Opinion ID: 853628
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issuing Permits

Text: The Town next asserts that the trial court erred in deciding that a taking occurred when the zoning administrator indicated that he could not issue location improvements permits for Parker's property. (Appellant's Br. at 26.) The procedural posture of this issue was a bit unusual. Parker never requested a location improvement permit from the Town, nor did she seek to have the administrator's decision reviewed by the Board of Zoning Appeals (assuming the administrator's response to Don Parker's statement at the Town Board meeting can be called a decision). [7] Instead, she filed an action for declaratory judgment asserting that the administrator's moratorium constituted a taking without just compensation. New Harmony argues that Parker's lawsuit is barred because she failed to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing an action with the trial court. [8] In so arguing, the Town relies on Martin v. Monroe County Plan Comm'n, 660 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. denied. In Martin, the trial court dismissed plaintiffs' petition for writ of certiorari requesting review of a decision by the Monroe County Planning Commission; it held that the plaintiffs had failed to exhaust their administrative remedies by not first appealing to the Board of Zoning Appeals. Id. at 1074. The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the Monroe County Zoning Ordinance, which required appeals by decisions of the Plan Commission to be presented to the Board of Zoning Appeals before being presented for review in court. Id. at 1076. The Town of New Harmony is correct on this point. The law contemplates that Parker should seek an improvement permit and, if the application was denied, appeal the denial to the Board of Zoning Appeals, or request a variance from the applicable zoning ordinance. See Ind.Code Ann. § 36-7-4-918.1 (West 1997). [9] Indiana boards of zoning appeals are entrusted with the powers to hear such matters, and they are in the best position to determine on appeal from a decision of an administrative official where it is argued that the official erroneously interpreted the ordinance. Habig v. Harker, 447 N.E.2d 1114, 1116 (Ind.Ct.App.1983). If Parker was dissatisfied with the decision by the Board of Zoning Appeals, she could then seek judicial review of its ruling. See Ind.Code Ann. § 36-7-4-1003 (West 1997); Shipshewana Corp. v. LaGrange County, 656 N.E.2d 812, 812-13 (Ind.1995). It is well-established that, if an administrative remedy is available, it must be pursued before a claimant is allowed access to the courts. See, e.g., Austin Lakes Joint Venture v. Avon Util., Inc., 648 N.E.2d 641 (Ind.1995). Failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. Greenbrier Hills, Inc. v. Boes, 473 N.E.2d 1040, 1042 (Ind.Ct.App.1985). Parker argues that she should not have been required to apply for a permit or appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals because doing so would have been futile. She reasons, It is undisputed that the moratorium would have ma[d]e application for an improvement permit a useless exercise since the application would be dead on arrival. (Appellee's Br. at 20.) Courts have said that exhaustion of administrative remedies may be excused where the remedy would be futile. See Family & Social Serv. v. Methodist Hosp., 669 N.E.2d 186, 189 (Ind.Ct.App.1996). This case illustrates well, however, that the exhaustion requirement is much more than a procedural hoop and that it should not be dispensed with lightly on grounds of futility. First, when the landowner has never actually sought a permit, neither the local administrator nor the town board nor the reviewing courts can say with certainty what would have been approved or disapproved. Neither the record of the Town Board meeting where Don Parker appeared nor the record of the trial inform us exactly what Mr. and Mrs. Parker want to do and on what lots they want to do it. [10] Second, it is not plain at all in this case that pursuing relief with the Board of Zoning Appeals would have necessarily been futile. It is apparent that the various lots owned by Mrs. Parker benefited from a variety of utilities. Some lots had storm sewers. (R. at 118.) Others had water service. (Id.) Some others had electric service nearby. (R. at 282.) Some lots had none of these. Testimony by zoning administrator Blaylock was to the effect that he had never said he would refuse a permit on all of the Parker land. [11] He said that if it turned out that some parcels had what was needed for a particular lot that he would issue the permit. (R. at 362-63.) The only evidence in the record suggested that New Harmony's zoning administrator was pretty accommodating: I listen and I'm very willing to take it to get a variance. If what the citizen is requesting does not meet the ordinance, I give them guidance the best of my knowledge how they can get around it if they need to get a variance, you know. And it's not up to me to approve the variance. I have nothing to do with that. (R. at 354.) The vitality of this requirement was made plain in Penn Central, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 57 L.Ed.2d 631, a landmark decision in the law of takings. In Penn Central, developers were denied the permits to construct a fifty-story office tower above the historic Grand Central Terminal. The Supreme Court upheld New York City's Landmarks Law and held that an unconstitutional taking had not occurred. The Court also noted: While the Commission's actions in denying applications to construct an office building in excess of 50 stories above the Terminal may indicate that it will refuse to issue a certificate of appropriateness for any comparably sized structure, nothing the Commission has said or done suggests an intention to prohibit any construction above the Terminal.... Since appellants have not sought approval for the construction of a smaller structure, we do not know that appellants will be denied any use of any portion of the airspace above the Terminal. Id. at 136-37, 98 S.Ct. 2646 (citations omitted). This Court applied the reasoning of Penn Central on this point in Town of Beverly Shores v. Bagnall, 590 N.E.2d 1059, 1064 (Ind.1992). We do not know whether New Harmony would have denied Parker any use of her property since Parker did not seek approval for her plans. See id. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Parker was required to exhaust her administrative remedies before filing an action with the trial court. Thus, the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to decide whether refusal to issue permits constituted a taking.