Monster Trash, Inc. v. Owen County Council, Owen County Commissioners, and Owen County Board of Zoning Appeals

FILED
Jul 30 2020, 9:06 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES
Lisa Diane Manning John J. Moore
Danville, Indiana Touhy Bailey & Moore LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Monster Trash, Inc., July 30, 2020
Appellant/Petitioner, Court of Appeals Case No.
20A-PL-918
v. Appeal from the Morgan Circuit
Court1
Owen County Council, Owen The Hon. Matthew G. Hanson,
County Commissioners, and Judge
Owen County Board of Zoning Trial Court Cause No.
Appeals, 55C01-2002-PL-247
Appellee/Respondent.
Bradford, Chief Judge.
Case Summary
1
This case was initiated in Owen County as cause number 60C02-1912-PL-581 and later transferred to
Morgan County. (Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 2).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PL-918 | July 30, 2020 Page 1 of 6
[1] In December of 2018, Monster Trash, Inc., applied to the Indiana Department
of Environmental Management (“IDEM”) for a license to operate a solid waste
transfer station at 2243 State Highway 43 in Owen County (“the Property”).
During the application process, IDEM informed Monster Trash that IDEM
required a document from an Owen County official indicating that no rezoning
or variance would be necessary for operation of the proposed waste transfer
station on the Property. The Owen County Board of Zoning Appeals (“the
BZA”), the Owen County Council, and the Owen County Commissioners
(collectively, “the County”) refused to issue the requested document. After
Monster Trash and the County both petitioned the trial court for declaratory
judgment, the trial court entered it in favor of the County. Monster Trash
contends that the trial court erred in so doing. Because we agree with Monster
Trash, we reverse and remand with instructions.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] At some point before December 28, 2018, Monster Trash applied to IDEM for
a license to operate a solid waste transfer station on the Property, which is
zoned “Heavy Industrial.” On December 28, 2018, IDEM responded,
indicating that, as a condition of approval, Monster Trash was required to
provide a “document from a county authority confirming zoning requirements
are not needed for the location of the proposed facility.”2 Appellant’s App. Vol.
2
We take this, as do the parties, as a request for a document from the County confirming that rezoning or
the securing of a variance would not be necessary to operate a solid waste transfer station on the Property.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PL-918 | July 30, 2020 Page 2 of 6
II p. 15. Following a meeting of the BZA, the County refused to provide the
requested document.
[3] On December 23, 2019, Monster Trash petitioned for a declaratory judgment
that its intended use of the Property was permitted pursuant to the Owen
County Zoning and Subdivision Control Ordinance (“the Ordinance”). On
February 11, 2020, Monster Trash moved for summary judgment and reiterated
its request for declaratory judgment. On February 14, 2020, the County
responded, arguing that operating a solid waste transfer facility in a Heavy
Industrial district is absolutely prohibited pursuant to the Ordinance. On
March 30, 2020, the trial court entered declaratory judgment in favor of the
County.
Discussion and Decision
[4] In this case, we review, as the trial court did, the BZA’s refusal to issue a
document indicating that no rezoning or variance would be necessary for
Monster Trash’s operation of a waste transfer station on the Property. “This
court and the trial court are bound by the same standards when reviewing the
decision of a board of zoning appeals.” Town of Munster Bd. of Zoning Appeals v.
Abrinko, 905 N.E.2d 488, 491 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). Indiana Code section 36-7-
4-1614(d) provides, in part, that a reviewing court should grant relief “if the
court determines that a person seeking judicial relief has been prejudiced by a
zoning decision that is […] arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or
otherwise not in accordance with law[.]” “The burden of demonstrating the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PL-918 | July 30, 2020 Page 3 of 6
invalidity of a zoning decision is on the party to the judicial review proceeding
asserting invalidity.” Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(a).
[5] In reviewing an administrative decision, a trial court may not try
the facts de novo or substitute its own judgment for that of the
agency. [S&S Enterprises, Inc. v. Marion Cty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals,
788 N.E.2d 485, 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied].
“Neither the trial court nor the appellate court may reweigh the
evidence or reassess the credibility of witnesses.” Id. Reviewing
courts must accept the facts as found by the zoning board. Id.Hoosier Outdoor Advert. Corp. v. RBL Mgmt., Inc., 844 N.E.2d 157, 163 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2006), trans. denied. “Generally, we review questions of law decided by an
agency de novo.’’ Id. (citing Huffman v. Office of Envtl. Adjudication, 811 N.E.2d
806, 809 (Ind. 2004)).
[6] The parties agree that this case turns on interpretation of certain provisions of
the Ordinance. While the ordinary rules of statutory construction apply in
interpreting the language of a zoning ordinance, an agency’s construction of its
own ordinance is entitled to deference. See Story Bed & Breakfast, LLP v. Brown
Cty. Area Plan Comm’n, 819 N.E.2d 55, 65, 66 (Ind. 2004). The express
language of the ordinance controls our interpretation, and our goal is to
determine, give effect to, and implement the intent of the enacting body. See
Shaffer v. State, 795 N.E.2d 1072, 1076 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). When an
ordinance is subject to different interpretations, the interpretation chosen by the
administrative agency charged with the duty of enforcing the ordinance is
entitled to great weight, unless that interpretation is inconsistent with the
ordinance itself. See id.Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PL-918 | July 30, 2020 Page 4 of 6
[7] Chapter 3 of the Ordinance contains the following provision:
3.5 - Non-Permitted Uses
All junkyards, race tracks, waste incinerators, and waste transfer
stations (not licensed and approved by the State of Indiana) are
non-permitted uses in the Owen County Jurisdictional Area,
which prohibition cannot be removed by an appeal for a use
variance to the Owen County Board of Zoning Appeals.
Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 43.
[8] The BZA apparently refused to issue the requested document because it
interprets the Ordinance as absolutely prohibiting the operation of a solid waste
transfer station on the Property (an interpretation the County urges on appeal),
but this is simply not true. Subsection 3.5 of the Ordinance clearly provides
that such stations are prohibited unless they are “licensed and approved by the
State of Indiana[,]” which means that they are, in fact, not absolutely
prohibited. Appellant’s App. Vol. II p. 43. Somewhat inconsistently in light of
its first assertion, the County also argues that Monster Trash could obtain a
variance to operate a solid waste transfer station on the Property. This is also
not true, as Subsection 3.5 clearly provides that variances allowing non-
permitted uses cannot be issued. In the end, obtaining a State-issued license is
the only way to legally operate a waste transfer station in the Owen County
Jurisdictional Area, and applying for a variance would change nothing.
[9] With this in mind, we now turn to IDEM’s request for the document regarding
“zoning requirements.” In light of the fact that “zoning requirements” are not,
in fact, required to operate a solid waste transfer station on the Property (and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PL-918 | July 30, 2020 Page 5 of 6
indeed, not even relevant), we have little trouble concluding that not only is the
County’s refusal to issue the requested document not in accordance with the
clear provisions of subsection 3.5, it also qualifies as arbitrary, capricious, and
an abuse of discretion. See Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(d)(1) (providing that a
reviewing court should grant relief if the court determines that a person seeking
judicial relief has been prejudiced by a zoning decision that is “arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”).
We can conceive of no legal justification for refusing to issue a document that
does nothing more than accurately state the law. Moreover, Monster Trash has
clearly shown prejudice resulting from the refusal, as it is entirely possible that
the County’s refusal is the only thing keeping Monster Trash from obtaining
their State-issued license at this point. Consequently, we reverse the judgment
of the trial court and remand with instructions to, within thirty days of the
certification of this memorandum decision, order the BZA to issue a document
to IDEM and/or Monster Trash confirming that zoning requirements are not
required for the location of a solid waste transfer station on the Property.
[10] We reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand with instructions.
Najam, J., and Mathias, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 20A-PL-918 | July 30, 2020 Page 6 of 6