finding rule requiring exhaustion did not apply when jurisdiction was not exclusive and zoning regulations did not provide injunctive power
How later courts described this case
- finding rule requiring exhaustion did not apply when jurisdiction was not exclusive and zoning regulations did not provide injunctive power
- excusing non-exhaustion with respect to municipal zoning authorities because such agents cannot issue injunctions requiring that noncompliant fixtures be removed
- adjacent property owner "as an aggrieved neighbor, had an independent right to seek relief from a zoning violation next door and that right could be asserted in an equity action.”
- petitioner in a zoning case could not achieve the desired enforcement remedy of removal of offending structure before the zoning board or other authorities and, thus, appeal to the court was proper
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NIX, Chief Justice,
concurring.
While I concur in the result of reinstating appellant’s equity action, I do not view the case as a zoning matter. Any citizen has a right to seek equitable relief from a continuing infringement upon his or her enjoyment of that person’s property rights. The fact that the conduct complained of here violated certain zoning laws is not the gravamen of the case. Rather, the gravamen of the complaint is a violation of the complainant’s own property rights and complainant’s right to an equitable remedy. Clearly appellant was so entitled.