The Gary Post Tribune has a story today on the Indiana Supreme Court's decision Tuesday in Chester Borsuk v. Town of St. John (1/4/05 IndSCt) [access ILB summary here - 2nd case]. Some quotes from today's story:
The decision by the town of St. John in a zoning case more than four years ago was legal, the Indiana Supreme Court decided this week. The state’s top court upheld the town’s denial of a rezoning at a U.S. 41 intersection.Posted by Marcia Oddi at January 6, 2005 07:39 AMIt said, in a case watched by municipal attorneys around the state, that a town’s comprehensive plan is “an important ground, but not the only ground” for zoning decisions.
David Austgen, St. John’s town attorney, said the decision “protects the process as we know it. All the factors are to be considered (in a zoning case),” he said. “When they are all considered, the discretion of the Town Council is preserved as a decision-maker.” * * *
[Chester Borsuk, the developer who asked for the rezoning] wanted to rezone half a lot at U.S. 41 and 109th Avenue from residential to commercial; the lot’s other half already was zoned for business. A house sits on the lot’s residential-zoned half, but the other half, which fronts U.S. 41, is vacant. A couple of businesses are just north of the lot.
The Town Council rejected a rezoning request in September 2000 after residents of nearby homes said a business there would aggravate traffic congestion at the already-busy corner. They said 109th Avenue was too narrow to handle the traffic.
Borsuk and his attorney, Michael Muenich, contended that the town should have granted the rezoning because the town’s comprehensive plan calls for commercial zoning along U.S. 41.
A Lake County court agreed with the town’s decision, but the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed it last December. The town appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion, released Tuesday, was written by Chief Justice Randall Shepard. A comprehensive plan is a blueprint for a community’s development, it said, “but implementing the plan as regards (to) a given piece of real estate may not be the best course of action for the community on a given day.”