Schacht v. Board of Zoning Appeals

Indiana Court of Appeals

Schacht v. Board of Zoning Appeals

132 N.E.2d 924, 126 Ind. App. 543, 1956 Ind. App. LEXIS 137

CourtIndiana Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 23, 1956

DocketNo. 18,795

StatusPublished

This text of 132 N.E.2d 924 (Schacht v. Board of Zoning Appeals) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schacht v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 132 N.E.2d 924, 126 Ind. App. 543, 1956 Ind. App. LEXIS 137 (Ind. Ct. App. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

Royse, C. J.

Appellants brought this action for a writ of certiorari to review a decision of the Board of Zoning Appeals of the City of Indianapolis, granting a variance from a Zoning Ordinance of the City of Indianapolis to permit the construction of a drive-in restaurant and sign in the center of a district restricted by ordinance to the construction of single and two-story family dwellings.

The trial court affirmed the decision of the Board granting the variance. From that judgment appellants have appealed to this court.

Appellees have filed their verified motion to dismiss this appeal on the grounds that the question sought to be presented herein became moot. Their motion avers, in part:

“Since the decision of the lower court, the Common Council of the City of Indianapolis, Indiana, has rezoned the specific area in question and the area adjacent thereto for business use through General Ordinance No. 40, passed on the 5th day of December, 1955 and signed by the Mayor of the City of Indianapolis December 6, 1955.

The appellants have not instituted any proceedings concerning the rezoning of this area by the Common Council of the City of Indianapolis but have by their silence and inaction accepted the effect of the Ordinance.

The present zoning now includes the business use atttacked by this appeal, therefore, there is no actual controversy for this court to decide.”

Appellants have not filed any answer or response to this motion.

It seems to us under the averments of appellees’ motion the question has become moot. Therefore, appellees’ motion must be sustained. Buck, et al. v. K. G. [545]*545Schmidt Brewing Co., Inc., et al. (1952), 123 Ind. App. 217, 105 N. E. 2d 823, (Transfer denied); Mikels v. Seligman & Latz of Indianapolis (1955), 126 Ind. App. 17, 127 N. E. 2d 107 (Transfer denied).

Appeal dismissed.

NOTE. — Reported in 132 N. E. 2d 924.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI