearthview parcel is designated multifamily is based on the premise and contingent on a determination that a preliminary plan had been approved,” Judge Edward Najam wrote in Brookview Properties, LLC and First Merchants Bank of Central Indiana v. Plainfield Plan Commission, 32A04-1312-PL-606. “We hold that the evidence and reasonable inferences therefrom show that no preliminary plan was approved for the Hearthview parcel, and without a preliminary plan, there was no designated land use for that parcel.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT