Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/1997

Home

Page 6 ~ December 1996 7,.g. Responding to Postema's main argument, the appeals court stated, "if every discussion between county and city officials were construed as the creation of regional government, many meaningful and necessary communications between sovereigns would be prohibited." Editor's note: The Washington Supreme Court case that decided the county's ordinance wasn't subject to referendum was Snohomish County v. Anderson, 868 P. 2d :[16 (1994). Ball v. James, 45] U.& 355, JO] S. Ct. ]8]], 68 L.Ed. 2d ]50 (1981). Salyer Land Co. v. Tulare Lake Basin Water Storage District, 410 U.S. 719, 93 S. Ct. ]224, 35 L.Ed. 2d 659 (]973). Jurisdiction .... Neighbor claims public utility has to obey zoning board Howell v. Indiana-American Water Co. Inc., 668 N.E. 2d 1272 (Indiana) ~ 996 Indiana-American Water Company Inc. provided water to the town of Newburgh, Warrick County, Ind. Under state law, the company was a public utility. As such, it was subject to the jurisdiction of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission. The state law that created the commission stated it "shall have the power, and it shall be its duty, to enforce the provisions of this act, as well as ail other laws, relating to utilities." The county's comprehensive zoning ordinance stated public utilities were subject to its provisions. The company wanted to build a water storage tank on property it leased in an agricultural zone. tt asked the county Board of Zoning Appeals for a special exception, which the board denied. The company sued its landlord, the board, the county, the planning com- mission and several of the property's neighbors (one of whom was Howell). The company asked the court to dec/are that local zoning regulations didn't apply to it. Howell asked the court to dismiss the case. The company asked for judg- ment without a trial in its favor, and th'e court granted its request. The court issued an order permanently stopping enforcement of the ordinance against the company's proposed tank. Howell appealed. He said because the company voluntarily went before the board to get a special exception, it couldn't claim it was exempt fi:om the ordinance. DECISION: Affirmed. The lower court properly granted the company judgment without a trial. The ordinance did not apply to the company's proposal. Under state law, local zoning ordinances didn't apply to public utilities. Nor did local zoning authorities have jurisdiction over utilities with respect to their location and use within the municipality. The state statute that authorized municipalities to enact zoning ordinances did not specifically allow them to regulate public utilities when the utilities were serving the public interest. The Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission had the job of regulating utilities, and