Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Court of Appeals sided with Noblesville property owners on Monday, finding that a once-granted zoning variance to operate a sand and gravel mine in a residential area was unsupported by the evidence and contrary to local ordinances.
The opinion, issued by Judges Leanna Weissman, Mark Bailey and Elaine Brown, upheld a lower court ruling that Noblesville’s Board of Zoning Appeals erred in 2023 when it passed a zoning variance for Beaver Gravel Corp. to establish an excavation mine on 68 acres of farmland northwest of the intersection of 161st Street and Cherry Tree Road.
According to the appellate court ruling, Beaver failed to present evidence to meet one of five required elements needed for a variance to the property’s R-1 Residential District zoning. Specifically, it failed to prove the property could not put to a use that conformed to the residential zoning.
Under Noblesville ordinances, sand and gravel extraction is considered an industrial use permitted only in I-3 Extractive Industrial zones and sometimes in I-2 Heavy Industrial zones.
Beaver argued that the property they sought the variance for was already unlikely to be put to a conforming use, citing the BZA’s earlier finding that the condition of 161st Street and Cherry Tree Road is “so poor that it is unlikely that a residential neighborhood in compliance with the zoning ordinance would be allowed to begin construction without significant investment in the road.”
However, property owners who neighbor the Noblesville site contended that the BZA’s finding failed to demonstrate that the property could not reasonably be put to a conforming use.
As it’s currently zoned, the conforming uses of the property are residential and agricultural.
According to court documents, the property is already being used for agriculture, which both Beaver and the BZA have acknowledged.
In their brief, the neighbors argued that even if the property cannot be used for a “residential neighborhood,” as the BZA concluded in its findings, “that does not mean it cannot be used for an individual residence and/or agriculture.”
The appeals court agreed, saying Beaver did not meaningfully address this evidentiary gap.
“The BZA found only that ‘a residential neighborhood’ was unlikely to be constructed without first fixing the road, and it did not address other conforming uses,” the opinion stated.
The case is Beaver Gravel Corporation, d/b/a Beaver Materials, et al. v. Erose Valdovich, et al., 24A-PL2494.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.