Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC's motion - judgment 11-26-01 e e alleviate increased traffic congestion (Id.). However, she said that improving 101 st Street was not within the County's improvement plans and there were no funds to proceed even with the ones that were in the plans (Id. at 11). On rebuttal, the Petitioners addressed the planned reforestation, the density of the proposal and how the traffic study for traffic outside the proposed subdivision was conducted, evading the issue of the questionable access points and the resulting quantity of traffic on the substandard streets around and within the existing subdivisions (Id.). The public hearing was closed and the Department of Community Services ("Department") recommended that the matter be forwarded to the Subdivision Committee (Id.; Complaint ~12). As noted in the Complaint in paragraph 18, the Plan Commission expressed its concerns about the Application, including the traffic/ingress/egress from the proposed subdivision and the lots on the south that bordered the 1-465 right-of-way, and then forwarded the matter to the Subdivision Committee (Minutes at Return, Tab 51, p. 11). 3. March 6 Subdivision Committee Meetinf! The Subdivision Committee met to consider the matter on March 6, 2001, and then again on April 10, 2001 (April 10 Minutes at Return, Tab 65, p. 1). The Complaint notes in paragraph 20 that the Department stated in its March 6 meeting that the Committee should "consider Section 6.3.21," which is the standard in the Ordinance that requires subdivisions with fifteen lots or more to have at least two (2) points of access "from a through street (feeder, arterial, or collector)." The Complaint then confirms that the focus of the concerns from the March 6 meeting were the "lot sizes within the planned subdivision, traffic, and the configur~tion of Lots 1,2,and 3 within the planned subdivision" (Complaint, 23). 4 e e .. Significantly, the Committee invited the Petitioners to re-design portions of the proposed subdivision in light of the Committee's negative comments and re-notice it for a new public hearing (Id.). However, the Petitioners' attorney declined the invitation and demanded a vote on the Application (Id.). By their demands, the Petitioners made clear to the Committee that their strategy was to position this matter for potential litigation, rather than to cooperate with the Plan Commission and the Department to earn approval and to build an acceptable subdivision. Consequently, the Committee voted unanimously to forward the item to the full Plan Commission with a negative recommendation (Id.). 5. Decision The Department prepared a report for the full Plan Commission when the Petitioners indicated at the final Committee meeting that they opted not to modify the Application (Report at Return, Tab 68). The Report set forth the issues conc~rning the access, traffic and irregular lots that had been discussed at the Technical Advisory Committee, expressed at the first Commission Meeting, raised at the first Subdivision Committee Meeting, and brought to a head at the second Subdivision Committee Meeting. The Department recommended that the Application be denied based upon the unsatisfied Ordinance standards (Id.). The Subdivision Committee then explained to the Plan Commission at the April 17 meeting the results of the Committee meetings and highlighted the concerns about the access, traffic through other subdivisions, and the lots bordering the 1-465 right-of-way (April 17 Minutes at Return, Tab 69, pp. 6-7). After further discussion, the Plan Commission denied the Application by a 14-0 vote based upon the Application's failure to meet the standards set forth in the Ordinance, particularly that the proposed subdivision requested more than 14 lots, but had only two points of access which used substandard neighborhood streets (not through streets) in 6 e e pavement width, and Section 6.5.2 regarding lot configuration. It consequently made the following conclusions based upon the competent evidence before it: Section 5.1.7 (1) The Plan Commission found that the proposed subdivision, with more than 14 lots (namely 75 lots), did not provide for coordination of subdivision streets with existing or planned streets or highways because there were only two points of access and those two points of access were through the continuation of existing, substandard County neighborhood streets. Applying Section 6.3.21 and 6.3.6, the Plan Commission determined that neither access point was "from a through street (namely a feeder, arterial, or collector)." It found that Marwood Trails Drive and 101 st Street were not designed and constructed as through streets, that they did not even meet standards for local access/neighborhood streets, and there was no plan by the Applicant, the County or the City (pursuant to the Thoroughfare Plan) to upgrade the streets even to the minimum 26 ft. pavement width (Decision at Return, Tab 70, p. 2). Section 5.1.7 (4) The Plan Commission similarly found that the proposed subdivision, with more than 14 lots (namely 75 lots), did not provide for proper distribution of population and traffic in a manner tending to create conditions favorable to health, safety, convenience and the harmonious development of the City or County because there were only two points of access and they were through the continuation of existing, substandard County neighborhood streets. It again noted under 96.3.21 that neither access point was "from a through street (namely a feeder, arterial, or collector)." It was important to the Plan Commission that Marwood Trails Drive did not even connect directly to a through street, but had access to the nearest through street (College Avenue) 17 e e only via a curvilinear path (using Guilford Avenue and 101st Street) that wound for 2,000 feet through :well established, adjacent neighborhoods and unduly burden the neighborhood streets. As for 101 st Street, the Plan Commission found that the nearest access to a through street was at its intersection with College Avenue and that the westbound approach to that intersection was already operating below acceptable levels during both the morning and afternoon peak traffic hours. The use of 101 st Street for an access point would exacerbate the existing traffic congestion at the intersection and make it operate even further below acceptable levels. Neither street conformed to the minimum pavement width of 26 feet and fiscal reasons prohibited any plan to upgrade them (Decision at Return, Tab 70, p. 3-4). Section 5.1.7 (3) The Plan Commission determined that the Application did not provide for the establishment of minimum width, depth, and area of lots within the proposed subdivision. Applying Section 6.5.2, it found that lots 1, 2 and 3 were on a curved street and as such should be on radial lines unless a variation from this rule is permitted. The Plan Commission decided that no variation would be appropriate because the lots would need to accommodate supplementary trees, shrubs, and other landscaping in order to provide for adequate buffering from the adjacent Interstate Highway (Decision at Return, Tab 70, p. 3). b. Petitioners' Alleg:ations The Petitioners insinuate in the Complaint that the Plan Commission's decision hinged upon an alleged "erroneous" statement by the Department and counsel reporting that the required 50-foot right-o'f-way on 10151 Street was absent (Complaint, 'if 28). To the contrary, the Department and counsel looked to the concrete standards in the Ordinance that the minimum requirements for a County Road are a 50-foot right-of-way and a 26-foot pavement width 18 ~ J e e (Ordinance at Return, Tab 3, p. 25, 96.3.6; Decision at Return, Tab 70). The Petitioners had secured information that there was a 50-foot right-of-way in front of the church at the proposed 101st access point (Feb. 20 letter at Return, Tab 47; April 17 letter at Return, Tab 66) and then offered to widen those few yards of roadway to 24 feet (Feb. 27 letter at Return, Tab 53, p. 2). The large remainder of the substandard street would remain untouched, except for repairing damage their construction vehicles caused (Id., March 30 letter at Return, Tab 60; April 10 letter at Return, Tab 61). This offer by the Petitioners ignores the plain requirements of the Ordinance, leaving the current residents of the neighboring subdivisions and the residents of the proposed 75-lot subdivision with essentially the same substandard road, aggravating the existing traffic congestion and forcing the residents to deal with a traffic flow that would be even further below the already unacceptable levels during peak traffic hours. In any event, the plain requirements of the Ordinance require that access to the proposed subdivision should be via, at minimum, a feeder/collector street having a 60-foot right-of-way and a 36-foot pavement width (Ordinance at Return, Tab 3, p. 25, 96.3.6). Thus, even assuming for argument's sake that the Department or counsel made any "erroneous" statements, those statements could not unduly prejudice the Plan Commission's findings in respect to the adequacy of the 101 51 Street access point. At worst they would constitute harmless error, because it is clear from the evidence in the Return that 101 st Street does not satisfy the Ordinance standards for a through street. When the evidence set forth in the Return is viewed as a whole, as required by Indiana case law, it is clear that the Plan Commission's conclusions and decision are not "clearly erroneous." To the contrary, there is substantial evidence supporting the Decision. Burrell v. Lake County Plan Commission, 642 N.E.2d 526, 534 (Ind. App. 1993) ("[W]e should sustain the 19 e e . Petitioners' traffic engineer responds verbally to traffic and access concerns from March 6: confirmed that the proposed subdivision would be accessed mainly from 101 st Street (Tab 65, pp. 1-3). . Department comments in presence of Petitioners and Petitioners' counsel: issues were still open, including the "appropriateness of access to the proposed development, and it is up to the Subdivision Committee to determine" (Tab 65, p. 2). . Member Broach's comments in presence of Petitioners and Petitioners' counsel: 101 st Street was only a two-lane road that is 20 feet wide; traffic turning left (South) would "hold up the entire lane of traffic" (Tab 65, p. 2). . Member Houck's comments in presence of Petitioners and Petitioners' counsel: twice raised concerns about the dangerous design of the lots bordering 1-465; questioned the traffic study; questions to engineer to confirm 90% of the existing traffic on 101 st turns south; "from a traffic standpoint, there will be an impact on the existing neighborhood. The design is not very well laid out from a health, safety, and welfare standpoint" Tab 65, pp. 2-4). . Member Sharpe's comments in presence of Petitioners and Petitioners' counsel: "The safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood are not met by this development (Tab 65, p. 4). . Member Fitzgerald's comments in presence of Petitioners and Petitioners' counsel: suggested forwarding the item to the full Plan Commission with a . negative recommendation" (Tab 65, p. 4). . Committee invited the Petitioners to re-design portions of the proposed subdivision in . light of the Committee's negative comments and re-notice it for a new public hearing. The Petitioners' attorney declined the invitation and asked the Committee for a vote on the Application (Tab 65, p. 4). The Subdivision Committee voted unanimously to forward the item to the full Plan Commission with a negative recommendation (Tab 65, p. 4). No further testimony was taken at the April 17 Plan Commission meeting from either the Petitioner or the public because the public hearing was closed on February 20,2001 (Feb. 20 Minutes at Return, Tab 51, p. 11; April 17 Minutes at Return, Tab 69, pp. 6-8). The Committee then presented its findings to the full Plan Commission, the Department submitted its report, and the Plan Commission voted to deny the plat (Tab 69, pp. 6-8). The Petitioners were fully informed at every step of the process that the Plan Commission and the Subdivision Committee were concerned about the insufficient access to the proposed subdivision, the unacceptable quantity of traffic through established neighborhoods, and the 21 e e configurations of the lots near the 1-465 right-of-way. The traffic issue" was raised even at the Technical Advisory Committee meeting, but the Petitioners had not yet completed their traffic study. (Jan. 17 Minutes at Return, Tab 29, p. 11). The Petitioners themselves even state in the Complaint that these issues were voiced at the March 6 Committee Meeting (Complaint, ~~ 21 and 23), that the Department raised the concern about 96.3.21 at that same meeting (Complaint, ~20), and the same concerns were addressed at the April 10 Committee Meeting (Complaint, ~23). In comparison to Equicor.. the Technical Advisory Committee in that case had reviewed the application and concluded that no changes in the Application were necessary. Att. A at p. 5. The Plan Commission staff had determined that approval should be granted. ad.). The Westfield-Washington Plan Commission had suggested changes to the plat during the review of the primary plat but "was silent as to any parking issue." (Id.). The applicant made the minor changes suggested, "but made no changes in the apparently acceptable parking." (Id.) "Equicor thus relied on the Plan Commission's silence by proceeding in the reasonable belief that the plat would be approved and failing to make changes in the easily correctable flaws in the parking designation." Id. There is no such reliance here. The Petitioners were well versed in the issues that concerned the Plan Commission throughout the application process and which formed the basis for the denial. Moreover, the Plan Commission not only advised the Petitioners of the concerns with the Application, but also gave the Petitioners the opportunity to redesign the subdivision rather than have the Committee or ful~ Plan Commission vote on it. The Petitioners unabashedly rejected this offer, and now want to complain that they did not know what issues they needed to address in order to earn approval. 22 It e not of denial of due process or equal protection." Id. In contrast, an improper motive that could support a due process claim is "partisan political considerations, personal conflicts of interest and gain, or invidious discriminatory intent." Id. at p. 3. The court instructed that "[i]n the absence of a claim that the decision was the product of constitutional violation, the test of arbitrary and capricious action is whether or not there is a reasonable basis for the action." Id. at p. 4. Applying the test to the facts in that case, the court concluded, "[T]he Commission was objectively correct in pointing to the failure of the plat to designate the parking spaces with specificity even if: as Equicor contends, anyone with common sense could figure out that there were indeed the required number of spaces. As a result, even if failure to designate parking was not the 'real' reason for disapproval, the Commission's motivation is irrelevant as a matter of law." Id. In the case at bar, the Plan Commission was objectively correct in pointing to the failure of the plat to provide 1) coordination of the proposed streets with existing streets, 2) proper distribution of traffic in a manner tending to create conditions favorable to health, safety, convenience and harmonious development, and 3) establishment of minimum width, depth and area of lots. The Petitioners' suspicions and allegations about the motives of the Plan Commission are irrelevant under the Indiana Supreme Court decision in Equicor. Id. The Return establishes that there was no due process violation and that the denial of the Application was not incorrect as a matter of law. Judgment should be entered in favor of the Plan Commission based on the Return and without an evidentiary hearing. . 24