Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/06/2009

Home

June 25,20091 Volume 3 I No. 12 Zoning Bulletin to "experience a substantial grievance, a denial of some personal or property right, or the imposition of a burden or obligation." In other words, in order to have a legal right to challenge the BZA's decision on North Fork's applications, the Remonstrators had to have: (1) their legal rights infringed by the BZA's decision; and (2) a pecuniary injury (i.e., financial injury) other than that sustained by the commu- nity as a whole. . Here, the court noted, the Remonstrators included: owners of land adjoining the Property; individuals who lived in close proximity to the proposed CAFO; and residents who had "general objections to the [CAFO] projects because of the potentiaL effects on public health and the welfare of the community." The court found that only the adjoining landowners could "validly claim to be an aggrieved party." They were the only group of the Remonstrators that alleged a spe- cial harm and an injury that was pecuniary. They had argued that a CAFO would devalue their adjoining properties, and the court found that their opinion as to the devaluation of their own properties was sufficient to "constitute a special ihjury and establish a potentialpe- cuniary harm." On the other ha~d\ the court found that individuals who lived in close proximity to the CAFOs and other residents with general objections had not shown that they would suffer a specific injury that: would affect them as a group; would not be sustained by the community as a whole; and was pecuniary in nature. See also: Bagnall v. Town of Beverly Shores, 726 N.E.2d 782 (Ind. 2000). Case Note: In its decision, the court noted that in order to be an aggrieved party, one did not have to bean adjoining landowner. However, the court acknowledged that determining that a party was an adjoining landowner made the determination of whether that party was aggrieved "easier." 12 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters " 162 . i ;