Opinion ID: 2023779
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Zoned for Commercial, Business, or Industrial Uses

Text: The trial court also upheld the annexation on grounds the territory is zoned for commercial, business, or industrial use as permitted by Ind.Code Ann. § 36-4-3-13(b)(2)(C) (West Supp.1997). Remonstrators argue that a territory must be 100% zoned for the enumerated uses to be eligible under this provision. The trial court disagreed, concluding that a de minimis exception for other zoning uses exists within the statute. The court noted that 6.6 percent of the territory was zoned for residential use and concluded that this is de minimis. The Court of Appeals agreed that a de minimis analysis is appropriate, but held that 6.6 percent is too substantial to be called de minimis. We agree with both courts that a de minimis rule may be applied to section 36-4-3-13(b)(2)(C). The trial court's description of the annexed territory suggests why a practical approach is appropriate: The immediate issue is whether or not any residential zone, however small, and whether or not, as here, an enclave, or enclaves, within commercial, business or industrial zones precludes annexation of the whole territory. The answer by this court is that an area overwhelmingly zoned for industrial, commercial, and business uses should be considered as meeting the statutory requirements for annexation even if a small shard, island, or enclave of land is zoned residential. .... ... The territory is urban in character but only a small portion is either zoned for or used for residential purposes. The whole territory contains about 29 dwellings and 59 businesses, commercial, and industrial establishments of all sizes, with about 100 buildings for those establishments. These non-residential buildings are scattered through the whole territory, even on the three streets having all but two of the houses, and are even scattered among houses on the streets which have houses. No street is purely residential. (R. at 63-65.) It is apparent from the record that the 6.6% of the land zoned residential consists of a regular, full-fledged residential subdivision that would itself likely qualify under the subdivided provision in the code. While a court might view cautiously any attempt to annex under a single ordinance territories that might not meet the statutory criteria standing alone, here, the trial court seems to have been justified in finding that 93.4% was sufficient to meet the business zoning test.