« Environment - Arizona's Navajo and Hopi Tribes Battle for Water | Main | Indiana Decisions - One Court of Appeals Decision Posted Today »

Monday, June 07, 2004

Indiana Law - Two interesting reports dealing with real estate

First, this story in the Louisville Courier Journal headlined "New rules cool developers' plans: Floyd subdivision measure untested," that begins:

In a startling departure from recent years, not a single proposal for a new subdivision has been filed with the Floyd County Plan Commission so far in 2004.

In the first five months of last year, developers asked the plan commission to approve nine new subdivisions. Three were filed in the same period of 2002 and five in 2001.

The explanation for the difference depends on whom you ask.

Developers say the main reason is the stricter requirements of the new ordinance controlling subdivision design and construction that was enacted Jan. 1. But others say it's because developers, anticipating the ordinance, got a jump on subdivision plans last year.

The ordinance requires expensive studies and design work before a subdivision proposal can even be submitted to the plan commission for review, said D.J. Hines, one of Southern Indiana's biggest developers. And, he added, many developers are simply unwilling to take the risk of rejection.

Second, this interesting story in the South Bend Tribune, headlined "Ruling favors condo owners: Mishawaka mayor disappointed, plans to appeal bridge case," begins:
SOUTH BEND -- Condominium owners near Kamm Island are entitled to be compensated for their loss of a scenic view and the loss to freely use their property and the adjacent water because of a bridge built as part of a pedestrian walkway, a magistrate has ruled.

St. Joseph Circuit Court Magistrate David C. Chapleau ruled in favor of the condominium owners in their suit against the City of Mishawaka.

Owners of five Schellinger Square condominiums on the south side of the St. Joseph River near Kamm Island maintain the city's building of a foot bridge infringed on their rights and was an unlawful taking of their property.

A trial of their 2002 lawsuit seeking monetary damages was held in February.

Chapleau found the condominium owners prevailed on the issue of inverse condemnation but did not have sufficient evidence to prove two other theories. He appointed three appraisers to evaluate the property as part of the process of determining a dollar amount of damages.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on June 7, 2004 10:47 AM
Posted to Indiana Law