On March 28, 2013, the Town of Fortville adopted Resolution 2013–3A, which proposed to annex 5,944 acres of land adjacent to Fortville. On July 14, 2014, following notice and a public hearing on the matter, Fortville adopted Ordinance 2013–3A, which proposed to annex a reduced area of 644 acres of land (the Annexation). The Annexation was surrounded on three sides by Fortville’s boundaries. In addition, Fortville adopted a fiscal plan and policy for the Annexation.
On October 11, 2013, the Remonstrators — who consisted of ninety-three percent of the owners of the parcels in the Annexation — filed their petition remonstrating against the proposed annexation. On October 30, 2013, Fortville filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the petition remonstrating against the proposed annexation.
The trial court denied the annexation, ruling in favor of the Remonstrators, and the Town appealed.
On appeal, Fortville argued that the trial court erred when it failed to apply substantial deference to Fortville’s adoption of an annexation ordinance — a legislative function delegated to the Fortville Town Council by the Indiana General Assembly. Fortville also contended that the trial court erred when it found that Fortville had not presented evidence that the area to be annexed was needed and could be used for Fortville’s development in the near future.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the trial court erred by applying the wrong evidentiary standard when analyzing Fortville’s need to annex the area and plans for the areas development. The Court concluded that a municipality need not demonstrate immediate plans to build on the annexed land in order to show that it needs and can use the land for its development in the reasonably near future.
“To allow the trial court’s order to stand would be to hold that a city — if it does not have impending plans to build on land that it seeks to annex — must sit and watch the land be used and developed in ways that might harm or impede its future plans for urban management of the land, until the “long-term inevitability” of annexation takes place. This result would be bad policy and likely harm both the area to be annexed and the municipality that seeks to annex it. Thus, we determine that the trial court should not have limited its analysis to evidence of physical construction or development in determining whether Fortville fulfilled the requirements of Indiana Code section 36–4–3–13(c)(2).”