Opinion ID: 2041081
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Protection of Dune Topography

Text: When determining whether to grant an application for a building permit, the Building Committee of Beverly Shores is directed by Section 810 of the town's zoning ordinance to consider the effect on dune topography. Section 810 embodies a policy requiring builders to minimize the effects of building on dunes. [4] Concern for the dunes is also reflected in Section 110 of the ordinance, which lists among its purposes the conservation of natural contours, vegetation, wild life and all the scenic qualities of the area of the sand dunes and all associated and related geographical elements which are so unique and valuable to the balance of nature. Record at 185. We have affirmed the constitutionality of such requirements for mitigation. DNR v. Indiana Coal Council, Inc. (1989), Ind., 542 N.E.2d 1000. The dune on the Bagnalls' property is eighteen feet high. The building plans submitted to the board called for excavating an estimated 1,100 cubic yards, essentially obliterating the dune. The BZA cited the Bagnalls' failure to comply with the ordinance relative to the dunes in denying the variance. In written findings accompanying its decision, the BZA noted that the variance requested: would be injurious to public health, safety, morals, and general welfare because the size and width of the Petitioners' lot are substantially below the minimum sizes determined necessary to protect the public health, safety, morals and general welfare which standards are set forth in ... the `Ordinance.' Of particular concern to the Board is the inevitable damage to the existing topography that would result from the development... . Record at 16 (emphasis added). On review, the trial court concluded that the BZA's finding regarding inevitable damage to the existing topography was a vague finding. The court also said, Obvious [sic] the Plaintiffs in building upon their lot would have to rearrange and alter the topography. This may well involve `inevitable damage,' but it cannot be said that this would be injurious in any way to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community. Record at 129. We agree with the trial court that leveling a sand dune cannot be said to be injurious to the public health. Nor can we imagine even the most enthusiastic environmentalist arguing with a straight face that leveling the dune would leave the populace imperiled or undermine public morality. On the other hand, we find nothing vague about the BZA's finding that damage to existing topography is contrary to the general welfare. As noted above, to set aside the determination of a board which has denied a variance, the reviewing court must find that each of the statutory prerequisites for variance has been established as a matter of law. The evidence supporting each prerequisite must be such that the reviewing court concludes that no reasonable man could fail to accept that prerequisite as proved. The prerequisites to be proved in this case to allow a Development Standards Variance according to the Section 542 of the ordinance were: 1. The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community; 2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner; 3. The strict application of the terms of the Zoning Ordinance will result in practical difficulties in the use of the property. Record at 229. The Bagnalls' application failed the first prerequisite. The board found that the proposed project would be injurious to the public welfare because, inter alia, it involved leveling the dune. To reverse the board's finding, the trial court had to find that no reasonable person could agree with the board's conclusion. See Metropolitan BZA v. Standard Life Insurance, 145 Ind. App. 363, 251 N.E.2d 60. This tall hurdle was not cleared. Thus the trial court's findings on this point must be categorized as erroneous, warranting reversal. See Chico Corp. v. Delaware-Muncie Bd. of Zoning Appeals (1984), Ind. App., 466 N.E.2d 472. The plans which the Bagnalls submitted necessitated the complete destruction of the dune. They did not present any plans which might have minimized the damage nor did they contend that only the plan presented was feasible. In light of this failure to comply with sections 810 and 110 of the ordinance, the board was justified in denying the request for a variance. The board's conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and thus not clearly erroneous. It should not have been set aside.