Court Opinion

ID: 9712698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 04:58:34.374201+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:13.797260
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
concurring in result.
The first step in determining the constitutionality of a statute or ordinance is to extract its meaning, purpose and seope. Board of Com'rs. v. Kokomo City Plan Commission, (1975) 263 Ind. 282, 330 N.E.2d 92. In pertinent part, these ordinances seek to subject a particular type of established nonconforming use to extinguishment by amortization. The Decatur County ordinance applies the amortization technique to uses of "land not involving any structure" and to "Any building or structure ... with a fair market value of less than $500.00". The *1061Ripley County ordinance applies it to "open use of land" and within the terminology utilized, "land" is either hopelessly ambiguous or it refers to an area without related and appurtenant buildings. At the outset, I am led to the conclusion that neither ordinance is intended to subject an established non-conforming use of a yard surrounding a private regidence to extinguishment by amortization. Accordingly, I would vote to reverse these judgments on this legal basis, and await a more appropriate occasion to deal with the constitutional issues, even though the parties may have limited the appeal to them.