Court Opinion

ID: 9713258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:12:26.127926+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:17.882793
License: Public Domain

BAKER, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I agree with the majority that Inp.Cope § 86-7-4-608(b) requires the Plan Commission to hold a hearing within sixty days on a petition to amend a zoning map. I also agree that the Plan Commission failed to hold such a hearing within sixty days and that the trial court had the authority to order the Plan Commission to comply with the statute.5 However, I believe the trial court overstepped its bounds by requiring the Plan Commission to deliberate and make a recommendation within thirty days of the hearing.. When the trial court mandated that a "no recommendation" be forwarded, it substituted its judgment for that of the Plan Commission's.
As the majority notes, LC. § 86-7-4-608(b) does not impose a time limit on the Plan Commission's deliberation. See Op. *583at 580. The statute requires only that the Plan Commission hold a hearing within sixty days of receiving a petition; and, then, once a recommendation is reached, the Plan Commission has ten days to certify the proposal to the legislative body. Moreover, as the majority notes, the statute allows the Plan Commission to continue the hearing from " 'time to time.'" See Op. at 580 (quoting I.C. § 836-7-4-604(b)(8)). In absence of a statutory command to deliberate and make a recommendation within a certain time frame, the Plan Commission had no clear legal duty to make a recommendation within thirty days of the hearing,. Because the Plan Commission had no clear legal duty to deliberate and make a decision within thirty days of the hearing, the trial court lacked authority to mandate a recommendation. See Knutson v. State ex rel. Seberger, 239 Ind. 656, 659, 157 N.E.2d 469, 471 (1959) (8-2 decision) ("[Plublic officials, boards, and commissions may be mandated to perform ministerial acts where there is clear legal duty to perform such acts."). Where there is no clear legal duty to act, a government decisionmaker's task is described as discretionary. Id. A court may not compel the performance of a discretionary act. Id.
Though the statute imposes no clear legal duty on the Plan Commission to deliberate within a certain time frame, Indiana caselaw compels such action under limited circumstances. First, the Plan Commission may not " 'delay a decision indefinitely when all material facts bearing upon the decision have either been supplied or have been admitted as unattainable'" Tippecanoe County Area Plan Comm'n v. Sheffield Developers Inc., 181 Ind.App. 586, 593, 394 N.E.2d 176, 181 (1979) (involving plat approval) (quoting Ind. State Highway Comm'n v. Zehner, 174 Ind.App. 176, 181, 366 N.E.2d 697, 700 (1977)). Second, the Plan Commission may not "draw out" the decisionmaking process "as long as possible by citing new and different reasons" for continued study. Id. at 598, 394 N.E.2d at 184. Rather, the Plan Commission must "list all reasons" for continued study "at the first reasonable opportunity; it [may not] raise them one at a time and thereby force" The Lewis Group to amend and resubmit its petition continually. Id. at 600, 394 N.E.2d at 185 (emphases in original). Under these cireumstances, the Plan Commission's task can be said to have lost its discretionary character and to have become ministerial.
These circumstances are not present here. First, The Lewis Group has made no showing that all the material facts have been supplied or are unattainable. According to Inp.Copm § 86-7-4-603, the Plan Commission "shall pay reasonable regard to:"
(1) the comprehensive plan;
(2) current conditions and the character of current structures and uses in each district;
(8) the most desirable use for the which the land in each district is adapted;
(4) the conservation of property values throughout the jurisdiction; and
(5) responsible development and growth.
After the Plan Commission heard The Lewis Group's petition on September 6, 2000, it determined that additional studies were needed to make an informed recommendation to the Commissioners. The Plan Commission, tabling the decision for sixty days, requested a property value assessment, environmental impact statement, report on compatibility with adjacent areas in Marion County, and cost studies from utility and emergency service providers. R. at 185; 165-66. These requests reasonably correspond to the factors the Plan *584Commission is statutorily commanded to consider.
Second, The Lewis Group has not shown that the Plan Commission is "drawing out" the process with needless, piecemeal delays. The Plan Commission has held only one hearing on the matter, at which it requested five studies. So far, its multiple requests comply with Sheffield's charge to bring up all possible reasons for disfavor or delay at the earliest opportunity. While the Plan Commission's attorney cautioned against rendering any recommendation at the September 6 meeting, because of the status of an appeal, at least three out of the five members initially voted to submit an unfavorable recommendation.6 Assuming the Commissioners pay any heed to a Plan Commission recommendation, The Lewis Group stands to benefit from the continued study, as long as that continued study is not needlessly prolonged.
Zoning issues often involve large numbers of interested parties, a complex balancing of costs against benefits, and high emotion. Courts, to be sure, are no strangers to those conditions. However, where the legislature has placed the burden of deciding zoning issues on experienced and directly accountable decision-makers, courts should be reluctant to enter the fray to "expedite" the process. While the trial court correctly ordered that a hearing be held, The Lewis Group has failed to show that the trial court's order to forward and certify the petition with a "no recommendation" was justified.

. The Plan Commission does not dispute that the trial court had authority to mandate the holding of the hearing.

. - At least four votes are required to forward a recommendation to the Commissioners.