Court Opinion

ID: 9535193
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:46:31.075433+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:33:11.235643
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion
Bobbitt, C. J.
I concur in the result reached in the opinion by Landis, j. insofar as it holds that, the pro*680vision of the Ordinance in question is illegal as applied to appellees’ property involved herein for the following reasons:
Although the petition to the Zoning Board is loosely drawn, its effect is to seek a variance from the terms of the Ordinance.
It appears from the record here that appellees sought only to- have one paragraph of one section of the Zoning Ordinance of Mishawaka declared illegal and void as it affected and applied to three lots which they owned. The illegality arises out of a violation of their constitutional rights, and they have pursued the administrative remedy as provided by statute and the Ordinance before seeking a determination of their rights in the courts. See: City of E. Chicago v. Sinclair Ref. Co. (1953), 232 Ind. 295, 302, 303, 111 N. E. 2d 459; City of South Bend v. Marckle (1939), 215 Ind. 74, 82, 18 N. E. 2d 764.
Note.—Reported in 153 N. E. 2d 599.