Laserfiche WebLink
<br />November 10, 20091 Volume 3 I No. 21 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />general welfare." In short, as long as the reasonableness of the Code was <br />"fairly debat,able," it would be upheld. <br />Here, the court found that the Code's limitation of only one exten- <br />sion of time was "completely reasonable!' Establishing standards for <br />the processing of subdivision applications was within the police power <br />of the county. Establishing such standards "necessarily include[d] insti- <br />tuting a timeline for the development of subdivisions." Providing such <br />a timeline "prevent[ed] prolonged development projects," thus serving <br />several zoning purposes, including: preventing visual blight, stabiliz- <br />ing neighborhoods, maintaining neighborhood property values, and <br />pres'erving the character of the community. Allowing for one extension <br />provided: "a safety valve for applicants that incur unexpected prob- <br />lems in submitting the final plat, while at the same time serving the <br />[c]ounty's interest in ensuring timely development." Furthermore, the <br />Code's preclusion of subsequent time extensions was especially reason- <br />able given the facts that: (1) the Board was not even required under the <br />Code, to provide for a first time extension; and (2) in the absence of an <br />extension, applicants were still given two years to obtain approval of a <br />final plat. . I <br /> <br />See also: Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 <br />S. Ct. 114, 71 L. Ed. 303, 4 Ohio L. Abs. 816,54 A.L.R. 1016 (1926). <br /> <br />Case Note: Dry Creek had asked the Board to grant a second ex- <br />tension for "equitable reasons." The court noted that because of <br />the express language in the Code, allowing for only one time ex- <br />tension, granting a second extension would have been a directv'io- <br />lation of the Code. . <br /> <br />Standing-County commission rezones property <br />so as to permit hospital construction <br /> <br />,."'- <br />( ) <br /> <br />(J <br /> <br />Community landowner association challenges rezone decision <br /> <br />'Citation: Liberty Landowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Porter County Com'rs, <br />2009 WL3094940 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) <br /> <br />INDIANA (09/29/09)-In 2008, at the request of Northwest <br />Health, the county commissioners (the "Commis'sioners") adopted a <br />rezoning ordinance (the "Ordinance"). The Ordinance rezoned certain <br />land in the county from "residential" to "institutional," thus permit- <br />ting hospital construction on the land. ( ) <br />Liberty Landowners Association, Inc. ("Liberty") was a voluntary not- ,,--. <br />for profit community association. It was formed in part to protect and <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />34 <br />