Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/1998

Home

Page 6 -- September 10, 1998 Z.B. field. Except for the small office building, each was windowless and had garage-style metal doors to access the storage bays. The county zoning division recommended approving the application if the developers included a landscape buffer, stating the facility would be compat- ible with the area. The division also said the proposed use would generate substantially less traffic than would other permitted uses. Neighbors vehemently opposed the project. They said the facility wasn't needed, would increase traffic and noise, would decrease property values because of its industrial appearance, and wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing. One neighbor said the facility would be an eyesore and that any proposed land- scaping would be ineffective, claiming "it's almost like trying to put an elephant in a Volkswagen, you still know the elephant is there." The county commission denied the developers' application, finding the facility wouldn't be compatible with the area and would have an adverse impact on the area. The developers appealed to court. The court reversed the commission's denial of the variance, finding the evidence didn't support it. The court said the applicants were entitled to a spe- cial exception unless it would adversely effect the public interest. The court noted that the commission admitted the developers had met the statutory crite- ria and the only evidence against the facility was that of the neighbors who opposed it. The court said that although fact-based citizen testimony could be competent evidence, in this case it was merely opinion. The county appealed, claiming a court couldn't reverse a board's decision as long as it was supported by substantial evidence. DECISION: Reversed. The board properly denied the developers' request. The commission properly considered aesthetics when it examined whether the facility would be compatible with the area. Several neighbors character- ized the project as industrial and said it would be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood. One said the facility would be an eyesore that couldn't be hidden behind landscaping. This fact-based testimony regarding the aesthetic incompatibility of the project, combined with the site plan, elevation drawing, and the aerial photo- graph, constituted substantial evidence and supported the commission's deci- sion to deny the special exception. Revocation of Permit Board revokes variance after inspecting shooting club's property Citation: Brownsburg Conservation Club Inc. v. Hendricks County Board of Zoning Appeals, Court of Appeals of Indiana, 5th Dist., No. 32AO5-9708- CV-314 (1998) In 1956, the Brownsburg Conservation Club Inc. bought 20 acres of land in Hendricks County, Ind. It built a clubhouse, and conducted a variety of sports