Indiana Supreme Court blocks disputed Brownsburg annexation

  • Comments
  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

Brownsburg has lost its final bid to annex nearly 4,500 acres of land after fighting residents who objected all the way to the Indiana Supreme Court. Justices ruled the town “did not satisfy its burden of proving it had met the statutory requirements for annexing the disputed territory.”

The state’s high court affirmed a Hendricks Superior Court ruling denying the town’s bid to annex property that met organized opposition in the form of a citizens group called Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation. The city continued to fight, losing at the Indiana Court of Appeals and in a unanimous Indiana Supreme Court ruling Wednesday.

The court also held that in annex cases, trial courts must consider the evidence presented by both the municipality seeking to annex land and remonstrators who oppose the consolidation.

Brownsburg failed to meet requirements of state law that any proposed annexations be at least 60 percent “subdivided,” which Justice Geoffrey Slaughter wrote was a term undefined in the legal sense. However, he noted that more than 70 percent of the land included in the proposed Brownsburg annexation area was agricultural land.

Justices also provided guidance for determining when proposed annexation areas meet statutory requirements for percentage of subdivided land and other factors.

“…(T)he only permissible unit of measurement is acreage and not the number of parcels or tracts of land,” Slaughter wrote. “…(A)ll acreage within the proposed annexation territory must be included in the ratio’s denominator, and none should be exempted or excluded.

“Unlike the trial court, we are agnostic about whether the legislature should define ‘subdivided’—a key statutory term, to be sure, in many annexation disputes. That is a matter for the legislature. But until or unless the legislature specifies the term’s meaning, courts and communities interested in local annexation issues should proceed with these guideposts in mind.”

Brownsburg had provided expert testimony from a city employee who had used various methods, including calculating the number of individual parcels of land or lots in platted subdivisions to represent a total exceeding the 60 percent threshold. Remonstrators prevailed on a survey from the Indiana Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations showing that nearly 77 percent of the land was agricultural.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

Editor's note: You can comment on IBJ stories by signing in to your IBJ account. If you have not registered, please sign up for a free account now. Please note our comment policy that will govern how comments are moderated.

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news. ONLY $1/week Subscribe Now

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In

Get the best of Indiana business news.

Limited-time introductory offer for new subscribers

ONLY $1/week

Cancel anytime

Subscribe Now

Already a paid subscriber? Log In