Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/07/2010

Home

;() '(J' '-,~ Zoning Bulletin November 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 21 {~. preserve property, and preserve the esthetic value of property and the nat- ural state of property. Liberty owned no property and paid no taxes. After the Commissioners adoption of the Ordinance, Liberty filed in trial court a complaint for declaratory judgment against the Com- missioners. Among other things, Liberty alleged that the adoption of the Ordinance was "arbitrary and capricious because the Commission- ers failed to reasonably consider the incompatibility of an institutional zone adjacent to [residential districts] under the terms of the [county's Unified Development Ordinances.]" The Commissioners filed a motion to dismiss Liberty's complaint. They argued that the complaint should be dismissed because Liberty lacked standing (i.e., the legal ability to bring the complaint in court) since Liberty: (1) did not own real estate within the rezoned tract; (2) did not own any property whatsoever; (3) did have a personal legal interest affected by the Ordinance; and (4) did not have a pecuniary injury not common to the community as a whole. Th.e trial court determined that Liberty lacked standing to bring the action because: it "own[ed] no real estate in the vicinity of the subject [rezoned land]"; and there was rio evidence 'that Liberty "somehow suffered a pecuniary loss." The court granted the Commissioner's mo-. tion to dismiss. Liberty appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The Court of Appeals of Indiana held th~t Liberty did not have standing to bring the action against the Commissioners because it suf- fered no direct harm from the rezone. The court explained that a party challenging a zoning ordinance and seeking declaratory relief must show that he has standing. To show that he has standing to challenge a rezoning Ordinance, he must show that a property right or some other personal tight will be directly affected by the rezone. He must also show that the rezone will cause him a pecuni- ary (i.e., financial) injury not common to the community as a whole. Although Liberty had acknowledged that it did not have standing as a private individual, it maintained that "the doctrine of 'public stand- ing' permitted it to proceed with its claims." The court disagreed. The. court explained that the "public standing doctrine" is an "ex- ception to the general requirement" that a party challenging a zoning decision "must have an interest in the outcome of the litigation differ- ent from that of the general public." The public standing doctrine-or the availability of taxpayer or citizen standing-"applies in cases where public rather than private rights are at issue and in cases which involve the enforcement of a public rather than a private right. The public standing doctrine, emphasized the court, is 'limited to extreme circum- stances and should be applied with 'cautious restraint.' ' Those seek- ing public standing for an action for declaratory relief must be persons @ 2009 Thomson Reuters 7 35