ILNews

Builders want impact fee case dismissed

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis wants a lawsuit dismissed that involves the lawfulness of park impact fees in Zionsville.

Attorneys for BAGI filed a motion for summary judgment on March 5 in Builders Association of Greater Indianapolis v. Zionsville, which was filed in October 2006 and challenges the town's impact fee ordinance adopted in 2005.

Park impact fees go to recreational land and facilities necessitated by new residents, and are usually paid for by homebuilders when obtaining a building permit to construct a new home. The fee is often passed on to a new homeowner, typically at closing.

This suit, filed in Boone Superior Court, says that the fee of $1,862 per lot exceeds what Indiana Code allows. It asks the court to require Zionsville to instead establish a fee that conforms to state law, which states an impact fee on a development may not exceed the impact cost minus the sum of non-local revenues and impact deductions. The municipality argues the fee is consistent with the national standard.

A special judge determined Feb. 6, 2007, that BAGI has associational standing to sue Zionsville over the fees, and the trade organization is now asking for a dismissal in its favor.

In the motion, the group notes that Zionsville's impact fee is unlawful because new residents are paying the fee "not only for infrastructure that will serve them but for infrastructure that will serve future annexations of existing households."

The municipality has until early April to respond to the summary judgment motion.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT