Court Opinion

ID: 9739981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:25:08.393049+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:15.233310
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion.
Faulconer, C. J.
The only question in this appeal is whether the resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of Carmel on August 9, 1960, granting the petition for joinder filed by Clay Township automatically extended the Master Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Carmel to all of Clay Township.
The statute authorizing joinder and setting up the procedure therefor, being Acts 1959, ch. 46, §53-1201, et seq., Burns’ 1963 Cum. Supp., states, in pertinent part, as follows:
“If the petition is accepted, the planning and zoning jurisdiction of the city, . . . shall be extended to the township with the same effect as if the township was a part of the city . . . .” Acts 1959, ch. 46, §9, p. 111, §53-1209, Burns’ 1963 Cum. Supp.
The resolution passed by the Town of Carmel Plan Commission recommending to the Board of Trustees of *527the Town of Carmel that the petition of the trustees and advisory board of Clay Township be granted stated, in part, “and said Township be joined with the Town of Carmel for the purposes of planning and zoning ....” (Emphasis supplied.)
And the resolution passed by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Carmel, Indiana, in granting said petition stated, in part, as follows:
“Therefore, be it resolved by the Board of Trustees of the Town of Carmel that the petition of the Trustee and Advisory Board of Clay Township, Hamilton County, be granted and said Clay Township be and the same hereby is joined with the Town of Carmel for the purpose of planning and zoning pursuant to Chapter 46 of the Acts of the Indiana General Assembly of 1959.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Whether under this statute resolutions of joinder could be so drawn as to effect an extension of a master zoning ordinance of a city to the contiguous township without further specific zoning of the new area, is not a controlling issue for determination in this case.
I feel that considering the wording of the various resolutions used here and the surrounding circumstances, the only logical conclusion we can reach is that the joinder extended only the jurisdiction to zone and plan. If the Township or Town Boards intended otherwise, they could have so stated. We can only review what action the Boards took and can only construe their words in their ordinary meaning and to hold that said resolutions automatically extended the Carmel Master Zoning Ordinance to all of Clay Township would, I feel, be contrary to the language they used since we have no clear, statutory language to that effect. .
Note.—Reported in 202 N. E. 2d 589.