Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/1999

Home

Page 2- April 10, 1999 Z.B. ~ Standing- Can planning commission challenge county council's zoning decision? Citation: Lake County Plan Commission v. County Council of Lake County, Court of Appeals of Indiana, 3rd. Dist., No. 45-AO3-9802-CV-78 (1999) A developer asked the Lake County (Ind.) Plan Commission to rezone its property from agricultural to conditional development. The developer sought the rezoning so it could build a municipal solid waste landfill. The plan commission held a public hearing and recommended denying the developer's request. The commission forwarded its findings and its recom- mendation to the county council. After holding a public hearing, the county council amended and then approved the developer's rezoning application. The plan commission sued the county council, apparently seeking to over- turn the council's decision. The council claimed the plan commission had no fight to challenge the council's rezoning decision. Under state law, a person challenging a zoning decision must have a "substantial grievance, a denial of some personal or property right." The plan commission claimed it had a "real controversy" with the council because the council violated state law by amending and approving the developer's rezoning request without sending it back for the plan commission's recommendation on the amendment. The commission claimed it had a per- sonal and legal interest in ensuring that the council followed zoning laws. At the counciI's request, the court dismissed the commission's complaint. The commission appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The trial court properly dismissed the plan commission's lawsuit. The plan commission didn't show the county council's decision jeopar- dized the commission's personal interests. The council directed its rezoning decision toward the public, not toward the plan commission. The neighbors affected by the council's rezoning decision were the ones who could challenge the council's decision M the plan commission wasn't a governmental watch- dog over the personal rights of others. see also: Town of Munster. v. Hluska, 646 N. E. 2d 1009 (1995). Discrimination -- Developer wants permit to increase number of units to keep cost affordable to disabled Citation: Hemisphere Building Co. Inc. v. Village of Richton Park, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 98-1660 (1999) The 7th Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Hemisphere Building Co. Inc. Wanted to build four-unit residences, specially designed to meet the needs of wheelchair-bound people, on a lot that was slightly larger than an acre. The lot, which already had one single-family home on it,