Court Opinion

ID: 9579966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:00:28.090384+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:55.879822
License: Public Domain

J. Stempien, J.
(dissenting). It is true that the trial court acknowledged the factual findings of the planning commission. It does not necessarily follow, however, that reversal was merely a substitution of the trial court’s judgment for that of the commission. The scope of the review by the trial court is to determine if the record upon which the commission based its conclusion had any competent, material, and substantial evidence to support the commission’s conclusion. It was the trial court’s opinion that even if one accepts the factual findings (lot size, shape, and so forth), those facts do not rise to the level of evidence necessary to conclude that the proposed lot split would create disharmony. The trial court’s opinion adequately addresses each and every aspect of the record and need not be repeated here. I agree with the trial court that the established record does not support the planning commission decision.