# Bradley Burgess v. The Board of Zoning Appeals for the Town of Utica, Indiana

> Indiana Court of Appeals · September 9, 2025

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11135069

## Case

- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** September 9, 2025
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion by Judge Pyle
- **Judges:** Weissmann, Pyle III, Felix
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11135069

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “a board of zoning appeals makes its decision at the conclusion of the hearing on the matter” and that the “findings of fact, while essential to judicial review, are not a separate, appealable decision of the board.”

## Opinion text

IN THE

Court of Appeals of Indiana FILED
Sep 09 2025, 8:56 am

Bradley Burgess, CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Appellant-Petitioner Court of Appeals
and Tax Court

v.

The Board of Zoning Appeals for the Town of Utica, Indiana,
Appellee-Respondent

September 9, 2025
Court of Appeals Case No.
24A-PL-1819
Appeal from the Clark Superior Court
The Honorable Kyle P. Williams, Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
10D06-2208-PL-89

Opinion by Judge Pyle
Judges Weissmann and Felix concur.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1819 | September 9, 2025 Page 1 of 12
Pyle, Judge.

Statement of the Case
[1] Bradley Burgess (“Burgess”) appeals the trial court’s order denying his petition

for judicial review. The trial court’s order affirmed the decision of the Board of

Zoning Appeals for the town of Utica (“the BZA”) that denied him a variance

of use for his real estate. Burgess argues that the trial court erred when it found

that: (1) the BZA’s decision is supported by substantial evidence; and (2) the

BZA’s decision did not violate the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act (“the RLUIPA”). But, because we find that Burgess did not timely

petition for judicial review of the BZA’s decision and that the trial court erred

when it found and concluded that he had timely filed his petition, we dismiss

his appeal.

[2] We dismiss.

Issue
Whether Burgess timely petitioned for judicial review of the BZA’s
decision.

Facts
[3] In 2016, the town of Utica annexed the Utica Ridge area. Utica also

established a tax increment financing allocation area (“the TIF”). Utica

planned on using the TIF to “set[] aside new tax revenue from certain

development types to underwrite the cost of public facilities and infrastructure

needed for and by development.” (App. Vol. 2 at 40). Also in 2016, the East

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1819 | September 9, 2025 Page 2 of 12
End Bridge and the Highway 265 interchange near Old Salem Road were

completed. In 2019, the town of Utica approved the Utica Ridge Master Plan

(“the master plan”) and incorporated it into the Utica comprehensive plan.

[4] In May 2020, Burgess purchased a parcel of real estate on Old Salem Road

(“the real estate”). The real estate was roughly two acres in size and was

located near the interchange with Highway 265 and Old Salem Road. The real

estate was also located in the Utica Special Development Corridor Zone, in the

TIF, and in the Commercial Gateway area of the master plan. The area in

which the real estate sits was zoned for mixed use residential and retail.

According to the master plan, the use for the geographic area in which the real

estate sits included: (1) general and professional office spaces; (2) small medical

offices; (3) food services and restaurants; (4) general retail services; (5)

entertainment venues; and (6) boutique hotels.

[5] In March 2022, Burgess filed his variance of use application (“the application”)

with the BZA. The application requested the BZA to allow a use variance for

Burgess to construct an 11,000 square foot church with a 400 square foot

covered drive-through on the real estate. The application further provided that

Burgess, who is the pastor of a church currently based in Louisville, Kentucky,

wanted to relocate his church to Utica.

[6] In April 2022, Burgess met with the Technical Review Committee of the BZA

and was made aware that the real estate was part of the TIF. In preparation for

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1819 | September 9, 2025 Page 3 of 12
the May 2022 BZA meeting in which the application would be discussed, the

town planner (“the town planner”) prepared a report for the BZA to review.

[7] On May 3, 2022, the BZA held a meeting during which the BZA discussed the

application and reviewed the town planner’s report. Burgess, Burgess’ engineer

that helped draft the application, the town planner, the town attorney, and the

BZA members attended the meeting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the

BZA unanimously denied the application. The minutes specifically provided

that “[a]fter discussion, Linda Donovan made a motion to deny the variance

based upon the 5 criteria not being met. The motion was seconded by Doug

Snead. Motion carried unanimously.” (App. Vol. 2 at 178). On July 5, 2022,

the BZA held a meeting during which it adopted the minutes from the May 3,

2022 meeting and entered its findings of fact on its decision to deny the

application.

[8] On August 4, 2022, Burgess filed with the trial court a verified petition for

judicial review and complaint for damages. In his complaint, Burgess asserted

that his petition for judicial review had been timely. In its answer, the BZA

denied Burgess’ assertion that his petition had been timely filed.

[9] In January 2024, the trial court held a hearing on Burgess’ petition for judicial

review. During the hearing, Burgess argued that the findings of fact adopted by

the BZA at their July 5, 2022 meeting was “the decision that is being appealed

in this particular instance.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 11).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1819 | September 9, 2025 Page 4 of 12
[10] The BZA’s counsel argued that Burgess had not timely filed his petition for

judicial review because it had been filed “more than thirty (30) days after the

decision of the [BZA].” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 15). The BZA counsel further argued

that on May 3, 2022, “there [had been] a motion and there [had been] a vote”

and, at that time, “the official action of the [BZA] was a denial of the use

variance.” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 17). The BZA counsel also argued that the BZA took

official action on May 3, 2022 because that decision had been “authorized by a

majority of the [BZA].” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 17). Further, the BZA counsel argued

that there was “nothing in the statute that says the [BZA] has to have written

memorialization of an opinion or of a vote for it to be an official action of the

[BZA].” (Tr. Vol. 2 at 18). In response, Burgess argued that “administrative

boards live through their minutes” and that the written decision did not exist

until the July 5, 2022 BZA meeting. (Tr. Vol. 2 at 20).

[11] In July 2024, the trial court issued an order denying Burgess’ petition for

judicial review and affirming the BZA’s decision. In its order, the trial court

stated, in relevant part, as follows:

10. At its July 5, 202[2] meeting, the BZA adopted the minutes of
the May 3, 2022 meeting and adopted the findings of fact
applicable to its decision on the application[.]

*****

11. The Minutes and the Findings constitute the BZA’s written
decision.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1819 | September 9, 2025 Page 5 of 12
12. Burgess filed the instant Verified Petition for Judicial Review
and Complaint for Damages on August 4, 2022. Burgess now
seeks judgment on the administrative record.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

*****

15. Pursuant to Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1605, the Verified Petition
was filed within thirty (30) days after the date the BZA rendered
and memorialized its decision on the Burgess’s variance request
on July 5, 2022.

(App. Vol. 2 at 5-7).

[12] Burgess now appeals.

Decision
[13] Burgess argues that the trial court erred when it affirmed the BZA’s decision

denying the application. INDIANA CODE § 36-7-4-1614(d), the statute that sets

forth the standard of review for a reviewing court in the context of a zoning

board decision, provides that a reviewing court:

shall grant relief . . . only if the court determines that a person
seeking judicial 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;

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1819 | September 9, 2025 Page 6 of 12
(4) without observance of procedure required by law; or

(5) unsupported by substantial evidence.

“‘[W]hen, as here, the trial court enters specific findings of fact and conclusions

of law, we determine first whether the evidence supports the findings and

second, whether the findings support the judgment.’” Edward Rose of Indiana,

LLC v. Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Div. II, Indianapolis-Marion Cty., 907 N.E.2d

598, 602 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (quoting Green v. Hancock Cty. Bd. of Zoning

Appeals, 851 N.E.2d 962, 965 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (cleaned up), trans. denied.

[14] As we review the trial court’s specific findings of fact and conclusions of law,

we must first address the dispositive issue of whether the trial court correctly

found that Burgess had properly complied with INDIANA CODE § 36-7-4-1600 et

seq. (“the 1600 series”). The 1600 series provides the procedures that a party

must comply with to seek judicial review of a BZA decision. The interpretation

of ordinances and statutes is a question of law that we review de novo.

Noblesville, Indiana Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. FMG Indianapolis, LLC, 217 N.E.3d

510, 514 (Ind. 2023).

[15] INDIANA CODE § 36-7-4-1602(b) provides that:

[o]nly a person who qualifies under:

(1) section 1603 of this chapter concerning standing;

(2) section 1604 of this chapter concerning exhaustion of
administrative remedies;

(3) section 1605 of this chapter concerning the time for
filing a petition for review; and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1819 | September 9, 2025 Page 7 of 12
(4) section 1613 of this chapter concerning the time for
filing the board record for review;

is entitled to judicial review of a final zoning decision.

INDIANA CODE § 36-7-4-1605 provides that a “petition for review is timely only

if the petition for review is filed not later than thirty (30) days after the date of the

zoning decision that is the subject of the petition for judicial review.” (emphasis

added).

[16] Burgess argued before the trial court that his petition for judicial review was

timely because it had been filed within thirty days of the BZA’s July 5, 2022

meeting during which it had entered findings of fact on the application. The

BZA, on the other hand, argued that Burgess’ petition for judicial review was

not timely because the BZA made its final decision at the May 3, 2022 meeting.

We agree with the BZA.

[17] We find the case Town of Darmstadt v. CWK Investments-Hillsdale, LLC, 114

N.E.3d 11 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018), trans. denied, to be instructive. In Darmstadt,

CWK Investments filed with the town a permit to construct multiple apartment

buildings. A review committee denied the permit, and CWK Investments

appealed to the board of zoning appeals. At a June 15 meeting, that board of

zoning appeals voted to reverse the committee’s decision and to grant the

permit.

[18] In response, the town filed two petitions for judicial review. The town filed its

first petition on July 11. On August 17, the board of zoning appeals issued its

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1819 | September 9, 2025 Page 8 of 12
findings of fact on its decision. On September 5, the town filed its second

petition challenging the decision. CWK Investments filed motions to dismiss

both petitions, arguing that the first petition should be dismissed because the

town had not filed the record with the trial court within thirty days and arguing

that the second petition should be dismissed because it had not been filed within

thirty days of the June 15 decision of the board of zoning appeals. In response,

the town argued that it had filed its second petition within thirty days of the

board of zoning appeals’ findings of fact. The trial court dismissed both

petitions and found that the second petition was not timely because the board of

zoning appeals had made its decision on June 15.

[19] On appeal, our Court held that “a board of zoning appeals makes its decision at

the conclusion of the hearing on the matter. The findings of fact, while

essential to judicial review, are not a separate, appealable decision of the

board.” Darmstadt, 114 N.E.3d at 17. In support of its holding, our Court cited

to INDIANA CODE § 36-7-4-919(e), which provided, in relevant part, that a

board of zoning appeals “shall make a decision on any matter that it is required

to hear under the 900 series . . . at the conclusion of the hearing on that

matter[.]”1 Id. at 14 (emphasis added by Darmstadt). Additionally, our Court

reviewed the language of INDIANA CODE § 36-7-4-1605, which provides that a

“petition for review is timely only if the petition for review is filed not later than

thirty (30) days after the date of the zoning decision that is the subject of the

1
The language of INDIANA CODE § 36-7-4-919(e) has not changed since our holding in Darmstadt.

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1819 | September 9, 2025 Page 9 of 12
petition for judicial review.” Id. (emphasis added). We pointed out that “there

is nothing in [INDIANA CODE § 36-7-4-1605] that says that a petition is timely

only if filed within thirty days from the date the board enters its findings of fact”

and that “[h]ad the legislature intended for the findings of fact to constitute a

decision of the board of zoning appeals that triggers judicial review, it could

have included language in Section 36-7-4-1605 to that effect.” Id. Our Court

concluded that, based on the language of the relevant statutes, it was “clear that

the legislature intended for a petitioner to petition for judicial review based on

the decision that the board made at the hearing, not based on its findings of

fact.” Id. at 16.

[20] Furthermore, our Court also found instructive, as we do now, the cases of Biggs

v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of City of Wabash, 448 N.E.2d 693 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983)

and Hoagland v. Town of Clear Lake Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 871 N.E.2d 376 (Ind.

Ct. App. 2007).2 In Biggs, the issue was whether a board of zoning appeals

made its decision at the hearing during which it voted to deny Biggs’ variance

or when the board of zoning appeals approved its minutes from the meeting.

Our Court held that the board’s decision was made at the hearing because

minutes “are not the event, but a record of the transpired event.” Biggs, 448

N.E.2d at 694. Our Court held that because Biggs had not filed the petition for

2
Both Biggs and Hoagland were decided prior to the current statutory provision requiring the board of zoning
appeals to file a copy of its decision in the board of zoning appeals’ office within five days of making a
decision. See I.C. § 36-7-4-919(f).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1819 | September 9, 2025 Page 10 of 12
writ of certiorari3 within thirty days of the board of zoning appeals’ decision at

the hearing, the trial court correctly dismissed his petition. Id.

[21] Further, in Hoagland, the board of zoning appeals held a hearing and made a

decision on the Hoaglands’ petition on December 20, 2005. The Hoaglands

filed a petition for judicial review on January 19, 2006, however, the Hoaglands

did not served all the parties in the case. Ultimately, the trial court dismissed

the Hoagland’s petition. On appeal, the Hoaglands argued that the decision of

the board of zoning appeals had not been on December 20, 2005 because the

board of zoning appeals did not issue findings of fact. Hoagland, 871 N.E.2d at

382-83. The Hoagland Court recognized that the Hoaglands were making the

same arguments as the appellants in Biggs and noted that “the Hoaglands were

aware of the BZA’s December 20, 2005 decision.” Id. at 383. The Hoagland

Court concluded that, like in Biggs, the Hoaglands “were required to file a

petition for [judicial review] and serve the required notices within thirty days of

the BZA’s December 20, 2005, decision and failed to do so.” Id. The Hoagland

Court held that the Hoaglands’ failure to comply with the statute was fatal and

that the trial court did not err when it dismissed their appeal. Id.

[22] Here, the BZA held a meeting on the application on May 3, 2022. At the

conclusion of that meeting, the BZA voted to deny the application. Thus,

pursuant to our case law and INDIANA CODE § 36-7-4-1605, Burgess was

3
Prior to 2011, a petitioner filed for judicial review of a board of zoning appeals’ decision by filing a petition
for writ of certiorari. See I.C. § 36-7-4-1003 (2010).

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1819 | September 9, 2025 Page 11 of 12
required to file his petition for judicial review within thirty days of May 3, 2022.

Instead, Burgess filed his petition for judicial review on August 4, 2022.

Therefore, the trial court clearly erred when it found that Burgess had timely

filed his petition for judicial review.

[23] Because Burgess did not timely file his petition for judicial review and the trial

court clearly erred when it found that he had timely filed his petition for judicial

review, we hold that Burgess is not entitled to judicial review under the 1600

series and dismiss Burgess’ appeal. See, e.g., Darmstadt, 114 N.E.3d at 17

(holding that “a board of zoning appeals makes its decision at the conclusion of

the hearing on the matter” and that the “findings of fact, while essential to

judicial review, are not a separate, appealable decision of the board.”).

[24] Dismissed.

Weissmann, J., and Felix, J., concur.

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT
John A. Kraft
Young, Lind, Endres & Kraft
New Albany, Indiana

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE
Rebecca L. Lockard
Jeffersonville, Indiana

Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 24A-PL-1819 | September 9, 2025 Page 12 of 12

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11135069. Public record. Not legal advice.