Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court’s order, with the appellate court finding the Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals made an error of law by granting a conditional use permit for a scrap-metal recycling facility and was allowed to change that decision.
The case involved Bedford Recycling, which owns land in Monroe County and wanted to build a facility for the collection and sorting of scrap metal that would later be transported off-site for recycling.
According to court records, the land is zoned “Mineral Extraction.” Only a handful of uses are presumptively allowed in such a zone (e.g., mineral extraction, composting operations, greenfill), and scrap-metal recycling isn’t one of them.
Bedford Recycling applied for a conditional-use permit, which the BZA granted in September 2021 by a 3-0 vote.
Republic Services—which owns property near Bedford Recycling’s property—petitioned for judicial review of the BZA’s decision.
The board met again and revoked the permit. Bedford Recycling filed its own petition for judicial review challenging the revocation of the permit.
After briefing and oral argument, the Monroe Circuit Court issued an order granting Bedford Recycling’s petition, vacating a revocation order, and reinstating the permit.
In its appeal, the BZA contended the trial court erred by granting Bedford Recycling’s petition for judicial review.
The appellate court has held that an administrative agency generally cannot change a final decision, but if it recognizes its own error of law, it may correct that error, with the court citing Essroc Cement Corp. v. Clark Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 122 N.E.3d 881, 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied.
In its opinion, the court ruled that Bedford Recycling is proposing a scrap-metal recycling facility; it would not be picking up solid waste from homes and businesses.
The court added that the company conceded as much in its application, where it acknowledged that the facility would not “handle solid waste” or “operate waste hauling vehicles,” and at the first hearing, where it said that the “description and definition is meant to apply to a facility that handles solid waste, which the facility that we are proposing here doesn’t handle solid waste.”
“Because the proposed facility doesn’t meet the requirements for the Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection Facility, the BZA made an error of law by granting the permit and was allowed to correct that error,” the appellate court stated in its opinion.
The case is Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Bedford Recycling, Inc.,23A-MI-1729.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.