This post was authored by Sebastian Perez, Esq.
Joseph and Sherry Chapo (the “Chapos”) owned 100 acres in Deputy, Indiana (the “Subject Property”) and sought from the Jefferson County Board of Zoning Appeals (“BZA”) a conditional use permit to sell guns and operate a future shooting range. The BZA approved the sale of guns but denied the Chapos’ request to operate a range but the shooting range continued to operate through the company name—Deputy Big Shot, LLC—without the necessary permit. The Chapos’ failure to comply prompted the Jefferson County Zoning Enforcement Officer (the “Enforcement Officer”) to order compliance twice which again went ignored and resulted in the Jefferson County Plan Commission (the “Commission”) filing a complaint for an injunction and damages alleging the Chapos were violating Jefferson County Zoning Ordinance (the “Zoning Ordinance”). The trial court granted a preliminary injunction barring the Chapos from operating a shooting range on their property. The Chapos filed an interlocutory appeal which while pending, the trial court deemed the Chapos in contempt for continuing to operate the shooting range in violation of the preliminary injunction while the appeal was pending. The Court of Appeals of Indiana (the “Court”) later affirmed the preliminary injunction. The Chapos later moved under Indiana Trial Rule 60(B) for relief from the preliminary injunction and contempt findings but the Court affirmed. Meanwhile, the Chapos had moved for summary judgment in the trial court, which, instead, granted summary judgment to the Jefferson County Plan Commission (the “Commission”) finding the Chapos had violated a lawful zoning ordinance by initiating and operating the shooting range on their property. The trial court’s order provided a 90-day deadline for the Chapos to come into compliance or risk the Commission (or any other entity authorized by Jefferson County) to enter the property and remedy the violations. The Chapos appealed the judgment.
Before the Court, the issues on appeal are (1) whether the Chapos are barred from challenging the Commission’s denial of the conditional use permit; and (2) whether the trial court erred in (i) ordering that county officials could enter the Chapos’ property to remedy the ordinance violations; (ii) fining the Chapos $209,625; and (iii) requiring the Chapos to pay the Commission’s attorney fees of $27,490.78.
On the first issue, the Court determined that the Chapos were barred from challenging the Commission’s denial per Indiana Code Sec. 36-7-4-1604 (the “Statute”) because they failed to timely object within the prescribed time and therefore waived their right to judicial review. However, the Chapos allege that the Statute is inapplicable because the BZA’s underlying decision was void for two reasons: (1) they assert the Indiana Shooting Range Protection Act (ISRPA) prohibited the BZA’s denial of the conditional use permit, and (2) they argue that the BZA lacked legal authority to deny the conditional use permit because (i) the Zoning Ordinance did not limit shooting ranges, and (ii) given the lack of any zoning limitations, the BZA, therefore, violated the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution by requiring the Chapos to obtain a conditional use permit before operating the shooting range; and (3) the BZA and Commission members failed to take their oath and were thus not members entitled to vote on the conditional use permit.
The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Chapos failed to establish the ISRPA barred the BZA’s denial of their conditional use permit or rendered that decision void because the subject shooting range was not developed before July 1, 1996, as the ordinance required and therefore fell outside the ISRPA’s safe harbor provisions. The Court then swiftly dealt with the Chapos’ argument that the BZA lacked standing to sue, because its board members had not timely taken an oath of office, by rejecting it based on collateral estoppel as that point had already been addressed in a prior proceeding. The Court finally dealt with the Chapos’ last claim which challenged the sanctions imposed by the trial court and determined such imposition was proper based on the Zoning Ordinance and Indiana Code Sec. 36-7-4-1014(f) and therefore not an abuse of discretion.
Chapo v Jefferson County Plan Commission, 224 N.E. 3d 971 (IN App 12/7/2023)