The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that local zoning boards lack authority to revoke conditional use permits months after approval, establishing new precedent that protects property developers from arbitrary government reversals of zoning decisions.
In *Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Bedford Recycling, Inc.*, decided November 13, 2025, the court held that the Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals exceeded its authority when it revoked a scrap metal facility permit 11 months after initially granting approval. Justice Molter authored the majority opinion, with Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa and Slaughter concurring. Justice Goff dissented in part.
The case began in fall 2021 when Bedford Recycling sought approval to build a scrap metal collection and sorting facility on property zoned for mineral extraction in Monroe County. Since scrap metal recycling was not a presumptively allowed use under county ordinance, Bedford Recycling applied for a conditional use permit.
The Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals granted the conditional use permit through a final order, allowing Bedford Recycling to proceed with its facility plans. The company likely began making investments and preparations based on the approved permit.
However, 11 months later, the BZA took the unusual step of revoking the permit. The board claimed it had made a legal error in the original approval and concluded upon further reflection that the facility did not satisfy the requirements for a conditional use permit.
This revocation prompted Bedford Recycling to file suit in Monroe Circuit Court, challenging the board's authority to rescind an already-approved permit. The case eventually reached the Indiana Supreme Court through petition to transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals.
The central legal question before the court was whether zoning boards have inherent or common law authority to reconsider their final orders when no statute explicitly grants such power. The court's analysis focused on the scope of municipal zoning authority and the finality of administrative decisions.
Justice Molter wrote that no Indiana statute authorizes zoning boards to reconsider their final orders. The court examined whether such authority could exist through inherent powers or common law principles.
The majority concluded that zoning boards do not possess inherent or common law authority to revoke conditional use permits after final approval. This ruling establishes that once a zoning board issues a final order granting a permit, that decision cannot be unilaterally reversed based on the board's later reconsideration of the legal standards.
The decision protects property developers and business owners from arbitrary government action. It ensures that once zoning approval is granted through proper procedures, property owners can rely on that approval for planning and investment purposes.
The ruling also clarifies the limits of local government zoning authority. While zoning boards have broad discretion in evaluating initial permit applications, they cannot use claims of legal error to retroactively undo decisions months after approval.
Justice Goff's partial dissent suggests some disagreement within the court about the scope of the ruling, though the specific nature of the dissent was not detailed in the available court documents.
The case has significant implications for municipal zoning practices across Indiana. Local zoning boards must now ensure their initial permit decisions are carefully considered, as they will have limited ability to reverse course once final orders are issued.
For property developers, the ruling provides important protections against retroactive zoning changes. Businesses can proceed with development plans with greater confidence that approved permits will not be arbitrarily revoked.
The decision may also influence how zoning boards structure their approval processes. Boards may implement more thorough review procedures upfront to avoid situations where they later question their own decisions.
Legal experts will likely examine this ruling's impact on administrative law more broadly. The principle that administrative bodies cannot reconsider final orders without statutory authority may apply beyond zoning cases to other areas of local government decision-making.
The case was argued before the Indiana Supreme Court on June 5, 2025, and decided five months later. The opinion originated from Monroe Circuit Court Case No. 53C06-2209-MI-1773, with Judge Kara E. Krothe presiding, and reached the state supreme court through Indiana Court of Appeals Case No. 23A-MI-1729.
This ruling joins a growing body of law defining the relationship between local government zoning authority and property rights, establishing clearer boundaries for municipal decision-making power in land use matters.