Lockerbie Glove Co. v. Indianapolis Historic Pres. Comm'n

194 N.E.3d 1175

LOCKERBIE GLOVE COMPANY TOWN HOME OWNER'S ASSOCIATION, INC., Elliot J. Serena Androphy, Cherri D. Hobgood, Sashwati Roy, Chandan K. Sen, and Brian Edward West, Appellants-Plaintiffs,

v.INDIANAPOLIS HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION, Daniel C. Jacobs, and The Athenaeum Foundation, Inc., Appellees-Defendants.

Court of Appeals Case No. 22A-PL-204

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED August 30, 2022

Attorney for Appellants: James K. Gilday, Gilday & Associates, P.C., Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee – Daniel C. Jacobs: Jenny R. Buchheit, Christina L. Fugate, Alexandria H. Pittman, Ice Miller LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorney for Appellee – The Athenaeum Foundation, Inc.: Brian S. Jones, Bose McKinney & Evans LLP, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorney for Appellee – Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission: Adam Willfond, Office of Corporation Counsel, Indianapolis, Indiana

Tavitas, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] This is the second appeal stemming from the Indianapolis Historic Preservation

Commission's ("Commission") grant of a certificate of appropriateness ("COA") for construction of a retail, residential, and parking project known as "Block 20" in the Lockerbie Square Historic District in Marion County. After an initial appeal in which the grant of the COA was affirmed, the local homeowner's association ("HOA") and six residents of nearby townhomes (collectively "Appellants") sought declaratory and injunctive relief to halt construction of Block 20. The trial court granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis of Appellants’ lack of standing. Concluding that Appellants lack the necessary standing, we affirm the ruling of the trial court.

Issue

[2] We find a single, threshold issue to be dispositive: whether Appellants had standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief.

Facts

Prior Litigation

[3] We recall the facts of this case—outlined in our previous opinion—as follows:

In 2001, the Athenaeum Foundation acquired property at 428 N. East Street and sought from the Commission a certificate of appropriateness^[1] that would allow it to demolish the building then existing on that property and turn the property into a paved surface parking lot. The property in question is part of the Secondary Area of the Lockerbie Square Historic District, bounded on the west by Cleveland Street, on the north by Michigan Street, on the east by East Street, and on the south by Allegheny Street. The People's Club supported the Athenaeum's request to demolish the building, but opposed the property being used as a parking lot on a long-term basis as the historic plan's recommended land use for the property was residential. The Commission issued the certificate of appropriateness .... [ ]

[ ] On April 28, 2016, Dan Jacobs submitted an application for a certificate of appropriateness for the Block 20 project on the property. The application describes the project as a "229 space parking garage, wrapped with 67 apartment units," with retail space on the first floor. Jacobs held several meetings with Commission staff members, appeared at two preliminary review hearings, and made numerous changes to the plans in response to concerns voiced by the Commission and community members. By the time of the final hearing, the plans called for a five-story, multi-use building with sixty-seven apartment units, retail and gallery space on the first floor, a roof deck, and 261 internal parking spaces, including sixty-seven spaces for residents and 194 spaces for the public. The final hearing was scheduled for August 3, 2016.

On July 27, 2016, the Remonstrators^[2] submitted a letter to the Commission outlining their objections to the project. The Remonstrators are all residents of the Lockerbie Glove Factory Town Homes, fifty-eight single family homes adjacent to the proposed development by virtue of being situated on the east side of East Street. [ ] The Remonstrators raised several objections to Jacobs’ application for certificate of appropriateness, including: 1) that the covenant prohibits anything other than residential use on the property; 2) the project violates the historic plan in multiple ways; 3) the project will increase noise in certain areas; 4) the project will adversely affect traffic on East Street; and 5) "[s]ome parts of the so-called residential portion of the development seem more like short-term leasing, which fits more the description of a hotel ...."

At the final hearing on August 3, 2016, the People's Club voiced its "strong support" of the project. The Remonstrators, represented by James Gilday, Treasurer of the Glove Factory HOA, spoke in opposition to the application, raising as their "main point" the multiple violations of the historic plan. The Remonstrators asked the Commission to "fulfill its duty to enforce the historic plan and disregard all other considerations to the contrary by rejecting this proposal." A Commission staff member then addressed the Commission:

We've had probably a dozen meetings on this project over the last couple of months. And I think the comment that was made earlier about the design evolving for the better, staff would agree with that. And in addition to what's in the staff report, I would like to address some of the comments that were just made .... I would like to reiterate that the Lockerbie Square [historic] plan is a set of recommended guidelines for any project. Staff is not aware of anything in the plan being necessarily [a] requirement, so that somebody would be in violation of if they didn't comply with that, but rather a set of guidelines to direct staff in making a recommendation on the proposed design, which is what we did in the staff report.

Commission staff recommended the application for a certificate of appropriateness be approved, and the recommendation was approved by the Commission five to one. [ ]

The Remonstrators then filed a petition for judicial review in Marion Superior Court. [ ] After briefing and oral argument on the petition for judicial review, the trial court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Judgment denying the Remonstrators’ petition and affirming the Commission's award of a certificate of appropriateness:

After the multiple hearings, the [Commission], in its expert discretion, voted to issue the Certificate of Appropriateness to Jacobs. [The Remonstrators’] arguments are generally invitations to reweigh the evidence properly considered by the [Commission], which this Court declines to do. [The Remonstrators] have not carried their heavy burden of proving that the [Commission's] decision in this matter was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right; or unsupported by substantial evidence.

Lockerbie Glove Factory Town Home Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Indianapolis Historic Pres. Comm'n , 106 N.E.3d 482, 486 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018) (internal citations omitted). On appeal, we affirmed the trial court.

[4] We create the relevant area here:

?

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 59.

Present Litigation

[5] The dispute concerning Block 20 continues. After we affirmed, Appellants filed a Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief on April 26, 2021. Appellants claimed that the construction of Block 20 did not match the COA, that the COA had expired without being properly extended, and that these defects were in violation of Indiana statutes governing historic preservation. Specifically, Appellants alleged:

[Appellants] are interested and affected parties who have private rights and are authorized to and [sic] bring this action, among other authority, pursuant to Indiana Code ("IC") §§ 36-7-1-1.1-12(b), as well as §§ 36-7-113-58 and 36-7-1 1.3-5(7) and (8).

* * * * *

[Appellants] have been damaged as a result of [the Commission's] unlawful actions.

Appellant's App. Vol. II pp. 29, 45. The complaint did not specify how Appellants had been damaged.

[6] Appellees³ filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on July 30, 2021. Specifically, the motion asserted that Appellants failed to allege a concrete injury and, thus, lacked standing. Appellants conceded that they did not allege any specific injury but contended that they were not legally required to do so. After a series of discovery disputes not pertinent to the present appeal, the trial court eventually—on December 29, 2021—granted Appellees’ motion for judgment on the proceedings. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[7] Appellants argue that the trial court erred in granting Appellees’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. "Like a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Trial Rule 12(B)(6), a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Trial Rule 12(C) tests the sufficiency of the complaint to state a redressable claim, not the facts to support it." Circle Ctr. Dev. Co. v. Y/G Indiana, L.P. , 762 N.E.2d 176, 178 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (citing Book v. Hester , 695 N.E.2d 597, 599 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) ; Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Everton by Everton , 655 N.E.2d 360, 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) ). "A judgment on the pleadings is proper only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and when the facts shown by the pleadings clearly entitle the moving party to judgment." Id. (citing Bledsoe v. Fleming , 712 N.E.2d 1067, 1069 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) ). "A trial court should grant such a motion only when it is clear from the pleadings that the non-moving party cannot in any way succeed under the facts and allegations therein." Id. "In reviewing a trial court's decision on a motion for judgment on the pleadings this court conducts a de novo review." Id. (citing Eskew v. Cornett , 744 N.E.2d 954, 956 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), trans. denied ). "We look only to the pleadings in making this assessment. We will accept as true the well-pleaded material facts alleged. The moving party is deemed to have admitted well-pleaded facts in favor of the...