Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />June 25, 2009 I Volume 3 I No. 12 <br /> <br />Case Note: New Sun had also challenged the validity of the ap- <br />pointment of Stansbury as the county zoning inspector. Although <br />Stansbury had been appointed by the Board in 1995, the county <br />ordinance that established the position of county zoning inspec- <br />tor had been deleted in 2006. New Sun argued that the 2006 <br />deletion divested the appointment of Stansbury. The court dis- <br />agreed, saying "[t]he mere act of amending [the ordinance did] <br />not have the effect of nullifying the hiring decision and appoint- <br />ment made by the Board in 1995." . <br /> <br />Standing-Group of residents challenge BZA <br />decision on special exceptions <br /> <br />BZA argues residents lack standing to challenge decision <br /> <br />, <br />Citation: Benton County Remonstrators v. Board of.Zoning Appeals <br />of Benton County, 905 N.E.2d 1090 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) <br /> <br />INDIANA (05/15/09)-North Fork Farms, LEC ("North Fork") <br />sought to develop a confined animal feeding operation ("CAFO").In <br />furtherarice of that development, North Fork filed two applications <br />for special exception with the courity board of zoning appeals (the <br />"BZA"). The applications sought permission to place a CAFO on <br />two separate parcels of land (the "Property"). <br />Eventually, the BZA granted both of North Fork's appli- <br />cations. Thereafter, the Benton County Remonstrators (the <br />. "Remon:strators")-a group of county residents-brought a legal ac- <br />tion appealing the BZA's decision. <br />The trial court ultimately dismissed the Remonstrators' action. It <br />did so upon finding none of the Remonstrators had standing (i.e., <br />the legal right) to bring the action because none of the residents <br />were "aggrieved." <br />The Remonstrators appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Remanded. <br /> <br />, ' <br />The Court of Appeals of Indiana held that some of the Remonstra- <br />tors had standing, while others did not. <br />l The court explained that in order to have standing to bring their <br />action challenging the BZA's decision, the Remonstrators had to be <br />"aggrieved" by the BZA. To be aggrieved, the Remonstrators had <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />161 <br />