City of Bloomington Bd. of Zoning Appeals v. Delta Treatment Center of Indiana, Inc., 53A01-9006-CV-227
| Docket Nº | No. 53A01-9006-CV-227 |
| Citation | 560 N.E.2d 556 |
| Case Date | October 10, 1990 |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Indiana |
Page 556
v.
DELTA TREATMENT CENTER OF INDIANA, INC., Appellee-Plaintiff.
First District.
Linda Runkle, Corp. Counsel, City of Bloomington, Bloomington, for appellant-defendant.
Michael L. Carmin, Cotner, Andrews, Mann & Chapman, Bloomington, for appellee-plaintiff.
Page 557
RATLIFF, Chief Judge.
The City of Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals ("BZA") appeals the judgment of the Monroe Superior Court remanding the application for special zoning exception by Delta Treatment Center of Indiana, Inc. ("Delta") to the BZA. The trial court instructed the BZA to take further evidence and make new findings or grant the exception to build a rehabilitative facility for sixty emotionally and physically abused children in a single-family residential zone. We reverse.
After several procedural steps transpired, the BZA conducted a hearing on September 5, 1989, on Delta's petition for a special exception. The BZA unanimously denied the petition, because Delta failed to demonstrate the safety of the surrounding area would not be impaired. Following Delta's petition for a writ of certiorari, the Monroe Superior Court granted certiorari on October 27, 1989. The order entered on February 27, 1990, found the BZA's denial of the petition was not supported by the evidence and the BZA unreasonably found that safety of the area would be impaired. The trial court remanded with instructions for the BZA to hear further evidence and make new findings or to grant Delta's petition. BZA appeals the trial court's determination.
Whether the trial court exceeded the limits of judicial review in reversing the unanimous decision of the BZA which denied the petition for special exception by Delta to build a rehabilitative facility in a single-family residential zone.
We are governed by the presumption that an agency's decision is correct in light of its expertise. Time-Low Corp. v. LaPorte Board of Zoning Appeals (1989), Ind.App., 547 N.E.2d 877, 879, trans. denied; Porter County Board of Zoning Appeals v. Bolde (1988), Ind.App., 530 N.E.2d 1212, 1215. 1 The standard of review is stricter when considering a denial of a petition. Porter County Plan Commission v. Burns Harbor Estates (1982), Ind.App., 437 N.E.2d 1053, 1055. Our review is confined to the same standard as the trial court's in reviewing the BZA's denial of Delta's petition. The denial of a petition is examined by review of the evidence and inferences supporting the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Indiana Civil Rights Com'n v. Southern Indiana Gas & Elec. Co., 26A04-9405-CV-209
...basis of evidentiary support based on a review of the record in it entirety. Bloomington v. Delta Treatment Center (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 556, 558; Smith, 567 N.E.2d at 167-68; see also Indiana Civil Rights Comm'n v. Sutherland Lumber (1979), 182 Ind.App. 133, 394 N.E.2d 949, However,......
-
McBride v. Board of Zoning Appeals of Evansville-Vanderburgh Area Plan Com'n, EVANSVILLE-VANDERBURGH
...cannot reweigh evidence or substitute our discretion for that of the BZA. City of Bloomington v. Delta Treatment Center (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 556, 558. We are governed by the presumption that an agency's decision is correct in view of its expertise. Id. at 557. Thus, McBride labors u......
-
Indiana Civil Rights Com'n v. Delaware County Circuit Court, 49A02-9309-CV-487
...by the agency's findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence. City of Bloomington v. Delta Treatment Center (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 556, 558; Hamilton County Dep't of Pub. Welfare v. Smith (1991), Ind.App., 567 N.E.2d 165, 167-68. Despite the great weight afforded an administr......
-
Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources v. United Refuse Co., Inc., 49A02-9102-CV-58
...that an agency's decision is correct in view of its expertise, City of Bloomington v. Delta Treatment Center (1990), Ind.App., 560 N.E.2d 556, 558, and are bound by the agency's findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence. Hamilton County Department of Public Welfare v. Smith (199......