Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/04/2007

Home

Page 8 - December 10, 2006 Z.B. did not have standing to bring the lawsuit; and the trial court had erred in finding that the proposed development was subject to subdivision !approval. The appeals court ruled that, to have standing, a party had to cl~arly show . present or threatened injury to a property right that was distinguishable from an injury to the general public. Shults had standing to sue in court b~cause she lived in the same zoning district as the proposed dev~lopment and!she would have been directly affected by the result of a subdivision review. . However, the court also ruled that the trial court erred by findilng ,that the proposed condominium development required subdivisionapprov:al.' Liberty Cove was correct in its contention that, in 1983, when tl1e property was created, subdivision review was required only if the lot size was 20 acres or less. The court stated that a.division of land that was specifically exempt from subdivision review by applicable local zoning ordinances could !be diviqed 'lawfully under the Act. The judgment of the trial court was therefore reversed. see also: Dreher v. Fuller, 849 P.2d 1045 (1993). - Ordinance - Quarry claims it cannot operate business New weight restrictions much lower than weight of its trucks Citation: Prairie Material Sales Inc. v. Lake County Council, Court of Appeals of Indiana, No. 37A03-606-CV-123 (2006) INDIANA (1Oi19/06) - Prairie Material Sales Inc. leased a quarry in Lake County. Prairie trucks carrying mined rock from the quarry routinely bore loads up to 36 tons. After an engineering study, the Lake County Council passed an ordinance establishing a 15-ton weight limit on several roads surroundingth~ quarry. The only other means of access to the quarry was via a bridge over wmchloads greater than eight tons were not permitted. . Prairie sued, and the court ruled in favor of theicounty.Praitieappealed, arguing that it could not operate the. quarry under the new restriqtiqns. DEClSION:Af1irmed. Prairie failed to show the lower court's decision was wrong~ Itiwas PraiPe' s burden to show L~e County's actions prevented the complete.u,seand alien- ation of its mineral resources. The only evidence that Prairie submitted was uthe unsupported assertion that the quarry could only be operated by using 36-ton semi truqks. Addition- ally, Prairie adrilitted that the ordinances allowed for the use of 15t-ton trUc~son the surrounding streets and did not ban trucks outright. Since Prairie could use smaller trucks to transport minerals frq>mthe quarry, it failed to show that Lake County's actions prevented a complete use of its mineral resources. see also: Bemstein v. Glavin, 725 N.E.2d 455 (2000). @2006 West, a Thomson business. Quinlan™ is a Thomson West brand. Any reproduction is prohibited. 148 ( (..