Chris Sikich

chris.sikich@indystar.com

When a sheriff's deputy pulled into Tracy Pielemeier's driveway in rural Westfield last fall, she feared the worst.

"I thought, 'are my kids in trouble?'", she recalled. "He said I was being sued and my mouth dropped open and my mind began racing for anything in my past. We don't make those kinds of errors here at my house."

The deputy was there to serve her a lawsuit. Shaken, she looked at the document. She was being sued by Houston-based Crown Castle, a cellphone company. The picture began to fall in place. Pielemeier was among several residents who had spoken in October against the company's petition to the local Board of Zoning Appeals to build a cellphone tower near 166th Street and Towne Road. The board denied the petition after hearing public testimony that it would look intrusive.

The company sued the board and the five remonstrators in Hamilton Circuit Court to reverse the decision.

"We were all just completely stunned," Pielemeier said, adding she felt Crown Castle was trying to intimidate them for speaking out.

The judge ultimately told the board to reconsider the decision and did not directly consider whether the remonstrators should have been named in the suit. But the remonstrators' lawyer, former Fishers Board of Zoning Appeals member Jeff Heinzmann, worries that including remonstrators in such lawsuits could make citizens hesitant to speak up at government meetings.

"The biggest concern I would have would be that if remonstrators start as a matter of routine getting sued by the petitioner who failed to get something approved, it would have a chilling effect on those who want to stand up and speak out," he said.

Attorneys who handle such cases told IndyStar it's not common or legally required for such remonstrators to be sued. After all, they have no vote in whether a project gets approved and no direct financial interests. Such suits do not seek damages. They seek the reversal of board decisions.

According to Indiana Code, people can intervene in court if they make the case that they are "aggrieved" by the decision, meaning they are impacted in a direct way.

Heinzmann himself had never heard of remonstrators such as Pielemeier — who have no direct interest in the land and were simply speaking their opinion on the record — being sued in such a case and could find no such examples in subsequent searches.

In a prepared statement, Crown Castle spokeswoman Zenia Zaveri said the company's legal counsel believed state law required them to include the remonstrators in the lawsuit because they went on the record in opposition to the proposal.

"In filing our petition, Crown Castle interpreted and followed Indiana state law with input from local outside counsel that is well-established in the state. Crown Castle has not sued and has not sought relief from any remonstrator. However, since the remonstrators went on the record in opposition to our proposal — even though they did not have any interest in the land — we were required by law to name and notify them of our petition."

Rather than seeking to be dismissed from the case, the majority of the remonstrators decided to use the opportunity to take another bite of the apple in court. They argued in court in April against placement of the cellphone tower at 166th and Towne. They thought it would look less intrusive a few blocks away near a water tower.

Residents in the area have been trying to slow and limit development to retain their rural lifestyles. Across the street from the proposed cell tower, Pulte Homes is considering a golf course community that has raised concerns.

Pulte proposes massive Westfield housing development

When the case was argued in court, Crown Castle took the position that the Westfield residents who spoke at the meeting were not aggrieved and had no standing to argue against the tower in court. Heinzmann noted in his arguments that was contradictory to them being included in the lawsuit in the first place.

Judge Paul Felix agreed that the residents have no legal standing in his court and ordered the board to reconsider its ruling, saying the board needed to make a more clear argument as to why the tower was denied. Legally, he said the board needed to list specific ways the cell tower would hurt property values or future development, for instance.

The board approved the cellphone tower in July.

Call IndyStar reporter Chris Sikich at (317) 444-6036. Follow him on Twitter: @ChrisSikich and at facebook/chris.sikich.

116th, Gray closes for roundabout construction

Residents protest Hamilton County roundabout

Download the Indystar App