Opinion ID: 2023779
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Land Sixty Percent Subdivided

Text: Another of the four alternative grounds for approval is that [s]ixty percent (60%) of the territory is subdivided. Ind. Code Ann. § 36-4-3-13(b)(2)(B) (West Supp. 1997). The annexation statute does not contain a definition of subdivided. The Remonstrators initially asserted that in deciding whether land is subdivided for annexation purposes, the courts should apply the definition of subdivision the legislature wrote for application in the article governing operation of plan commissions, redevelopment authorities, economic development districts, and the like. [2] That article defines subdivision as: The division of a parcel of land into lots, parcels, tracts, units, or interests in the manner defined and prescribed by a subdivision control ordinance adopted by the legislative body under I.C. 36-7-4. Ind. Code Ann. § 36-7-1-19 (West 1997). The legislative body for Elkhart County has adopted such an ordinance. It is a relatively modern ordinance, applying to land subdivided after September 1, 1982. The Elkhart County Subdivision Control Ordinance defines subdivision in this way: n. SUBDIVISION. A division or redivision of land in which two (2) or more parcels, lots or sites are established for residential or business purposes and any one (1) of these parcels, lots or sites are less than three (3) acres in area, which may include a public way through the tract of land. A division or redivision of land is not a subdivision if: 1. the sale or exchange of parcels of land to or between adjoining property owners where those sales or exchanges does not create additional building lots, or 2. A Court orders the division of land, or 3. A parent transfers adjacent land to a child. (R. at 562) (quoting Elkhart County, Ind., Code § 36-7-4-700, County Subdivision Control Ordinance art. 2 § n, at Z-90 (1993)). This definition is geared to the creation of new development lots [3] and must be read in parallel with the definitions of industrial subdivision. [4] The City maintains that the evidence shows that the territory is seventy-eight percent (78%) subdivided in accordance with the definition of subdivision contained in the Elkhart County Subdivision Control Ordinance. In their reply brief, counsel for the Remonstrators make it clear that they believe meeting this definition requires more than land subdivided in a way consistent with this definition. They assert that the City must demonstrate that 60% of the land became subdivided through the local subdivision approval process. This assertion asks courts to add too much to statutes that consign decision-making power to legislators, local and state. The theme of Indiana annexation law has long been that adjoining territory of an urbanizing character was subject to annexation. As counsel for the Remonstrators observe, Generally speaking, land next to a city has already begun taking on attributes of urbanization or it reflects the immediate likelihood of such urbanization. Appellant's Brief, p. 19. The earliest statutes permitted virtually automatic annexation of adjacent platted land. [5] In this century, the law permitted annexation of subdivided land whether platted or not. Act of March 6, 1905, ch. 129 § 242, 1905 Ind. Acts. By 1935, the reference to platting was removed altogether. Act of March 7, 1935, ch. 153 § 1, 1935 Ind. Acts (amending Act of March 6, 1905). In 1955, the legislature chose to use the phrase The area is urban in character, being an economic and social part of the annexing city. Act of March 11, 1955, ch. 269 § 1 and 3, 1955 Ind. Acts (amending Act of March 7, 1935). The current method of proving urban character were adopted in 1969:(1) 60% subdivided, (2) 3 persons per acre, or (3) zoned for commercial, business, or industrial uses. City and Town Act of 1969, ch. 239 § 407, Ind. Acts 1969 (now codified as amended at Ind.Code Ann. § 36-4-3-13(b) (West Supp.1997)). Inasmuch as the present statute contains no definition of subdivided, the trial court might well have looked in several directions if it perceived the need for greater definition. The definition of a subdivision found in that part of the code applicable to planning and redevelopment is a plausible place to look, though that article in the code addresses rather different activities than the annexation article. We conclude that the definition a municipality uses for these purposes is one yardstick a court may employ, although there may be others not suggested to us by the parties to this case. It is apparent that the 439 acres at issue meet the definition of subdivided under Elkhart's 1982 ordinance. Remonstrators' assertion that the City must prove that all the land was subdivided pursuant to Elkhart's 1982 subdivision approval ordinance, however, demands far more than the straightforward language of the code provides. The evidence showed, for example, that many of the subdividings occurred before Elkhart's 1982 ordinance was enacted, indeed, before current Title 36 itself became a part of the Indiana Code. The larger object of the annexation statute is, as it has always been, to permit annexation of adjacent urban territory. The trial court's use of Elkhart's ordinance for subdivisions was consistent with this statutory purpose and the language of the code itself. The trial court's finding that the land was subdivided was sufficient based on the record.