Legal Opinion · Dissent

Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals v. Gunn

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided April 23, 1985No. 2-583A157Published

1DissentConover, Judge

I respectfully dissent. The majority has misconstrued the statute at issue herein. The trial court correctly interpreted IND. ~CODE 14-3-3.2-2 as limiting single family dwellings within the historic preservation district to occupancy by only one family. The majority states this language appears to be in conflict with IC 16-10-2.1-6.5 which prohibits exclusion of residential facilities based on lack of a family relationship between the residents. I see no conflict, however.

IC 16-10-2.1-6.5 refers to zoning ordinances adopted under IC 18-7(86-7). This statute, however, deals with local…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Higgins v. HaleIndiana Supreme Court · 1985
  2. Indiana State Highway Commission v. Bates & Rogers Construction, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1983
  3. State v. SouderIndiana Court of Appeals · 1983

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API