Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/01/1997

Home

Page 4 - June 10, 1997 Z.B. had to show the zoning classification was detrimental to the property's development. When an ordinance was challenged, the issue was whether the zoning classification deprived an owner of its property rights without due process - not whether the land would be more profitable if rezoned. The owners in this case didn't show that the residential zoning classification imposed a significant detriment to their rights as landowners. They proved only that their land would reap greater financial benefits from a rezoning. The court was wrong to base its decision solely on the profitability issue, or on the fact that development would be more difficult under the existing classification. see also: DeKalb County v. Chamblee Dunwoody Hotel Partnership, 281 S.E.2d 525 (1981). see also: Flournoy v. City of Brunswick, 285 S.E.2d 16 (1981). q~ Special Exception - Did gun club prove it wouldn't harm rural community? Crooked Creek Conservation and Gun Club v. Hamilton County North Board of Zoning Appeals, 677 N.E.2d 544 (Indiana) 1997 Crooked Creek Conservation and Gun Club wanted to move its trap- and skeet-shooting operation to Hamilton County, Ind. The property Crooked Creek wanted to move to was zoned for agricultural, large-lot residential, and flood- plain uses. Under the county's zoning ordinance, gun clubs were allowed in that zone as special exceptions. Crooked Creek applied to the county Board of Zoning Appeals for a special exception. For the board to grant a special exception, it had to first determine that the proposed use would meet three conditions: It wouldn't harm the public health, safety, and general welfare; wouldn't adversely affect property values; and would be consistent with the neighborhood's character. Crooked Creek presented evidence its club would meet all three conditions, but protesting county residents presented evidence to the contrary. A toxicologist's letter stated the lead shot the club used tended to be pulverized into fine dust when it hit a target, and that the mobile dust could harm children in the area. A real estate appraiser said the gunfire noise would reduce property values, and the developer of a local subdivision said someone had conditioned the purchase of his property on the denial of Crooked Creek's plans. The board denied Crooked Creek the special exception, finding the club would cause public health hazards and would adversely affect property values. Crooked Creek appealed to court, and the court upheld the board's denial. Crooked Creek appealed. It said that because it presented enough evidence that it met the three special-exception conditions, the board was required to grant it the special exception. Also, it argued, not only had it presented enough evidence to support granting the exception, but the residents hadn't presented enough evidence to support denial. DECISION: Affirmed. Even if Crooked Creek showed it met the three conditions, the ordinance -, f i /