Note: This message is displayed if (1) your browser is not standards-compliant or (2) you have you disabled CSS. Read our Policies for more information.
McFall, et al. v. Department of Natural Resources, 14 CADDNAR 25 (2015)
For consideration is a request for administrative review of the Department of Natural Resources’ issuance of a restoration order requiring the property owners to remove an addition made in 2012 to an abode originally constructed in the floodway of the Vermillion River in 1971, without having first obtained a permit. In this matter of apparent first impression the interpretation and application of Indiana Code § 14-28-1-26 and 312 IAC 10-4-3, which authorize a property owner to “make an addition to an abode constructed before January 1, 1973, if the addition would not increase the market value of the abode, excluding the value of the land, by more than fifty percent (50%)” of the value of the abode as originally constructed. Administrative Cause No. 12-211W
Larsh v. Howard &DNR, 14 CADDNAR 20 (2015)
For consideration is a riparian rights dispute on Yellow Creek Lake, a public freshwater lake located in Kosciusko County. Involved is the interpretation of an easement granted by a riparian owner to an owner of a lot possessing no interest in the shoreline of Yellow Creek lake. This matter is the progeny of two administrative causes decided previously by the Natural Resources Commission. See Howard v. DNR and Smith, 13 CADDNAR 36 (2012) and Gross v. IDNR and Howard, 13 CADDNAR 283 (2014). Administrative Cause No. 13-100W
Bull v. Trimmer, et al., 14 CADDNAR 10 (2015)
This proceeding required a determination of the appropriate use to be made of a “walk” located within the Wilcken Addition located adjacent to Shriner Lake in Whitley County, Indiana. Upon the specific facts established at the administrative hearing it was determined that the language of the Plat’s dedication relating to the “streets, walks and grounds adjacent to the waters of the lake” created an easement for use by the lot owners of the Wilcken Addition. Testimony describing the historical use of the areas was allowed for the purpose of clarifying ambiguities found to exist within the dedication language of the Plat. Administrative Cause No. 12-107W
Peavler v. City of Indianapolis and DNR, 14 CADDNAR 3 (2015)
For consideration was a petition for administrative review opposing the Department of Natural Resources’ issuance of a Special Purpose Deer Control Permit to the City of Indianapolis that authorized the taking of up to 350 deer from within Eagle Creek Park. Most notably the decision concludes that despite the contrary interpretation of the Department’s Division of Fish and Wildlife an administrative rule adopted at 312 IAC 9-10-11 under the authority of Indiana Code § 14-22-28 is applicable to the review of applications for Special Purpose Deer Control Permits. Administrative Cause No. 14-155D
DNR v. Alton, 14 CADDNAR 1 (2015)
This proceeding considers the Department of Natural Resources petition to revoke a permit issued under Indiana Code § 14-37 et seq. to drill and operate a well for oil and gas purposes. Administrative Cause No.13-177G
Cress v. Byer & DNR, 13 CADDNAR 279 (2014)
For consideration is a riparian rights dispute on Lake George, a public freshwater lake located partly in Steuben County. The decision construes multiple easements from a riparian owner to an off lake lot owner. Included is a definition of a “boatlift”. Administrative Cause No. 12-192W (Judicial Review filed by Cress on 10/01/14; Steuben Circuit Court: 76C01-1410-MI-0335) Update: On June 17, 2015, the Steuben Circuit Court entered its order of remand.
Miller, et al. v. Rogers Group, Inc. and DNR, 13 CADDNAR 298 (2014)
This proceeding considers the DNR’s approval of a permit application seeking authorization to conduct floodway construction activities contemporaneous with a planned stone quarry development. Claimants failed to identify existence of genuine issue of material fact associated with the potential for damage to fish, wildlife, and botanical resources (IC 14-18-1-22(e)(3)). Permit affirmed in all respects on motion for summary judgment. Administrative Cause No. 14-045W
Locust Street Company, Inc. v. Citation Oil and Gas Corp. and DNR, 13 CADDNAR 295 (2014)
This proceeding considers the necessity of an applicant for a permit to drill and operate an oil and gas well under I.C. 14-37 to establish ownership interest in the minerals within the drilling unit. The final order of the Natural Resources Commission determines that subsurface property interests, including interests in oil, gas and minerals are subject to the doctrine of accretion in the same manner as that doctrine governs surface property rights. Administrative Cause Nos. 13-101g and 13-104G
Moss v. DNR, 13 CADDNAR 259 (2014)
For consideration, is a DNR personnel action terminating the employment of a Division of Law Enforcement conservation officer. Administrative Cause No. 13-134L (Judicial Review taken by DNR on 05/30/14; Marion Circuit Court: 49D04-1405-PL-017919) Update: On December 19, 2014, the Marion Circuit Court entered its order vacating the Commission's decision and remanded. On January 8, 2015, Moss filed appeal. On July 9, 2015, Court of Appeals enters its memorandum decision.