Board of Zoning Appeals v. Elkins

6 Citing cases

  1. City of Hobart Common Council v. Behavioral Institute of Indiana, LLC

    785 N.E.2d 238 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003)   Cited 20 times
    In Hobart, the court held that a party requesting a zoning variance was denied due process where it had presented argument before the BZA, but had not been notified of the proceeding before the town council.

    Id. When a trial court conducts a writ of certiorari of a BZA hearing (or by extension, the common council), it must determine that the decision was correct as a matter of law. Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Elkins, 659 N.E.2d 681, 683 (Ind.Ct.App. 1996) (citing Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Gunn, 477 N.E.2d 289, 294 (Ind.Ct.App. 1985)). The trial court may not conduct a trial de novo, and may not substitute its decision for that of the BZA absent a finding of illegality.

  2. Bagnall v. Town of Beverly Shores

    705 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 4 times

    No other summons or notice is necessary when filing a petition. The most recent Indiana case addressing the issue of when service must be perfected under this statute was Board of Zoning Appeals v. Elkins, 659 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied. Elkins timely filed his petition for writ of certiorari within thirty days of the adverse ruling, but did not serve the Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) until after the BZA filed a motion to dismiss.

  3. Cent. States Tower IV, LLC v. Bd. of Zoning Appeals of Portage

    149 N.E.3d 1206 (Ind. App. 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Standard of Review [13] When reviewing a decision of a zoning board, the trial court must determine if the board's decision was incorrect as a matter of law. Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Elkins , 659 N.E.2d 681, 683 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied . Also, the trial court may not conduct a trial de novo or substitute its decision for that of the board. Id.

  4. Brownsburg Conserv. v. Hendricks Cty. Bd.

    697 N.E.2d 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 6 times

    When reviewing a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the trial court must determine if the board's decision was incorrect as a matter of law. Board of Zoning Appeals v. Elkins, 659 N.E.2d 681, 683 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied.

  5. Board of Zoning Appeals v. Leisz

    686 N.E.2d 935 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 3 times
    Stating that nonconforming use status is not lost by failure to register nonconforming rental unit with occupancy by more than three unrelated adults

    Oral argument was held on this case on September 9, 1997. As noted in Bloomington BZA v. Elkins, 659 N.E.2d 681 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), trans. denied: The trial court in conducting a writ of certiorari review of a decision by the BZA must determine if that decision was incorrect as a matter of law.

  6. Rush County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Ryse

    686 N.E.2d 186 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)   Cited 1 times

    When reviewing a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals the trial court must determine if the board's decision was incorrect as a matter of law. Board of Zoning Appeals v. Elkins, 659 N.E.2d 681, 683 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996), reh'g denied, trans. denied.