Laserfiche WebLink
118 <br /> <br />Page 4 -- February 10, 2004 <br /> <br /> would exacerbate it. A local school principal testified increased traffic could <br /> pose a physical danger to his students, and the town plan commission found <br /> the rezoning wo.uld not promote the health, safety, comibrt, morals, conve- <br /> nience, or general welfare. The commission also found Borsuk's proposal <br /> wouldn't conserve local property, values. <br /> Based on the above evidence, the town denied Borsuk's request. <br /> Borsuk sued, and the court ruled in the town's favon <br /> Borsuk appealed, arguing the denial was arbitrary and capricious. Spec/fi~ <br />cally, he claimed the town's comprehensive plan indicated the area where his <br />property was located was supposed to be zoned for commercial use and his <br />property was the only lot on the block restricted to non-commercial uses. <br />DECISION: Reversed. <br /> The town's decision was wholly contrary to its own comprehensive plan, <br />Consequently, it was arbitrary and capricious. <br /> Borsuk's land was surrounded by commercial uses, and the comprehen- <br />sive plan indicated his property was intended to be part of a commercial area. <br />However, because the splk zoning of the land prevented Borsuk from building <br />a structure on his lot, he could not use it commercially. <br /> The town's comprehensive plan called for the area to' be zoned commer- <br />cial at some point in the future. Borsuk's parcel was the only plot of land on <br />the entire block not zoned in such a manner. Unless there were compelling <br />reasons to do otherwise, a municipality in such circumstances had to comply <br />with its comprehensive plan's vision and rezone the area for commercial use. <br />Failure to do so would render the comprehensive plan-meaningless. <br />Citation: Bors~& v. Town of St..fohn, Court of Appeals of Indiana, 3rd Dist., <br />No. 45AO3-O305-CV-]96 (2003). <br />see also: Reinkin,g v. Metro Board of' Zoning Appeals of Marion Co,tory, 671 <br />X£.2d ]37 (1996). <br />see also: Scott v. City, of Seymour, 659 N.£.2d 585 (]995). <br /> <br />Nuisance -- Landowner waits to contest new building <br />Neighboring home obstructs lake view <br /> <br />MICFE[GAN (12/16/03) -- Lingeman owned four platted lots in Macatawa <br />Park, a lake resort community. She built a cottage on two of these lots, and <br />later conveyed the other two lots to her son. Her son built a home on the lot <br />next to Greer's cottage. <br /> Greer complained the new home was a nuisance because it violated sev- <br />eral provisions of the 'township's zoning ordinance. Greer sued, as!ting the <br />court to order the home to be moved or razed. <br /> The court ruled [n favor o~' Lingeman, finding Greet had waited too long to <br />file his complaint. Greet appealed, ag'..fin asking for the new home to be removed. <br />Greet claimed ail four lots were considered one iot under the ordinance, the <br /> <br /> <br />