Monroe County BZA to appeal court ruling against denial of variance for logging road near Lake Monroe
On Oct. 15, special judge Erik Allen ruled against the Monroe County board of appeals (BZA) in a lawsuit filed by William and Nicole Huff, about the denial of a use variance for a logging road near Lake Monroe.
But at a Friday morning meeting, Monroe County’s board of zoning appeals (BZA) voted to appeal the ruling.
The BZA also voted not to ask the court for a stay on any road construction activity to install the road, reasoning that a stay would only increase the risk of possible damages, if the court of appeals eventually also ruled against the BZA.
County attorney David Schilling summarized the case from the 351-paragraph ruling in a couple of sentences: “The Huffs appeared before the board of zoning appeals, seeking a variance relating to the construction of a road. That variance was denied. The Huffs appealed that to the trial court, and the trial court ruled against the BZA. So the question is: Is the trial court’s decision going to be appealed?”
BZA member Guy Loftman, who is a retired attorney himself, indicated confidence that the BZA would prevail on appeal. He said that the judge, in his ruling, had acted as though he were hearing the matter in a trial, as opposed to a judicial review of a BZA decision, and as though he had full discretion over the findings of fact.
Loftman said that his understanding is that the judge in such a case is bound by the BZA’s findings of fact, unless they were “to use the technical term, totally off the wall.” Loftman continued, “I don’t think [our findings] were totally off the wall. I think they were reasonable. I stand behind them.”
The Huffs have long been at odds with the county over their logging activity on the land that they own close to Lake Monroe. The county’s concern is about erosion that can be caused by tree removal, impacting the water quality of the lake, which serves as a drinking water source for the city of Bloomington.
In separate litigation concluded four years ago, the county settled the lawsuit filed by the Huffs in a way that included a payment of $50,000.
In the ruling on the case that the BZA is now going to appeal, the logging road that the Huffs were already using was so steep that it required bulldozers to pull equipment up the grade. That’s why the Huffs wanted to build a 350-by-20-foot section of new roadway. The BZA determined a variance was needed, but then denied the variance.
Here’s a key paragraph from the Oct. 15, 2024 ruling that makes clear what the road was for:
131. [The BZA] has no right to curtail the Huffs’ ability to log every single tree on their property, should they choose to do so—they have the statutory right to the complete use and alienation of any… forests” on their property.” I.C. § 36-7-4-1103(b).
The conclusion of the judge’s ruling reads like this:
Based on the findings of fact and conclusions set forth herein, it is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:
A. The BZA’s action regarding rulemaking before the February 1,2023, BZA hearing is affirmed.
B. The BZA’s decision denying the Huffs’ Variance Petition is reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
C. The BZA’s application of the ECO Zone 1 ordinance against the Huffs and denial of their petition for a variance to permit them to use the new portion of roadway on the Private Drive for purely agricultural purposes—namely, conducting logging operations on the Huff Property—violated Indiana Code Section 36-7-4-1103.
D. The BZA’s denial of the Huffs’ request for a Use Variance was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence.
E. The BZA’s conclusion that the Huffs ’ sought a Design Standards Variance, and the BZA’s subsequent denial of that variance, was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by substantial evidence.
