Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015

Home

Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 19 Plan. The court explained that the text of Ind. Code § 36-7-4-504.5(a) requires the formation of township advisory committees when "preparing or revising a comprehensive plan for a township" but does not include pro- visions requiring township advisory committees when a neighborhood or sub -area is the subject of a comprehensive plan. The court found that the Millersville Plan was prepared as a village and corridor plan for the Millersville neighborhood, and not as a revision to the comprehensive plans for either Lawrence or Washington Township. Although Millersville partially lay within both Lawrence and Washington Township, the court found that the evidence showed that the Millersville Plan was not prepared as a revision to the existing comprehensive plans for either Lawrence or Washington Township and that the process for adopting township comprehensive plans, including the formation of township advisory com- mittees, was followed at the time comprehensive plans were adopted for those townships. Under the circumstances, the court declared that it could not "say that township advisory committees were required." The court did, however, also hold that the MDC failed to comply with statutorily required notice and hearing provisions. Statutory law applicable to comprehensive plan approval (Ind. Code § Ind. Code § 36-7-4-507) required that the "schedule must `state where the entire plan is on file and may be examined in its entirety for at least ten (10) days before the hearing.' " Substantial compliance (as opposed to strict compliance) with these requirements was not sufficient, said the court, because no statutory provision allowed for only substantial compliance with notice and hearing requirements in the context of amendments to comprehensive plans. Here, the court found that the Millersville Plan was adopted just five days after publication of its final draft. Accordingly, the court concluded that the Millersville Plan did not comply with the requirement that the plan be published in its entirety 10 days prior to a hearing pursuant to Ind. Code § 36-7-4-507. On that basis, the court reversed the superior court order granting the MDC's cross-motion for summary judgment. Case Note: In this case, the MDC had challenged Landowner's standing (i.e., the legal right to bring the action). The court found that because a comprehensive plan "is one of several factors that determines future, binding land -use regulations, " Landowner would be directly impacted by the recommendations of the Millersville Plan and therefore had standing to challenge it. © 2015 Thomson Reuters 7