MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01CCA51C.E782D440" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer. ------=_NextPart_01CCA51C.E782D440 Content-Location: file:///C:/7476448E/1006112011OEA136RobertLynnCompanyInc..htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Objection to issuance of Sanitary Sewer Construction Permit Approval
No. 19883
Lafayette Ridge and
Floyd Knobs,
2011 OEA 136, (11-W-J-4451)
[2011 OEA 1= 36, page 136 begins]
OFFICIAL S= HORT CITATION NAME: When referring to 2011 OEA 136 cite this case as
&nbs=
p; Robert
Lynn Company, Inc., 2011 OEA 136.
TOPICS=
:
dismissal
sanitary sewer
jurisdiction
zoning
12(B)(6)
aggrieved
adversely affected
Huffman
327 IAC 3-6-6(b)
PRESIDING =
JUDGE:
Catherine Gibbs
PARTY REPR=
ESENTATIVES:
IDEM:  = ; Justin Barrett, Esq.
Petitioner:  = ; Richard R. Fox Esq.; Law Offices of Richard Fox
Permittee: = C. Gregory Fifer Esq.; Applegate Fifer Pulliam LLC
ORDER ISSU=
ED:
October 6, 2011
INDEX CATE=
GORY:
Water
FURTHER CA=
SE
ACTIVITY:
[none]
[2011 OEA 1= 36, page 137 begins]
STATE OF =
&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; ) &= nbsp; &nbs= p; ENVIRONMENTAL ADJUDICATION
IN THE MA=
TTER OF: &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; ) &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; ) OBJECTION=
TO
ISSUANCE OF SANITARY  =
; &n=
bsp; ) SEWER
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT =
&nb=
sp; =
) &=
nbsp; APPROVAL =
NO. 19883 &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; ) LAFAYETTE=
RIDGE
and FLOYD KNO=
BS, _________=
______________________________________ )&n=
bsp; CAUSE
NO. 11-W-J-4451 Petitioner,=
&=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; ) Robert Ly=
nn
Company, Inc.,  =
; &n=
bsp;  =
; &n=
bsp; ) Permittee/R=
espondent, &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; ) Indiana
Department of Environmental Management,&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; ) Respondent<=
span
style=3D'mso-tab-count:6'> &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; ) FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND FINAL ORDER <=
/span>This
matter came before the Office of Environmental Adjudication (the OEA or the
Court) on the Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively, for
Summary Judgment. The Court, =
being
duly advised and having read the record and motion, now enters the following
findings of fact, conclusions of law and final order. Summary of Decision <=
/span>The
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (the IDEM) approved the Robe=
rt
Lynn Company, Inc.’s (the Respondent) application for sanitary sewer
construction. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. &n=
bsp;
On January 14, 2011, the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM) issued Permit Approval No. 19883 (the Appro=
val)
to the Robert Lynn Company, Inc. for the construction of a sanitary sewer in
the Lafayette Ridge and Lafayette Landings subdivisions. 2. &n=
bsp;
These proposed subdivisions are located in [2011 OEA 1=
36, page
138 begins] 3. &n=
bsp;
4. &n=
bsp;
On March 24, 2011, the Court issued its Order Strik=
ing
Filing, striking a filing from the Floyd County Health Department on the
grounds that said filing was untimely and ex parte. 5. &n=
bsp;
The Court issued a Case Management Order on May 5,
2011, setting deadlines for filing, responding and replying to dispositive
motions. The Respondent timely
filed its Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively, for Summary Judgment on Augus=
t 1,
2011. The Petitioner did not =
file a
response. The Respondent did =
not
file a reply. 6. &n=
bsp;
The Floyd County Plan Commission approved the
construction of 223 homes in Lafayette Ridge. The Floyd County Plan Commission
rejected the proposed construction of the Lafayette Landings subdivision. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The
Office of Environmental Adjudication (“OEA”) has jurisdiction o=
ver
the decisions of the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (“IDEM”) and the parties to this controversy pursuan=
t to
I.C. § 4-21.5-7, et seq.=
p>
2. Findings
of Fact that may be construed as Conclusions of Law and Conclusions of Law =
that
may be construed as Findings of Fact are so deemed. 3. The
Respondent argues that the Petitioner is not aggrieved or adversely affecte=
d by
the issuance of the approval.
Further, he argues that the Petitioner has failed to state a claim u=
pon
which relief can be granted. 4. A
motion to dismiss for lack of standing should be treated as a motion to dis=
miss
for failure to state a claim under Ind. R. Tria=
l P. 12(B)(6). Huffman v. 5. The
Indiana Supreme Court addressed the definition of “aggrieved or adver=
sely
affected” in Huffman.  =
;The
Court held that “whether a person =
is
entitled to seek administrative review depends upon whether the person is
“aggrieved or adversely affected.” =
The
Court held that “Essentially, to be
"aggrieved or adversely affected," a person must have suffered or=
be
likely [2011 OEA 1=
36, page
139 begins] to suff=
er in
the immediate future harm to a legal interest, be it a pecuniary, property,=
or
personal interest.” The=
Court
defined “aggrieved” as “[A]
substantial grievance, a denial of some personal or property right or the
imposition upon a party of a burden or obligation . . . The appellant must =
have
a legal interest which will be enlarged or diminished by the result of the
appeal.” Huffman at 810. 6. The
Respondent relies on the fact that 7. Whether
the Petitioner has stated a claim upon which the OEA can grant relief is
another matter. The Petitioner
objects to the Approval on the basis that the Respondent does not have local
zoning approval to construct the Lafayette Landings subdivision. OEA does not have jurisdiction to =
hear
disputes over local issues, such as zoning. Further, neither IDEM nor OEA has =
the
authority to override the local requirements for zoning. The Approval explicitly states that
“All local permits shall be obtained before construction is begun on =
this
project.” Permit Approv=
al No.
19883, Part I, paragraph 1, page 3 of 6.&n=
bsp;
In addition, the applicable rule states, “All required permits=
or
exemptions from other federal, state, and local units must be obtained prio=
r to
the commencement of construction of any sanitary sewer covered by this
rule.” 327 IAC 3-6-6 (b). Lack of local zoning approval does=
not
defeat the issuance of the Approval; likewise, the Approval may not be
construed to authorize construction of the subdivisions without proper zoni=
ng
approval. The Petitioner has =
failed
to state a claim upon which OEA can grant relief. 8. The
Petitioner also objects to the Approval because the Approval authorizes the
construction of sanitary sewer to provide service for 153 single family hom=
es
whereas the local zoning board has given the Respondent approval to build 2=
23
homes. The Respondent must co=
mply
with all applicable regulations and permit conditions regardless of the
source. The Respondent may on=
ly
construct the sanitary sewer in compliance with the terms and conditions of=
the
Approval for the permitted 153 homes.
If the Respondent builds more homes than the sanitary sewer has capa=
city
for, he must seek additional approval to construct the necessary sewers. 9. For
the above reasons, the motion to dismiss should be granted. [2011 OEA 1=
36, page
140 begins] FINAL ORDER<=
o:p> &nbs=
p; IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Petition for Review fil=
ed
by &nbs=
p; You
are hereby further notified that pursuant to provisions of I.C. §
4-21.5-7-5, the Office of Environmental Adjudication serves as the Ultimate
Authority in the administrative review of decisions of the Commissioner of =
the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management. This is a Final Order subject to
Judicial Review consistent with applicable provisions of I.C. §
4-21.5. Pursuant to I.C. &sec=
t;
4-21.5-5-5, a Petition for Judicial Review of this Final Order is timely on=
ly
if it is filed with a civil court of competent jurisdiction within thirty (=
30)
days after the date this notice is served. IT
IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of October, 2011 in Hon. Catherine Gibbs=
p>
Environmental Law Judg=
e [2011 OEA 1=
36: end of
decision] 2011
OEA 136 in .doc format 2011
OEA 136 in .pdf format &nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
&nb=
sp; =
Objection to issuance of Sanitary Sewer Construction Permit Approval
No. 19883 Lafayette Ridge and Lafayette Landings
Floyd Knobs,
2011 OEA 136, (11-W-J-4451)