Rieth-Riley Construction Co., Inc., Appellant-Petitioner v. Tipton County Board of Zoning Appeals, Appellee-Respondent (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] After the Tipton County Board of Zoning Appeals denied Rieth-Riley Construction's application for a use variance, Rieth-Riley petitioned for judicial review. The trial court denied that petition, and Rieth-Riley appeals. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] Rieth-Riley is a highway paving company. In 2025, it arranged to buy land at 841 S 550 W in Tipton County, near the intersection of US 31 and State Road 28, with the intention of building an asphalt plant. The asphalt plant would be unenclosed and a “heavy industrial use[ ] involving intensive manufacturing,” “utilizing raw materials through high heat processes.” Appellant's App. Vol. 4 p. 182. As a result, operations would sometimes produce significant noise, odor, and truck traffic. Appellant's App. Vol. 5 pp. 52-64. Under the Tipton County Zoning Ordinance, the land at issue falls within two overlapping zoning districts: I-1 (Light Industrial) and the Prospect Overlay District, which establishes additional regulations for land use in the US 31 corridor (“Overlay District”).¹ An asphalt plant is not a permitted use in either zoning district, so Rieth-Riley applied for two use variances—one for each district—from the Tipton County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA).

[3] The zoning ordinance, tracking state law, provides that the BZA may approve a use variance only upon a determination in writing that:

A. The approval will not be injurious to the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the community;

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

C. the need for the variance arises from some condition peculiar to the property involved;

D. 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; and

E. the approval does not interfere substantially with the [Tipton County] Comprehensive Plan.

Appellant's App. Vol. 3 pp. 102-03 (Ord. § 806); see also Ind. Code § 36-7-4-918.4.

[4] Regarding the fifth prerequisite, the Tipton County Comprehensive Plan (“the Comprehensive Plan” or “the Plan”) is generally supportive of industrial development but expresses a clear preference for development that is “attractive” and “visually appealing.” Appellant's App. Vol. 3 p. 135. This preference is elevated for the Overlay District, especially the area around the intersection of US 31 and State Road 28. The Plan includes a section dedicated to the “US 31/SR 28 Area,” which describes those highways as “two major routes of increasing regional importance.” Id. at 138. The intersection “has emerged as the most significant opportunity for growth and development within Tipton County.” Id. The Plan establishes the following “Long Term Vision” for the area around the intersection:

The area surrounding the intersection of US 31 and SR 28 should be developed as a new commercial and industrial hub, strengthening Tipton County's position within the region and serving to attract new families and additional investment. Development in the US 31/SR 28 area should aspire to a higher standard than elsewhere in the County. When taken as a whole, all new and existing development in the US 31/SR 28 area should portray a positive image of the Tipton County community as a desirable place in which to work, shop, dine and raise a family.

Id. This part of the Plan also addresses the fact that the US 31/SR 28 area falls within the Overlay District:

The County established the [Overlay District] within the Zoning Ordinance to provide higher design standards for the areas within 1,000 feet of the U.S. Route 31 right-of-way as well areas within 1,000 feet of SR 28, one-mile east or west of U.S. Route 31. Given the area's importance to the broader Tipton County community and the need to create quality development that reflects the County's desire for signature development, regulations guiding development [ ] in the US 31/SR 28 area should be further bolstered.

Id.² A subsequent section of the Plan describes the US 31/SR 28 area as “a unique and important place within Tipton County” and states that the county should “consider the adoption of design guidelines that promote coordinated, attractive industrial development in a campus-like setting.” Id. at 164.

[5] After considering the voluminous documentary record and holding a lengthy hearing at which it heard from numerous witnesses, the BZA approved a variance for the I-1 district but denied a variance for the Overlay District. The BZA determined that Rieth-Riley had satisfied the first four prerequisites for both districts. As to the fifth prerequisite, however, the BZA concluded that while the proposed asphalt plant “adhered to the Comprehensive Plan's intention in the I-1 zoning district,” it “failed to adhere to the Comprehensive Plan's goals” for the Overlay District. Appellant's App. Vol. 2 p. 29. The BZA explained:

The Comprehensive Plan, which incorporates and references the [Overlay District], calls for light industrial uses in the U.S. 3l/State Road 28 corridor and overlay district. The Board made note that the petition called for heavy industrial or typical I-2 use. The [Overlay District] contains a list of non-permitted uses. One such non-permitted use is an asphalt or ready-mix plant. After hearing testimony from both the petitioner and remonstrators, the Board agreed that the Comprehensive Plan incorporates the [Overlay District] and further required that future industrial development in the U.S. 31 corridor comply with the regulations, goals, and vision set forth in the [Overlay District], such as commercial and light industrial uses.

Id. at 28-29.

[6] Rieth-Riley filed a petition for judicial review, which the trial court denied. The court concluded that the BZA's “denial of Rieth-Riley's use variance request from the [Overlay District] was supported by substantial evidence, was not arbitrary or capricious, and was not otherwise contrary to law.” Id. at 26.

[7] Rieth-Riley now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

[8] Rieth-Riley contends that the trial court erred by denying its petition for judicial review of the BZA's decision. “We review a decision of a zoning board by the same standard as the trial court.” Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. William J. Huff, II Revocable Tr., 274 N.E.3d 1020, 1029 (Ind. Ct. App. 2026). “In other words, we stand in the shoes of the trial court and owe no deference to its decision.” Id.

[9] Judicial review of zoning-board decisions is governed by Indiana Code sections 36-7-4-1601 through -1616. “The burden of demonstrating the invalidity of a zoning decision is on the party to the judicial review proceeding asserting invalidity.” I.C. § 36-7-4-1614(a). The reviewing court should grant relief only if it determines that the person seeking relief has been prejudiced by a zoning decision that is:

(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;

(2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;

(3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right;

(4) without observance of procedure required by law; or

(5) unsupported by substantial evidence.

Id. at (d). The court presumes the zoning board's decision is correct and affords it great weight, given the board's experience in the area. Burton v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Madison Cnty., 174 N.E.3d 202, 209-10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied. Therefore, the party urging reversal labors under a heavy burden. Id. at 210. A court can reverse the denial of a variance only if the evidence supporting each prerequisite is such that no reasonable person could fail to accept that prerequisite as proved. Boffo v. Boone Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 421 N.E.2d 1119, 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981).

[10] Here, the BZA determined that Rieth-Riley failed to satisfy the fifth prerequisite for a use variance: that approving its proposed asphalt plant would not substantially interfere with the Comprehensive Plan. Rieth-Riley argues that this decision was arbitrary, capricious, and unsupported by law or substantial evidence. We disagree. There is no dispute that the asphalt plant would be an unenclosed, “heavy industrial use” that would involve “intensive manufacturing” and “high heat processes” and would at times produce significant noise, odor, and truck traffic. Plainly, this is not the sort of industrial development the Plan envisions for the county generally or the US 31/SR 28 area specifically. The Plan provides that development in the US 31/SR 28 area—“a unique and important place within Tipton County”—should “aspire to a higher standard than elsewhere in the County” and “portray a positive image of the Tipton County community as a desirable place in which to work, shop, dine and raise a family.” The Plan's discussion of the US 31/SR 28 area also references “the need to create quality development,” “the County's desire for signature development,” and the promotion of “coordinated, attractive industrial development in a campus-like setting.” Rieth-Riley doesn't acknowledge most of this language in its briefs. While an unenclosed asphalt plant would serve an important purpose, most would not describe it as inviting, attractive, or “campus-like.”

[11] Rieth-Riley argues that reaching one conclusion as to the I-1 Light Industrial District and a different conclusion as to the Overlay District “makes no sense.” Appellant's Br. p. 24. That is, Rieth-Riley contends that its proposed asphalt plant either would or would not substantially interfere with the Comprehensive Plan, regardless of zoning district(s). It is true that the Plan expresses a desire for any industrial development in any zoning district to be “attractive” and “visually appealing.” But it is equally true, as detailed above, that the Plan repeatedly calls for special treatment for land in the Overlay District, in particular the US 31/SR 28 area. In short, proposals for land inside the Overlay District must be evaluated differently than proposals for land outside the Overlay District. That is exactly what the BZA did here.³

[12] For these reasons, we affirm the trial court's denial of Rieth-Riley's petition for judicial review.

[13] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The Prospect Overlay District was established in 2024, but the Tipton County Zoning Ordinance has included an overlay district for the US 31 corridor since 2008. The Prospect Overlay District replaced the “US 31/SR 28 Overlay District,” which in 2016 replaced the original “US 31 Corridor Overlay District.” Appellant's App. Vol. 3 p. 186; Appellant's App. Vol. 4 pp. 3, 10-19. The name changes have been accompanied by substantive changes, but none that matter to this appeal.

2.   The current comprehensive plan was adopted in 2013, so it references the original overlay, the “US 31 Corridor Overlay District,” rather than the new Prospect Overlay District. See note 1, above.

3.   Notably, the BZA previously granted Rieth-Riley a use variance for an asphalt plant on land outside the Overlay District, but Rieth-Riley was ultimately unable to acquire that land. Appellant's App. Vol. 5 pp. 104-05, 143-45.

Vaidik, Judge.

Altice, J., and Foley, J., concur.