Legal Opinion · Dissent

Miller v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Rochester

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided December 20, 1979No. 3-978A219Published

1DissentStaton, Judge

I dissent. There is no evidence to support the Rochester Board of Zoning Appeals’ determination that Thermogas, Inc., endures the “unnecessary hardship” which is a statutory prerequisite to obtaining a variance. IC 1971, 18-7-5-82, Ind.Ann.Stat. § 53-969 (Burns Code Ed.).1 The Majority’s reliance on the existing nonconforming use enjoyed by Thermogas to justify the variance grant contravenes the well-recognized principle that the expansion or enlargement of nonconforming uses subverts the ultimate purposes of zoning. Jacobs v. Mishawaka Bd. of Zon. App. (1979), Ind.App., 395 N.E.2d 834, 836.

Si…

2Cases cited15 opinions

  1. Matter of Otto v. SteinhilberNew York Court of Appeals · 1939
  2. City of East Chicago v. Sinclair Refining Co.Indiana Supreme Court · 1953
  3. Brackett v. Board of AppealMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1942
  4. Heffernan v. Zoning Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Rhode Island · 1929
  5. Jacobs v. Mishawaka Board of Zoning AppealsIndiana Court of Appeals · 1979

10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API