Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Page 8 - August 25. 2004 <br /> <br />Z.B. <br /> <br />Noland appealed. <br />DECISION: Denial affirmed. <br />There was sutficient evidence to support the BZA's denial of the applicaIion. <br />The various bndowners' testimony supponed the decision with substan- <br />tial and reasonable evidence. The noise. traffic. and dust suggested the race- <br />track could be hazardous to the neighbors. <br />see also: Windy Point Panners LLC v. Boone Counry, 100 S. W3d 82] (2003). <br />see also: Cousin's A.dvenising v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Kansas CifY, 78 <br />S. W3d 774 (2002). <br /> <br />Rezoning - ~ieighboring property owner sues <br /> <br />Rezoned parcel approximately one-half mile away <br /> <br />Citarion: Reed v. Plan Commission, Courr of A.ppeals of Indiana, 3 rd Dist., <br />1\/0. 45A03-0401-CV-7 (2004) <br /> <br />INDIANA (06/29/04) - ATG Develooment Comoanv oetitiofled the Munster <br />. J...L ...I. <br /> <br />Plan Commission to rezone its property in Lake County. <br />The parcel had originally been zoned for manufacturing. ATG wanted it <br />rezoned co commercial and multi-family residential use. <br />The plan commission made a favorable recommendation, and the parcel <br />was eventually reloned. <br />Reed, a neighboring property owner, sued. The coun ruled in favor of the <br />co [P..lnissio 0, finding Reed had no injury caused by the rezoning that would <br />allow him to sue. <br />Reed appealed, arguing the increased traffic and environmental harm caused <br />by the rezoning ga'ie him the nght to sue. <br />DECISION: Affirmed. <br />Reed cOLlld not challenge the rezoning with a lawsuit. <br />Reed's home was approximately one-half mile away from the rezoned prop- <br />erty. Thus, Reed could not show he was aggrieved by the rezoning simply due <br />[0 his proximity. <br />Reed also faIled to allege injuries that were somehow unique to him as a <br />result of the rezoning. His allegation of harm caused by increased tr3.ffic and <br />vanousenvironmencal concerns was nothing other than that sustained by the <br />comrnunity ~lS a whole. \Vithout a special injury to himself Reed could not <br />sLlsrain his personallawsuir. <br />The cornmissiol1' s decision had [() infringe on a ie:pi right that would be <br />enlarged Jr Jlrrllnishcd ;J.S ~l result ,of che appeal. Coless Reed could show a <br />specl~ll ,nj my i)cher than chat susnmed by [he c'ommuoHY ~lS a whole. he couid <br /> <br />, . , , '.' -' . . <br />DOC cr:ng- Slll[ '-)0 C'enai~ \)I [he COOlilll1!11i:Y. <br /> <br />Sc:! . Bt)-gn,ci'! '>-'. T)~/v!1 '?r'Bevert'~/ Shores, -:6 .\I.E.~~i ,7"32 i ~OI)O_!. <br /> <br />:;,'c':! ,~us(): <br /> <br />~ ~ <br />Dr)FS2t.;\ .... .1 i)i,l/'}l <br /> <br />S/. ../:)_h i'!, <br /> <br />_\/.E.}' ~i :: j ,7 2003-, <br /> <br />104 <br /> <br />,~ 2!~\JLi :Lilnj2.n::'..:~nS!1lnl~ :.f':;UC. ":nv .,~:)rCCLC;ons :rcr:IGHec. :='-:r :T)Of2 -nrcrma[!cn :i82se :2.1i r" . -:;J.2..)OrlB. <br />