Metropolitan Plan Commission v. State Ex Rel. Meyer

182 N.E.2d 786, 243 Ind. 46, 1962 Ind. LEXIS 128
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedMay 21, 1962
Docket30,040
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 182 N.E.2d 786 (Metropolitan Plan Commission v. State Ex Rel. Meyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Metropolitan Plan Commission v. State Ex Rel. Meyer, 182 N.E.2d 786, 243 Ind. 46, 1962 Ind. LEXIS 128 (Ind. 1962).

Opinions

Bobbitt, J.

— Appellees, Roy C. Meyer and Glenna Meyer, hereinafter referred to as “appellees-Meyer,” brought an action for mandate against appellant and anw4iee-Harold Wiggins, as improvement location [48]*48permit clerk of the Marion County Board of Zoning Appeals, and appelleé-C. Ray Fisher, as Marion County Building Commissioner, to compel, the issuance of improvement location permits required by an applicable zoning ordinance for certain lots in a purported subdivision in Marion County, Indiana, known as Glen-roy Village, Third Section.

The trial court issued a mandate, and from such action this appeal is prosecuted.

On November 3, 1955, a proposed plat of Glenroy Village, Third Section, was approved by the Marion County Plan Commission, pursuant to ch. 174, Acts of 1947, §53-701, et seq., Burns’ 1951 Replacement, as amended, and it was recorded in the Marion County Recorder’s office on April 28, 1959, bearing the seal and approval of the Marion County Plan Commission, but without the approval and certification of the Metropolitan Plan Commission.

Appellant asserts that the recording of the plat is without legal effect because it does not bear the seal and approval of the Metropolitan Plan Commission as required by Acts of 1955, ch. 283, §53, p. 786; while appellees-Meyer assert that the approval of the Marion County Plan Commission on November 3, 1955, which was the regulatory body for the approval of plats at that time, was sufficient to effect a valid recording of the plat on April 28, 1959.

Chapter 283 of the Acts of 1955, effective June 30, 1955, established a single planning and zoning authority in counties containing first class cities. Marion County falls within the purview of this Act.

The purpose of this Act, as declared by the Legislature, is to meet the problems “created by expanding urbanization” by the unification of the planning [49]*49and zoning functions which are necessary “if the health, safety, morals, economic development and general welfare of the area is to be insured.” Section 1, ch. 283, supra.

Section 85 of the Act (ch. 283, supra) provides that the Metropolitan Plan Commission, in order to effect the consolidation of the various plans and ordinances then in force in the county and in the cities into one comprehensive plan ordinance, shall adopt the existing master plans as its first comprehensive plan, and shall recommend “to the county council without amendment the adoption of the zoning, subdivision control, thoroughfare, and other ordinances relating to the jurisdiction of the department.”

This section further provides that after the adoption of such plans and ordinances, the then existing county plan commission and the city plan commissions shall exercise no authority under any law pertaining to planning and zoning.

On March 28, 1957, the Marion County Council adopted all existing zoning and subdivision control ordinances within the county, and a certified copy of the adopting ordinance was subsequently filed on September 30, 1958, and recorded in the office of the Recorder of Marion County.

On November 3, 1958, the Marion County Council, pursuant to §48 of ch. 283, supra, adopted a new Subdivision Control Ordinance containing provisions for subdivision control and the approval of plats and re-plats. This ordinance established uniform standards for the platting and subdividing of land within the various political units in the county, and further provided “[n]o plat of a subdivision of land within the térritorial limits of Marion County, Indiana, shall be recorded in the Marion County Recorder’s office [50]*50until it has been approved by the Metropolitan Plan Commission of Marion County, Indiana, in accordance with the requirements, standards and specifications” as set out in the ordinance. Section 1.01, Subdivisión Control Ordinance of Marion County, Indiana, adopted November 3,1958;

A certified copy of this ordinance was filed in the office of the Recorder of Marion County on December 1,1958.

Acts of 1955, ch. 283, Sec. 54, provides that,

“After an ordinance containing provisions for subdivision control and approval of plats and re-plats has been adopted and a certified copy of the ordinance has been filed with the county recorder, the commission [Metropolitan Plan Commission of Marion County] shall have exclusive control over the approval of plats and re-plats.”

Since such an ordinance was passed prior to the date on which appellees-Meyer recorded their plat of Glenroy Village, Third Section, were they required to have such plat certified and approved by the Metropolitan Plan Commission in order to give it legal effect? In our judgment they were.

It is true, as appellees-Meyer contend, that on November 3, 1955, the Marion County Plan Commission had exclusive control over the approval of plats of land within its jurisdiction. However, to effectuate the establishment of a subdivision requires more than the approval and certification of a plat by the proper zoning or planning authority.

Until a plat of a proposed subdivision is properly recorded, there is no assurance that the subdivision will ever be established. The act of recording brings the subdivision into being and makes of it a reality instead of a mere outline on [51]*51paper of the tentative proposal of the subdivider, and in Indiana a proposed division of land does not become a legal subdivision until it has been recorded in compliance with the provisions of the statutes pertaining to the establishment of subdivisions of lots and lands. Northern Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. McCoy et ux. (1959), 239 Ind. 301, 308, 157 N. E. 2d 181.

At the time (November 3, 1955) appellees-Meyer presented the plat of the proposed subdivision herein to the Marion County Plan Commission they were governed not only by the provisions of §§45 to 52, inclusive, of ch. 174 of the Acts of 1947, as amended, being §§53-745 to 53-749, inclusive, Burns’ 1951 Replacement, and §§53-750 to 53-752, inclusive, Burns’ 1961 Cum. Supp., which provide, inter alia, for the-approval of plats by the Marion County Plan Commission, but also by §246 of ch. 129 of the Acts of 1905, which provides that a plat of any subdivision shall be recorded in the recorder’s office of the proper county.

Assuming, but not deciding, that appellees-Meyer fully complied with the provisions of the Acts of 1947, ch. 174, swpra, they did not attempt to comply with the provisions of the Acts of 1905, ch. 129, supra, and record their plat until April 28, 1959. During the period from November 3, 1955, until the plat is properly recorded, the proposed subdivision herein can have no legal status as such.

Appellees-Meyer, during this period, could have changed the size of the lots, layout of streets and alleys, restrictions and dedications, if any, the use and purpose of the subdividing or the plat could have been abandoned altogether. Until the plat of Glenroy Village, Third Section, was properly recorded it was in law no more than a division of [52]*52land into lots, streets and alleys, represented on paper so they could be identified. There was no legal dedication of the streets and alleys, prior to a recording of the plat. Northern Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. McCoy et ux., supra (1959), 239 Ind. 301, 307, 157 N. E. 2d 181.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Steuben County v. Family Development, Ltd.
753 N.E.2d 693 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 2001)
River Birch Associates v. City of Raleigh
388 S.E.2d 538 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1990)
Pearson v. City of Guttenberg
245 N.W.2d 519 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1976)
Chustak v. Porter County Plan Commission
284 N.E.2d 549 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1972)
Metropolitan Plan Commission v. State Ex Rel. Meyer
182 N.E.2d 786 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 N.E.2d 786, 243 Ind. 46, 1962 Ind. LEXIS 128, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/metropolitan-plan-commission-v-state-ex-rel-meyer-ind-1962.