Court Opinion

ID: 9721702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:05:43.427277+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:28.187124
License: Public Domain

Concurring and Dissenting Opinion
Bobbitt, J.
I concur with the majority opinion in holding that Ordinance 38-A is invalid, and in affirming the judgment of the trial court against appellant, Southport Board of Zoning Appeals, but dissent from the remainder of the opinion.
First: Section 11 provides that the ordinance shall be administered by the Town Engineer, and any person “claiming to have been adversely affected” by any decision of the Town Engineer, made in the enforcement of the ordinance, may appeal to the Board of Zoning Appeals.
Appellants, Johnson, et al., not being parties to the building permit are not, within the meaning of the ordinance, “adversely affected” by the action of the Town Engineer in issuing the permit, and they could not, therefore, avail themselves of the administrative remedy of appeal as provided in the ordinance. Fidelity Trust Co. v. Downing (1946), 224 Ind. 457, 463, 68 N. E. 2d 789.
I concur in the affirmance of the judgment against appellant, Southport Board of Zoning Appeals, because the appellants, Johnson, et al., were not proper *143parties to appeal, as provided by the ordinance, from the issuance of the building permit by the Town Engineer.
Second: The building permit here was issued under the provisions of Ordinance 38 of the Town of South-port. Section 2 of such ordinance provides,
“The territorial area comprising the Town of Southport is hereby classified as (1) Residential, (2) Commercial. All trade and commercial structures shall be in keeping with the community, to complement, but not degrade, existing standards ; and all plans of and concerning such structures and calling shall be subject to approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals.”
The plans for the structure here involved were never submitted to the Board of Zoning Appeals as provided by Section 2, supra. The issuance of the permit by the Town Engineer, under the circumstances here, did not endow it with legality. City of Indianapolis v. Ostrom Realty, etc., Co. (1932), 95 Ind. App. 376, 384, 176 N. E. 246.
In my opinion the building permit under which appellee, Southside Ready Mix Concrete, Inc., has attempted to construct a concrete batching plant is void for failure to comply with the requirements of the zoning ordinance and is subject to attack in a proceeding to enjoin the construction of the plant. Fidelity Trust Co. v. Downing, supra (1946), 224 Ind. 457, 68 N. E. 2d 789. The parties herein have pursued that remedy.
Third: Section 17 provides, inter alia, “Any building erected, ... in violation of any provision of this ordinance or of the requirements thereof, is hereby declared to be a nuisance and as such nuisance it may be abated in such manner as nuisances are *144now, or may hereafter be abated under existing law. All the provisions of this ordinance or orders of the Board of Zoning Appeals, may be enforced by injunction or other proceedings according to law.”
Section 17 of Ordinance 38, as above noted, declares that any building erected in violation of any of the provisions or requirements thereof is a nuisance and may be abated in such manner as may be provided by law.
If the construction of such plant here involved is permitted, under the circumstances as shown by the record before us, it will be an, express violation of the provisions of Ordinance 38, supra,. Although it may not be a nuisance, per se, however, if appellants, Johnson, et ah, show that such plant is being erected in defiance of some provision of a valid ordinance and that its construction will work special damages to them and their property, they are entitled to relief by injunction. Fidelity Trust Co. v. Downing, supra (1946), 224 Ind. 457, 464, 68 N. E. 2d 789. In my opinion appellants, Johnson, et al., have made such a showing in this case.
The statute of 1955, to which reference is made in the majority opinion, provides an administrative procedure under which “appeals” may be taken from an action of the Board of Zoning Appeals to the courts. The Town Engineer herein is only the administrative officer charged with the administration of the ordinance under the direction and supervision of the Board of Zoning Appeals. His action in • issuing or refusing- a building permit is not a final judgment from which an appeal to the courts will lie, as the majority opinion indicates.
The remedy here was by injunction against appellees, to enjoin them from proceeding with the con*145struction of the plant because such construction would be in express violation of a valid ordinance. Fidelity Trust Co. v. Downing, supra (1946), 224 Ind. 457, 464, 68 N. E. 2d 789.
All appellants, Johnson, et al., are attempting to do is to prevent the use of an illegal building permit, in' express violation, of a valid ordinance. Neither Warren v. Indiana Telephone Co. (1940), 217 Ind. 93, 26 N. E. 2d 399, nor Mann v. City of Terre Haute (1960), 240 Ind. 245, 163 N. E. 2d 577, has any application to the factual situation here.
I would reverse the judgment against appellants, Johnson, et al., with instructions to grant their motion for a new trial.
Note. — Reported in 176 N. E. 2d 112.