County Court sets aside Noblesville BZA Decision, denies Beaver's Application for Variance near Cherry Tree Meadows

Noblesville, IN— On October 9th, 2024, the Hamilton County Superior Court set aside the Noblesville Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) decision regarding Beaver Gravel Corporation’s (dba Beaver Materials) request for a variance to conduct sand and gravel extraction near the Cherry Tree Meadows neighborhood.

Last year, the Noblesville BZA had a public hearing on September 5th in a room filled to overflow capacity where twenty one members of the public spoke on the issue. The BZA later approved Beaver Materials’ application for a variance on October 2, 2023, in a split 3-2 vote. Following that, the Hamilton County Neighborhood Preservation Group proceeded to hire legal representation and file suit against the approval in the county court (read more about that in The Current).

In order for the Noblesville Board of Zoning Appeals to approve a Land Variance Application, they must determine that the application does not conflict with ANY of the following requirements:

1. The variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.

2. The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.

3. The need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved.

4. The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.

5. The approval does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan adopted under the 500 series of this chapter.

You can read the BZA’s rationale in their Findings of Fact document here.

A drone image of the Cherry Tree Meadows neighborhood (Photo courtesy of The Current via Peggy Kasprak)

The Hamilton County Superior Court ruling is decisive, setting aside the BZA’s decision on every single requirement.

Read the court document in it’s entirety here.

Requirement #1: The variance will not be injurious to public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the community.

The Court concluded that “the evidence submitted by Beaver was devoid of probative value and/or so proportionately meager as to lead to the conviction that the BZA conclusion on this Variance Requirement does not rest upon a rational basis.”

Requirement #2: The use and value of the area adjacent to the property included in the variance will not be affected in a substantially adverse manner.

The Court concluded that the two submitted property value studies by Beaver were not applicable to the issue at hand. Exactly stated as with Requirement #1, the Court determined that the “BZA conclusion on this Variance Requirement does not rest upon a rational basis.”

Requirement #3: he need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved.

“The Court concludes that the BZA findings are not based on substantial evidence. There is no evidence… to support a finding that the presence of sand and gravel in the Real Estate is peculiar or a unique physical condition to the Real Estate— in fact the evidence demonstrates otherwise.”
Furthermore, the Court “concludes that the remaining findings about sand and gravel minerals in general and the sand and gravel industry as a whole do not equate to ‘peculiarity’ in the Real Estate.”

Requirement #4: The strict application of the terms of the zoning ordinance will constitute an unnecessary hardship if applied to the property for which the variance is sought.

“The Court concludes that the BZA’s conclusion is contrary to binding precedent from the Indiana Supreme Court. The evidence in the Record shows the Real Estate is and can be put to conforming uses— residential and agricultural.”

Requirement #5: The approval does not interfere substantially with the comprehensive plan adopted under the 500 series of this chapter.

“The Court concludes that the Comprehensive Plan’s stated purpose for Preservation/Natural areas is in direct conflict with the evidence in the Record showing that mining is a high intensity use and ‘[m]ining is one of the most significant land altering forces on the planet, contributing heavily to environmental issues such as [] water pollution.’”

Finally the Court found that the “BZA Decision was in error because Beaver’s own authority established that the use approved by the variance will violate the UDO.” The UDO refers to the Unified Development Ordinance, a.k.a. city ordinance laws. Citing data from the Federal Transit Authority, and the admittance that Beaver would be using haul trucks and bulldozers at the cite, the Court noted that the equipment would exceed the decibel limits in Noblesville’s UDO. “The Court concludes that the BZA Decision was contrary to law.” You learn more about those Federal Transit numbers and city ordinances on our website here.

Just finding one of these requirements to be erroneous or unsubstantiated would have been enough to set aside the BZA’s approval. By setting aside all five, the Court has made it a challenging road should the Beaver Materials seek an appeal. Furthermore, there is now precedent to deny another land variance with similar conditions in the future.

While Don’t Leave it to Beaver was not involved in this challenge, we congratulate the members of the Hamilton County Neighborhood Preservation Group on their success and thank those volunteers and organizers for their part in making our community a safer place.