Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1603

Standing

Applied in 4 court decisions — leading case HRC Hotels, LLC v. Metropolitan Board of Zoning Appeals Division II of Marion County, Indiana, Jeffrey R. Baumgarth and The Myers Y. Cooper Company (2014)

Most recently applied in Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals, and Al-Salam Foundation, Inc. v. David Bidgood, Sheila M. Graves, Salvatore Papalardo, David J. Reeves, and Angelo R. Stanco (March 2019)

As added by P.L.126-2011, SEC.50

How often courts cite this section

2014201910
citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

Sec. 1603. (a) The following have standing to obtain judicial review of a zoning decision:

(1) A person to whom the zoning decision is specifically directed.

(2) A person aggrieved by the zoning decision who participated in the board hearing that led to the decision, either:

(A) by appearing at the hearing in person, by agent, or by attorney and presenting relevant evidence; or

(B) by filing with the board a written statement setting forth any facts or opinions relating to the decision.

(3) A person that is a public use airport owner or operator has standing to obtain judicial review of a zoning decision that may have a negative impact on the safety of civilian or military flight operations to or from the airport.

(4) A person otherwise aggrieved or adversely affected by the zoning decision.

(b) A person has standing under subsection (a)(4) only if:

(1) the zoning decision has prejudiced or is likely to prejudice the interests of the person;

(2) the person was eligible for an initial notice of a hearing under this chapter, was not notified of the hearing in substantial compliance with this chapter, and did not have actual notice of the hearing before the last date in the hearing that the person could object or otherwise intervene to contest the zoning decision;

(3) the person's asserted interests are among those that the board was required to consider when it made the challenged zoning decision; and

(4) a judgment in favor of the person would substantially eliminate or redress the prejudice to the person caused or likely to be caused by the zoning decision.

Official source: Indiana General Assembly. Reproduced from public-domain Indiana statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.