Court Opinion

ID: 9730763
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:22:55.751544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:05.849351
License: Public Domain

Opinion on Petition for Rehearing
Sullivan, J.
Appellants herein have filed their petition for rehearing which, insofar as deemed pertinent, alleges that our decision of May 4, 1970, 146 Ind. App. 652, 257 N. E. 2d *660839, was erroneous in its recollection of what evidence was introduced below. Said petition reads, in part, as follows:
“* s= that the sole evidence before the Board of Zoning Appeals, and before the Court below upon review, concerning the issue of unchanged circumstances and prior denials, was a statement by counsel for the remonstrators at the time of the original hearing before the Board of Zoning Appeals. Actually, there was introduced into evidence the Director’s Statements in Petition No. 67-V4-96 which clearly showed previous filings. (Tr. pp. 95-96).”
Detailed re-examination of appellants’ brief upon the merits and appellants’ reply brief fails to disclose any statement, allegation or contention by appellants that any such exhibit was offered or admitted. In this connection it is well established that this court does not search the record in order to reverse the judgment or decision below. Yuhas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division (1969), 145 Ind. App. 625, 252 N. E. 2d 254.
In the interest of clarity, however, we have examined the transcript in its entirety. Despite appellants’ failure to mention it in their briefs we find that a statement by the director of the Metropolitan Plan Commission concerning the variance petition filed by the Harpers was, in fact, admitted into evidence. Said statement reads as follows:
“The staff strongly recommends denial of this petition as it is in conflict with the existing character established in the area and the Comprehensive General Land Use Plan.

History of this Intersection

1. A service station was granted (50-V-65) for the southeast corner of this intersection 4-13-65.
2. Petition 50-V-65 was appealed (65-DA-9) and denied 5-13-65.
3. A service station was denied in April, 1966, (66-V4-22) for the southeast (sic) corner. (Emphasis supplied)
4. Petition (66-V4-224) was withdrawn for the same location 1-10-67.
*661There is no reason to justify a change in policy at this intersection as nothing has changed to date.
This proposal would establish a business operation in a completely residential area of fine, well-maintained homes. Furthermore, said business — specifically a service station— would set a precedent for expansion of commercial activity. The operational characteristics are wholly inconsistent with a residential district. These consist of such things as a commercial structure, large lighted signs, several small signs, lights, noise, dirt and increased concentrated traffic all of which would lower residential property values. Although the present residential lot is occupied by an aging house, the property is of sufficient size, and is well related to other residential properties to be continued in residential use.
There are well-planned commercial centers existing or proposed at the following locations:
1. Approximately 6 acres of commercial y% mile south at Meridian and Stop 11.
2. Approximately 1 mile south at the proposed new Stop 11 there are 4 acres of commercially zoned land.
3. Approximately 90 acres zoned between Stop 10 and Stop 11 at Shelby and U.S. #31.”
It is noted that nowhere in the “History of this Intersection” or elsewhere in the Director’s Statement is any mention made of the southwest corner of the intersection in question. The variance petition granted herein specifically sought rélief for the southwest corner of the intersection. If anything, therefore, the Director’s Statement directly controverts the gratuitous comment by counsel for the remonstrators heretofore quoted in the opinion on the merits.
We deny appellants’ petition for rehearing.
Lowdermilk, C.J., Carson and Cooper, JJ., concur.
Note. — Reported in 258 N. E. 2d 866.