Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse
Call 317-269-2500 For A Consultation
  • Home
  • About
    • Attorney Profiles
    • Firm History
    • Firm News
    • Career Opportunities
      • Attorneys
      • Law Students
      • Professional Staff
    • Helpful Links
  • Practice Areas
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Appeals
    • Business Organizations
    • Education
    • Estate Planning & Probate
    • Governmental Affairs
    • Labor & Employment
    • Litigation
    • Policyholder & Insurance Recovery
    • Real Estate & Land Use
    • Utilities Law
  • Personal Injury
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Payment Portal
    • Pay Invoice
    • Pay Retainer
Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse
  • Home
  • About
    • Attorney Profiles
    • Firm History
    • Firm News
    • Career Opportunities
      • Attorneys
      • Law Students
      • Professional Staff
    • Helpful Links
  • Practice Areas
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Appeals
    • Business Organizations
    • Education
    • Estate Planning & Probate
    • Governmental Affairs
    • Labor & Employment
    • Litigation
    • Policyholder & Insurance Recovery
    • Real Estate & Land Use
    • Utilities Law
  • Personal Injury
  • Blog
  • Contact
  • Payment Portal
    • Pay Invoice
    • Pay Retainer
Email

CALL

Experienced Litigators And Advocates Serving Clients Across Indiana

  1. Home
  2.  ► 
  3. Municipal Law
  4.  ► 
  5. Indiana Municipal Law – Update on the Specificity Required in Zoning DecisionsBy: Jeremy L. Fetty

Indiana Municipal Law – Update on the Specificity Required in Zoning DecisionsBy: Jeremy L. Fetty

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP | Nov 29, 2011 | Municipal Law |

The specificity requirements of Indiana zoning decisions were discussed in The Kroger Co. v. Plan Commission of Plainfield, 953 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). In that case, Kroger wanted to construct a gas station next to its retail store. Kroger submitted a zoning petition seeking approval to begin construction, but the Plan Commission denied Kroger’s petition. Kroger sought judicial review. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, with the trial court granting the Plan Commission’s motion for summary judgment. Kroger appealed, arguing that the denial did not satisfy the specificity requirement of the Zoning Enabling Act and also arguing that the Commission’s findings were not sufficient to support the denial of Kroger’s petition to construct a gas station.

The court looked at the language of the Plainfield Zoning Ordinance and concluded that it did contain the needed specificity “to provide landowners with fair warning as to what the governing body will consider when formulating its decision.” The court did determine, however, that the Planning Commission, in this instance, did not provide sufficient findings to inform Kroger why its proposed plan did not satisfy the zoning requirements. The Commission stated the proposed development was not appropriate to the site, was not consistent with the intent and purpose of the ordinance, and would create a safety hazard. The Commission failed to “clearly explain,” though, why the plan was not appropriate, why it was against the intent and purpose of the ordinance, and why it was a safety hazard. Without this needed information, Kroger would not have the opportunity to amend its proposed plan in a way that could potentially comply with the ordinance. The court also took time to remind the Commission that approval of such a petition meeting the zoning requirements constitutes “a ministerial as opposed to a discretionary act.”

Jeremy Fetty is a partner in the law firm of Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse with offices in Lebanon and Indianapolis. He often advises businesses and utilities (for profit, non-profit and cooperative) on organizational, human resources, and transactional matters and drafts and reviews commercial contracts.

The statements contained herein are matters of opinion and general information only and are not to be considered legal advice and should not be construed to form an attorney-client relationship. If you have any questions regarding this article, please contact an attorney.

Recent Posts

  • Indiana Appeals Court Affirms Bad-Faith Claim Against Erie Insurance
  • What If Evidence Is Destroyed In A Lawsuit?
  • The Number Of Remonstrators Controls Opposition To Establishemnt Of A Conservancy District
  • Local Government Need Not Provide Health Insurance to Elected Official
  • FERC Legal – Blog Post: Duke Energy Corp. v. FERC, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 16108

Archives

Categories

RSS Feed

Subscribe To This Blog’s Feed

Contact Our Office To Learn How We Can Serve You

Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse

Phone:
317-269-2500

  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow
  • Follow

Indianapolis Law Office

251 North Illinois Street
Suite 1800
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Phone: 317-269-2500
Fax: 317-269-2514
Toll Free: 888-337-7766

Lebanon Law Office

225 West Main Street
PO Box 668
Lebanon, IN 46052


Phone:
765-482-0110
Phone: 317-269-2509
Fax: 765-483-3444
Toll Free: 888-532-7766

Chicago Law Office

One East Wacker Drive
Suite 2600
Chicago, IL 60601

Phone: 312-724-8280
Fax: 773-960-8600

Review The Firm
Pay Invoice
Pay Retainer
Schedule Payment

© 2026 Parr Richey Frandsen Patterson Kruse LLP • All Rights Reserved

Disclaimer | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Business Development Solutions by FindLaw