Opinion ID: 853628
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Chain Across the Street

Text: The Town claims the trial court erred in determining a taking occurred when the Town placed a chain across the unimproved portion of South Street, bordering Parker's property. (Appellant's Br. at 23.) [5] The record reveals that although Parker's property is subdivided as lots, it is functionally one inclusive piece of undeveloped land. The property is roughly rectangular, and it is bordered by three streets, or at least by right of way dedicated for future streets. Steam Mill Street is actually a paved street that runs along the northern edge of Parker's property. South Street is just two wheel tracks along the southern edge. (R. at 73, 197, 306, 320.) First, Second, and Third Streets run North to South; they are paved or rocked until they reach Ms. Parker's undeveloped holding. (R. at 357.) In sum, there are no paved streets leading into Parker's property. In the present case, the decision to place a chain across South Street did not deprive Parker of access to her property, as it is accessible by a wide variety of streets and rights of way. Parker presents no reason why access through South Street was particularly important or how her inconvenience in using the alternate routes was greater than that suffered by the general public. See Young v. State, 252 Ind. 131, 134, 246 N.E.2d 377, 379 (1969), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1038, 90 S.Ct. 685, 24 L.Ed.2d 683 (1970). [6] The facts presented at the evidentiary hearing do not support the trial court's conclusion that placing a chain at the point where paved South Street dead-ends into Parker's land constituted a taking.