## Facts

- Pinnacle Media, LLC leased land and erected outdoor advertising billboards, typically by securing needed permits and then leasing advertising space.
- In July 1999, Pinnacle asked Indianapolis’s Department of Metropolitan Development (DMD) about permits for billboards on property owned by the Hoosier Heritage Port Authority along a railroad corridor near Interstate 465.
- DMD responded in letters that the area was effectively unzoned and that DMD lacked jurisdiction to issue or require an improvement location permit for the proposed signs.
- Relying on those letters, Pinnacle pursued a plan to place billboards at points where the railroad right-of-way intersected or ran with interstate rights-of-way by (1) leasing the sites, (2) obtaining Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) permits, and (3) building without seeking City permits.
- Pinnacle erected two billboards in 1999 under this approach.
- Pinnacle then pursued 15 additional billboards, filing INDOT applications through April 19, 2000; INDOT initially denied the applications and Pinnacle appealed administratively.
- On July 10, 2000, Marion County amended its zoning ordinance to classify previously unzoned lands (including these sites) and to require City improvement location permits for billboards in interstate highway rights-of-way.
- About a year later, INDOT issued permits for 10 of the 15 proposed billboards; Pinnacle began work on at least one site without a City permit.
- The City issued a stop-work order and required compliance with the amended ordinance’s permitting requirement.

## Issues

1. Whether Pinnacle obtained vested rights to build the 10 permitted billboards such that the post-application zoning amendment could not be applied.
2. Whether the City’s earlier written statements and Pinnacle’s reliance barred enforcement of the amended ordinance (including by equitable estoppel).
3. Whether a zoning amendment may be applied to projects that were planned, leased, and pending before the amendment where no vested right had attached.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment entered for Pinnacle.
- The Court held Pinnacle did not acquire vested rights to build the 10 billboards before the July 10, 2000 amendment.
- The Court held the amended zoning ordinance applied to the 10 billboards and the City could require improvement location permits.
- The Court held the City was not estopped by its 1999 letters from enforcing the amended ordinance.
- On rehearing, the Court adhered to its merits decision.

## Legal Principles

- In Indiana land-use law, vested rights generally require issuance of the necessary governmental approval under existing law plus substantial good-faith reliance through construction or comparable commitments.
- Filing applications, incurring planning or leasing costs, or obtaining approvals from a different regulator does not, by itself, create a vested right against later local zoning regulation.
- Informal or interpretive communications from officials do not confer a permanent entitlement comparable to a permit and do not prevent prospective legislative zoning changes.
- Equitable estoppel against government entities is applied sparingly and will not ordinarily bar enforcement of zoning amendments adopted through normal governmental processes.
- Absent a vested right or statutory protection, zoning disputes are governed by the law in effect at the time of decision, allowing amendments to apply to pending proposals.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court held that Pinnacle’s INDOT permits, expenditures, and reliance on the City’s earlier jurisdiction letters did not create vested rights or estop the City, so the July 10, 2000 zoning amendment requiring City improvement location permits validly applied to Pinnacle’s 10 proposed billboards.


Metro. Dev. Comm’n of Marion Cnty. v. Pinnacle Media, LLC, 836 N.E.2d 422 (Ind. 2005)