Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/05/1995

Home

Page 8 -- June 1995 Z.B. water leaving the site after construction would be the same and would not im- pact the neighbors. In fact, one of M&M's engineers acknowledged that the increase in roads, parking lots, and roofs would further burden existing drain- age patterns. The problems that could arise from storm runoffs included over- flows on existing roads. M&M sued, asking the court to set aside the board's decision. The court granted M&M's request and ordered the board to approve the plans and autho- rize construction. The board appealed. DECISION: Reversed, board's decision reinstated. The board's decision to deny the subdivision was supported by evidence. M&M's engineer acknowledged that M&M did not meet the drainage require- ments.'The board asked M&M to provide specific information regarding drain- age, and the information M&M provided did not satisfy the town engineer. Therefore, the board could properly deny the application. Jurisdiction -- Challenger Skips Step in Lawsuit Against Board Shil~shewana Convenience CorR. v. Board of Zoning Appeals of LaGrange County, 644 N.E. 2d 581 (Indiana) 1994 The Board of Zoning Appeals.for LaGrange County, ][nd., approved'Parish's application for a variance. Shipshewaha Conveni6nce Corp. claimed the deci- sion was illegal. Under state law, people who believed a board decision was illegal had 30 days to ask a court to review the decision. They also had to get from the court a notice stating that the board had 20 days to "show cause" why the request for review should not be granted. This notice had to be served on the board. Thirty days after Parish's variance, Shipshewana sued the board. The com- pany had a county sheriff serve the board with a summons and the petition, but did not get or serve a notice to show cause. Its summons did not contain the words "show cause" or notify the board that state law gave it 20 days to show cause why the request for review should not be granted. The board asked the court to dismiss the case, claiming Shipshewana's failure to get a notice to show cause took away the court's jurisdiction. The court granted this request. Shipshewana appealed, arguing that the court was wrong to dismiss its case and that the dismissal denied it due process of law. DECISION: Affirmed. The court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and the dismissal did not deny Shipshewana due process. Shipshewana did not follow the statutory procedures for review of an administrative decision. Therefore, the court could not get any jurisdiction over the parties or the case. The dismissal did not vio- late Shipshewana's due process rights. The company had an opportunity to get the decision reviewed, but its own failures caused the court to dismiss its case. Due process did not give Shipshewana the right to evade statutory review re- quirements.