Burrell v. Lake County Plan Commission

Donald and Alice Burrell (plaintiffs) filed an application for approval of a residential subdivision for a property that they owned. The Lake County Plan Commission (planning commission) (defendant) granted tentative approval and a public hearing. The planning commission held the public hearing and received testimony and other evidence on the application for preliminary plan approval. The opponents to the subdivision application provided evidence from an engineer regarding the potential impacts of the subdivision. The opponents submitted an affidavit by the engineer, which discussed deficiencies in the plan, the risks of leaching and contamination from the septic system, the existing flooding problem, and drainage problems. Other evidence that the planning commission received included oral testimony, a videotape of the area, photographs, newspaper articles about flooding and sewage problems in Lake County, and a copy of the drainage plan. The planning commission denied the Burrells’ application because the planning commission concluded that the subdivision would have an adverse effect on health, safety, and the welfare of the community. However, the planning commission failed to make any findings of fact to support its conclusion. The Burrells appealed to the trial court, arguing that the planning commission’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The trial court instructed the planning commission to enter findings on the record to support its conclusion that the subdivision would have an adverse effect on the community. The planning commission largely adopted the contents of the engineer’s affidavit. On appeal, the court of appeals reviewed the planning commission’s decision using the substantial-evidence test.