Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 1 of 19

I N T H E

Court of Appeals of Indiana

Monroe County Board of Zoning Appeals,

Appellant-Respondent

v.

Bedford Recycling, Inc.,

Appellee-Petitioner

August 14, 2024

Court of Appeals Case No.

23A-MI-1729

Appeal from the Monroe Circuit Court

The Honorable Kara E. Krothe, Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

53C06-2209-MI-1773

Opinion by Judge Vaidik

Judges Bradford and Kenworthy concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 2 of 19

Vaidik, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] We have held that an administrative agency generally cannot change a final 

decision, but if it recognizes its own error of law, it may correct that error.

Essroc Cement Corp. v. Clark Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 122 N.E.3d 881, 896 

(Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. Here, the Monroe County Board of Zoning 

Appeals (“the BZA”) revoked a conditional-use permit it had granted to 

Bedford Recycling, Inc., for the construction of a scrap-metal recycling facility.

The BZA explained that it made an error of law by granting the permit because 

the facts known at the time showed that the proposed project didn’t meet the 

requirements for the conditional use. Bedford Recycling sought judicial review, 

and the trial court reversed the revocation. But the court didn’t decide whether 

the BZA made an error of law by granting the permit. Rather, citing statements 

by a single board member, the court determined that the BZA revoked the 

permit based on new information and a change of reasoning. In other words, 

the court found that even if the BZA made an error of law when it granted the 

permit, that wasn’t the BZA’s real reason for revoking the permit.

[2] The BZA appeals, and we reverse. In its revocation vote and its written findings 

and conclusions, the BZA explained that it revoked the permit because it 

believed, based on the facts known at the time of the original decision, that it

made an error of law by granting the permit. The trial court erred by looking 

beyond that explanation to determine for itself what prompted the revocation. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 3 of 19

We also hold that the BZA did, in fact, make an error of law by granting the 

permit and was therefore allowed to change that decision.

Facts and Procedural History1

[3] The Monroe County Zoning Ordinance (Title 8 of the Monroe County Code) 

establishes eighteen zoning classifications, such as Urban Residential, General 

Business, and Heavy Industrial, and specifies the land uses that are permitted 

under each classification. Of the permitted uses, some are presumptively 

allowed, and others—known as “conditional uses”—are allowed only if specific 

conditions are met and the BZA grants a conditional-use permit. If a desired 

use isn’t permitted in the applicable zoning classification, either presumptively 

or as a conditional use, the party seeking the use must request a “use variance,”

a rezoning of the property at issue to a classification that allows the use, or an 

amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to make the use permissible in the 

existing zoning classification. See generally Ind. Code §§ 36-7-4-601 to 616, 901 

to 924. 

[4] Bedford Recycling owns land in Monroe County and wants to build a facility 

for the collection and sorting of scrap metal that will later be transported off-site 

for recycling. The land is zoned Mineral Extraction. Only a handful of uses are 

presumptively allowed in such a zone (e.g., mineral extraction, composting 

1 We held oral argument on July 22, 2024. We thank counsel for their presentations.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 4 of 19

operations, greenfill), and scrap-metal recycling isn’t one of them. Bedford 

Recycling applied for a conditional-use permit.2

[5] Bedford Recycling’s application, submitted on August 4, 2021, described the 

proposed facility and then stated, “Based on discussions with County Planning 

Department Staff, the County Zoning Ordinance does not include development 

and operational standards for this specific type of facility. As such, we are 

seeking a Conditional Use Approval under the standards for a Central 

Garbage/Rubbish [Collection] Facility.” Appellant’s App. Vol. III p. 6. A 

Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection Facility, a permitted conditional use in a 

Mineral Extraction zone, is defined by the Zoning Ordinance as follows: 

Public or private establishments contracted to remove solid waste 

from residential or commercial uses and transport such wastes to 

a locally operated public or private landfill or other waste 

collection facility, designated for consolidation of garbage and

recycled matter. 

Id. at 30. In its application, Bedford Recycling acknowledged that its proposed 

facility would not “handle solid waste” or “operate waste hauling vehicles.” Id.

at 6.

[6] The BZA held a hearing on Bedford Recycling’s application on September 1, 

2021. The county planning department introduced the application and 

2 While this matter was pending before the BZA, an ordinance amendment that would have specifically 

allowed for Bedford Recycling’s proposed use was considered but ultimately rejected. See Appellant’s App. 

Vol. III pp. 148, 156, 159.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 5 of 19

recommended approval. A Bedford Recycling representative spoke in support 

of the application but acknowledged:

The Conditional Use approval is for a Central Garbage/Rubbish 

[Collection] Facility, which that particular description and 

definition is meant to apply to a facility that handles solid waste, 

which the facility that we are proposing here doesn’t handle solid 

waste. What it does is handle ferrous and nonferrous metals for 

recycling. It is essentially a scrap yard. They will accept metal 

both ferrous and nonferrous from the general public and process 

it, sort it at the facility and send it on for further processing at 

other facilities. The only materials that will be handled there are 

metals. They won’t be accepting like general household waste or, 

you know, hazardous materials or anything that meets the 

definitions of solid wastes.

Id. at 52. No one spoke in opposition to the proposal. The BZA then took a 

vote. Member Bernie Guerrettaz wasn’t present, and member Skip Daley 

abstained due to technical difficulties, but the other three members—Mary Beth 

Kaczmarczyk, Vicky Sorensen, and Margaret Clements—voted 3-0 to grant the 

conditional-use permit.

[7] On October 1, 2021, Republic Services—which owns property near Bedford 

Recycling’s property—petitioned for judicial review of the BZA’s decision. See

Cause No. 53C06-2110-MI-2052. It claimed, in part, that Bedford Recycling 

hadn’t satisfied the requirements for a Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection 

Facility conditional use. The BZA initially opposed the petition and defended 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 6 of 19

the permit in a response filed on November 28.3 A week later, however, the 

BZA posted notice that on December 15 it would hold a private executive 

session for “[d]iscussion of strategy with respect to pending litigation,” followed 

by a public special meeting “[t]o take action as deemed appropriate” regarding 

Bedford Recycling’s permit. Appellant’s App. Vol. III pp. 56, 58. 

[8] At the special meeting, county attorney David Schilling explained that he began 

questioning the permit decision while he was preparing written findings in 

support of the decision. See I.C. § 36-7-4-915 (“The board shall in all cases 

heard by it make written findings of fact.”). Schilling became concerned that 

Bedford Recycling’s proposed facility doesn’t fit the definition of Central 

Garbage/Rubbish Collection Facility: 

In preparing the written findings in support of the Board’s order I 

think it became apparent that the threshold issue of whether the 

use proposed by Bedford Recycling was actually a Central 

Garbage/Rubbish Collection Facility and whether the use was 

one of the uses that the Board is authorized to grant a 

Conditional Use for. In preparing the findings it became clear to 

me that there was a problem with the proposed use satisfying all 

of the elements of the Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection 

Facility. That particular use is one that involves solid waste, the 

transportation of solid waste under contract from residences and 

commercial interests and Bedford in its description of what it 

proposed to do stated that it was not going to be handling solid 

waste in any way, shape, or form that it was not going to be 

collecting it from residences and commercial entities and it 

3 Bedford Recycling has moved for us to take judicial notice of Republic Services’ petition for judicial review 

and the BZA’s response to that petition. We grant that motion in a separate order issued today.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 7 of 19

wasn’t going to be transferring solid waste. So, I present that to 

the Board, while the facts are not in dispute, neglected to apply 

those facts to the definition of Central Garbage/Rubbish 

Collection Facility and in my opinion that is an error of law. So,

I think the meeting tonight is to discuss how to address this and a 

couple of options I think exist. One I think would be to just move 

forward with the appeal that has been filed in that case by 

Republic Services, adopt the staff’s findings of fact if the Board 

disagrees with me and doesn’t think there is an error. If the Board 

thinks there has been an error, it seems there a couple things to 

be done and one would be to conduct a hearing on the revoking 

of the Conditional Use Approval and give Bedford Recycling an 

opportunity to address that to weigh in whether a mistake was 

made, a mistake of law and at the same time possibly working 

with the parties to an agreed entry to the appeal. So, those are the 

options that I present to the Board tonight and I would take any 

questions you might have.

Appellant’s App. Vol. III p. 60. Schilling’s comments alluded to the principle 

that an administrative agency generally cannot change a final decision but can 

do so if it made an error of law. See Essroc Cement Corp. v. Clark Cnty. Bd. of 

Zoning Appeals, 122 N.E.3d 881, 896 (Ind. Ct. App. 2019), trans. denied. 

[9] Following Schilling’s presentation and a short discussion, the full BZA voted 

unanimously to hold a hearing “to determine whether the Board erred as a 

matter of law by concluding that [the] use proposed by Bedford Recycling, Inc., 

was a Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection Facility Use for which a 

Conditional Use could be granted.” Appellant’s App. Vol. III p. 61. After that 

vote, the trial court in Republic Services’ judicial-review case issued an order 

staying those proceedings. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 8 of 19

[10] The BZA hearing on the possible revocation of Bedford Recycling’s permit was 

held on June 29, 2022. (The parties don’t explain the six-month delay, but it 

appears to have been caused at least in part by the unsuccessful effort to amend 

the Zoning Ordinance to allow for Bedford Recycling’s proposed use. See 

footnote 2.) By that time, the BZA consisted of Clements, Daley, and two new 

members—Guy Loftman and Dee Owens. The fifth spot was vacant. Clements, 

Daley, and Loftman were present for the hearing; Owens was not. Schilling 

again argued that the BZA made an error of law by granting the permit; 

Bedford Recycling’s attorney argued the opposite. After some questions and 

answers and further discussion, the members present took a vote on whether to 

revoke the permit based on an error of law. Clements and Loftman voted to 

revoke, but Daley voted to uphold the permit. Because there were not three 

votes one way or the other, the matter was continued until the BZA meeting on 

August 3.

[11] By the time of the August hearing, the BZA again had five members: Clements, 

Daley, Loftman, Owens, and Pamela Davidson. All five members were present. 

There were further discussions and arguments from counsel, and then Loftman 

made the following motion: “I move based on the testimony and materials 

presented to the BZA during its September 202[1] hearing on docket item 

CDU-21-3 that the BZA erroneously concluded that the use of proposed facility 

by Bedford Recycling [sic] constituted a Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection 

Facility Use, therefore that decision should be reversed.” Id. at 160. The 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 9 of 19

members voted 3-2 to pass the motion, with Clements, Loftman, and Davidson 

voting yes and Daley and Owens voting no.

[12] After that hearing and vote, the BZA entered written findings and conclusions 

in support of its decision. (The copy in the BZA’s appendix is undated and 

unsigned, see id. at 162-68, but neither party disputes its accuracy.) The BZA 

reiterated that it had made an error of law by granting the permit and set forth 

the basis for that conclusion: 

50. [Bedford Recycling’s] proposed scrap yard facility use would 

not accept general household waste or anything that meets the 

definition of solid waste.

51. [Bedford Recycling’s] proposed scrap yard facility use did not 

include the removal of solid waste from residential or

commercial uses.

52. [Bedford Recycling’s] proposed scrap yard facility use did not 

include the transportation of solid waste or the use of waste 

hauling vehicles.

53. [Bedford Recycling’s] proposed scrap yard facility use did not 

include transporting solid waste to a locally operated landfill.

* * * *

62. [Bedford Recycling’s] proposed scrap yard facility use is not 

within of the class of cases for which the BZA is authorized to 

grant a conditional use approval.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 10 of 19

63. [Bedford Recycling’s] proposed scrap yard facility use did not 

satisfy the particular situations in which the BZA is authorized to 

grant a conditional use approval.

64. On September 1, 2021, the BZA acted beyond its legal 

authority, and thus committed legal error, by granting [Bedford 

Recycling’s] proposed scrap yard facility a conditional use 

approval as a Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection Facility.

65. The BZA’s September 1, 2021, conditional use approval of 

[Bedford Recycling’s] proposed scrap yard facility was ultra vires 

and void. 

Id. at 167-68.

[13] In September 2022, with a stay still in place on Republic Services’ challenge to 

the initial permit decision, Bedford Recycling filed its own petition for judicial 

review challenging the revocation of the permit. After briefing and oral 

argument, the trial court issued an order granting Bedford Recycling’s petition, 

vacating the revocation order, and reinstating the permit. Citing comments 

made by BZA member Clements during the 2022 hearings, the court concluded 

that the BZA revoked the permit based on “mistakes of fact and a change of 

reasoning” rather than an error of law. Appellant’s App. Vol. II pp. 39, 43. But

the court added that it was “only reviewing the Revocation Order” and that 

whether the permit was properly granted in the first place is an issue in the 

other judicial-review proceeding. Id. at 43-44. In other words, the court didn’t 

decide whether the BZA made an error of law by granting the permit; it only 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 11 of 19

decided that an error of law—if there was one—was not the BZA’s real reason 

for revoking the permit.

[14] The BZA now appeals. Republic Services’ judicial-review action challenging 

the initial permit decision is still pending in the trial court. It is fully briefed, but 

the parties have agreed that the court can hold off on ruling until we have 

decided this appeal. See Cause No. 53C06-2110-MI-2052.

Discussion and Decision

[15] The BZA contends the trial court erred by granting Bedford Recycling’s petition 

for judicial review. Judicial review of zoning-board decisions is governed by 

Indiana Code sections 1601-1616. “The burden of demonstrating the invalidity 

of a zoning decision is on the party to the judicial review proceeding asserting 

invalidity.” I.C. § 36-7-4-1614(a). The reviewing court should grant relief only if 

it determines that the person seeking relief has been prejudiced by a zoning 

decision that is:

(1) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not 

in accordance with law;

(2) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or 

immunity;

(3) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or 

short of statutory right;

(4) without observance of procedure required by law; or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 12 of 19

(5) unsupported by substantial evidence.

Id. at (d). A trial court and an appellate court both review the decision of a 

zoning board under this same standard. St. Charles Tower, Inc. v. Bd. of Zoning 

Appeals of Evansville-Vanderburgh Cnty., 873 N.E.2d 598, 600 (Ind. 2007). In 

other words, we stand in the shoes of the trial court and owe no deference to its 

decision. See Baliga v. Ind. Horse Racing Comm’n, 112 N.E.3d 731, 736 (Ind. Ct. 

App. 2019), reh’g denied, trans. denied.

[16] The issue here, broadly stated, is whether the BZA had the power (Bedford 

Recycling calls it “jurisdiction”) to revoke the conditional-use permit. The 

parties agree on the governing legal principles:

Power to undo an act once done will not be implied from the 

mere grant of power, in the exercise of a sound discretion, to do 

the act. Accordingly, unless the legislature has given clear 

authority to revoke final determinations, administrative bodies 

do not have the power to change their minds after a final 

determination. This rule is not absolute, however, for when an 

administrative agency recognizes its own error of law, it may 

correct that error. A mistake of law occurs when a party, having 

full knowledge of the facts, comes to an erroneous conclusion as 

to their legal effect. Thus, in order to show an error of law 

occurred, the agency must cite to a statute, legal principle, or 

change in case law that was neglected or misapplied to the facts.

The reversal must be required by an actual error of law, not 

simply a change of reasoning.

Essroc Cement Corp. v. Clark Cnty. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 122 N.E.3d 881, 896-97

(Ind. Ct. App. 2019) (cleaned up), trans. denied. The BZA doesn’t claim there is 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 13 of 19

a statute that authorized it to revoke Bedford Recycling’s permit. Rather, it 

relies on the common-law exception: “when an administrative agency 

recognizes its own error of law, it may correct that error.”

[17] The BZA argues the trial court erred by concluding that the revocation decision 

was based on “mistakes of fact and a change of reasoning.” It contends that 

Bedford Recycling’s proposed scrap-metal recycling facility doesn’t fit the 

Zoning Ordinance’s definition of Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection Facility, 

that it therefore made an error of law by granting the permit, that this is why it 

revoked the permit, and that it explained as much in its written findings and 

conclusions.

[18] Bedford Recycling, on the other hand, doesn’t address the Zoning Ordinance 

(other than a few sentences in its Statement of Facts) and doesn’t otherwise 

respond to the BZA’s argument that it made an error of law by granting the 

permit. Rather, following the trial court’s lead, it argues that statements by 

individual BZA members during the 2022 hearings show that the BZA revoked 

the permit based on a new understanding of the facts and a change of 

reasoning. For example, at the June 2022 hearing, BZA member Clements said:

I believe I made an error in my vote and I think that it wasn’t 

clear to me about the rubbish/waste removal delineation versus 

scrap metal sorting and processing and the different complexities 

that go into lines of business that could result in possible 

environmental damage[.] 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 14 of 19

Appellant’s App. Vol. III p. 116. She added:

So, for me what I came to understand, which was something that 

I was not well steeped in before, and that is the intricacy of waste 

processing, scrap metal processing and various values for that 

and the economy related to that and what potential ramifications 

it could have for our county, for our environment so I gained 

new appreciation for the complexity of the zoning descriptions 

and how precise they are and I did not understand that before 

this case.

Id. at 117. Also at the June 2022 hearing, member Loftman said he could “see it 

either way” but that he would vote to revoke the permit because he wanted the 

BZA “to be decisive” and didn’t want to “leave this in limbo.” Id. at 116. At the 

August 2022 hearing, Loftman asked factual questions about the nature of 

Bedford Recycling’s proposed use, including:

I am looking at this definition and it seems to have recycled 

matter and is certainly addressed in this definition that I am 

looking at. But it says public or private establishments contracted 

to remove solid waste from residential or commercial uses and 

transport such wastes. Are you all, is Bedford Recycling 

transporting these recyclable materials to the site?

Id. at 151. Similarly, member Owens asked about the possibility of this being an 

auto junkyard:

[M]y understanding is it is mostly going to be used for 

automobiles. Yes, it will have other uses but it will be used for 

automobiles to break them down and then take them to the 

Bedford facility. What does that entail if in fact we used the 

wrong section of law and therefore it is an error then what would 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 15 of 19

Bedford Facility [sic] be able to do? Could they then come back 

and say we want a Conditional Use under that part of the law 

and we vote again. Is that what can happen?

Id. at 159.

[19] These comments and questions, read in isolation, might suggest that the 

revocation was based on new, impermissible considerations. But the minutes of 

the 2022 hearings span more than thirty pages and also include repeated 

reminders that any revocation must be based on the evidence available at the 

time of the original permit decision in September 2021. See id. at 100-18, 147-

60. More importantly, these discussions were followed by the full BZA’s vote 

and written findings and conclusions, which show that the BZA was careful to 

limit its ultimate decision to whether it made an error of law back in September 

2021.

[20] The vote at the end of the August 2022 hearing was taken on the following 

motion by member Loftman: “I move based on the testimony and materials 

presented to the BZA during its September 202[1] hearing on docket item 

CDU-21-3 that the BZA erroneously concluded that the use of proposed facility 

by Bedford Recycling [sic] constituted a Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection 

Facility Use, therefore that decision should be reversed.” (Emphasis added.) 

After the vote, the BZA entered written findings and conclusions, including: 

“On September 1, 2021, the BZA acted beyond its legal authority, and thus 

committed legal error, by granting [Bedford Recycling’s] proposed scrap yard 

facility a conditional use approval as a Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 16 of 19

Facility.” (Emphasis added.) The findings in support of this conclusion made 

no mention of any new information discussed during the 2022 hearings. The 

BZA found, among other things, that Bedford Recycling’s proposed use “would 

not accept general household waste or anything that meets the definition of 

solid waste,” “did not include the removal of solid waste from residential or 

commercial uses,” “did not include the transportation of solid waste or the use 

of waste hauling vehicles,” and “did not include transporting solid waste to a 

locally operated landfill.” Bedford Recycling doesn’t dispute that the BZA knew 

these facts when it granted the permit. Indeed, Bedford Recycling itself 

provided this information when it applied for the permit.

[21] Bedford Recycling contends that the BZA’s formal vote and subsequent 

findings and conclusions were merely a “pretext.” Appellee’s Br. p. 17. In other 

words, Bedford Recycling would have us hold that the BZA was trying to cover 

up the fact that it considered new information and changed its mind about the 

project. But it doesn’t cite any authority that would allow us to simply disregard 

the BZA’s vote and written order. If anything, Indiana law is the opposite. As 

our Supreme Court has explained, “judicial inquiries into the private 

motivation or reasoning of administrative decisionmakers is a substantial 

intrusion into the functions of the other branches of government.” Med.

Licensing Bd. of Ind. v. Provisor, 669 N.E.2d 406, 410 (Ind. 1996). Because the 

BZA’s vote and subsequent findings and conclusions were limited to

information known in September 2021, the trial court erred by concluding that 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 17 of 19

the revocation decision was based on mistakes of fact and a change of 

reasoning.

[22] That leaves only the question Bedford Recycling chose not to address on 

appeal: did the BZA, in fact, make an error of law by granting the permit? We 

agree with the BZA that it did. Again, the Zoning Ordinance defines Central 

Garbage/Rubbish Collection Facility as follows: 

Public or private establishments contracted to remove solid waste 

from residential or commercial uses and transport such wastes to 

a locally operated public or private landfill or other waste 

collection facility, designated for consolidation of garbage and

recycled matter. 

This definition is clearly directed at typical garbage and recycling haulers. 

Bedford Recycling is proposing a scrap-metal recycling facility; it would not be 

picking up solid waste from homes and businesses. It conceded as much in its 

application, where it acknowledged that the facility would not “handle solid 

waste” or “operate waste hauling vehicles,” and at the first hearing, where it 

said that the “description and definition is meant to apply to a facility that 

handles solid waste, which the facility that we are proposing here doesn’t 

handle solid waste.” Because the proposed facility doesn’t meet the 

requirements for the Central Garbage/Rubbish Collection Facility, the BZA 

made an error of law by granting the permit and was allowed to correct that 

error. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 18 of 19

[23] One final note. At oral argument, Bedford Recycling asserted that the BZA’s 

revocation decision—which came eleven months after the permit was granted—

was untimely. Citing our opinion in Dale Bland Trucking, Inc. v. Calcar Quarries, 

Inc., 417 N.E.2d 1157 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), it argued that any change to a final 

agency decision must occur within a reasonable amount of time and that a 

reasonable amount of time in the zoning context is thirty days, the same 

amount of time allowed for the filing of a petition for judicial review. See I.C. § 

36-7-4-1605. However, Bedford Recycling failed to raise this issue before the

BZA, before the trial court, or in its appellate brief. If it had made the argument 

sooner, the BZA would have had a chance to respond and we would have a 

more developed record on the delayed revocation. By failing to do so, Bedford 

Recycling waived the issue.4

[24] For these reasons, we reverse the trial court’s grant of Bedford Recycling’s 

petition for judicial review.

[25] Reversed.

Bradford, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.

4 Bedford Recycling also asserted at oral argument that an agency’s authority to correct a final decision 

should be limited to clerical or ministerial errors. Bedford Recycling didn’t make this argument before the 

BZA or before the trial court. It briefly hinted at such a limitation in its appellate brief but didn’t develop an 

argument. See Appellee’s Br. p. 38. Therefore, Bedford Recycling waived this issue as well.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 23A-MI-1729 | August 14, 2024 Page 19 of 19

ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT

David B. Schilling

County Attorney

Bloomington, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Dustin L. Plummer

Patrick A. Ziepolt

Mallor Grodner LLP

Bloomington, Indiana