## Facts

- Donald and Alice Burrell sought Lake County Plan Commission approval for a residential subdivision, “Rainbow Estates.”
- The Commission initially granted tentative approval.
- After deferrals and revisions, the Commission held a public hearing on February 5, 1991, on preliminary plan approval.
- Opponents presented evidence of plan deficiencies, including an engineer’s affidavit citing flooding and drainage problems and septic-system leaching/contamination risks, along with testimony, video, photographs, and news reports about flooding and sewage issues.
- The governing ordinance required denial of preliminary plan approval if the subdivision would adversely affect the county’s health, safety, and general welfare.
- The Commission denied preliminary approval on that basis without issuing findings of fact.
- On the Burrells’ certiorari petition, the trial court upheld the ordinance standard, remanded for findings, then affirmed after the Commission entered written findings grounded in the hearing record.

## Issues

1. Whether the ordinance standard requiring denial when a subdivision would adversely affect the county’s “health, safety, and general welfare” was impermissibly vague or an unlawful delegation.
2. Whether the Commission’s written findings (entered after remand) were supported by substantial evidence.
3. Whether the Commission was estopped from denying preliminary approval because it previously granted tentative approval under the same standard.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the trial court and the Commission’s denial of preliminary plan approval.
- The “health, safety, and general welfare” standard was sufficiently definite and a permissible basis for administrative action.
- The Commission’s post-remand findings were supported by substantial evidence, including evidence of flooding, drainage inadequacies, and septic contamination risks.
- The Commission was not estopped by its earlier tentative approval; tentative approval was nonfinal and the Commission could change its position based on additional evidence developed at the preliminary approval hearing.

## Legal Principles

- A subdivision ordinance may validly condition approval on whether a proposal would adversely affect public health, safety, and general welfare; the phrase has an established legal meaning and can guide administrative discretion.
- On review of local land-use determinations, courts apply a substantial-evidence test and do not reweigh evidence or assess witness credibility; the question is whether relevant evidence supports the agency’s conclusion.
- Tentative subdivision approval does not create a final entitlement and does not bar a planning commission from denying later-stage approval when the record supports adverse impacts; estoppel against governmental bodies performing regulatory duties is disfavored.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the Commission’s denial of preliminary subdivision approval because the ordinance’s public-welfare standard was valid, the Commission’s findings were supported by substantial evidence of flooding, drainage, and septic risks, and prior tentative approval did not estop the Commission from denying the later application stage.


Burrell v. Lake Cnty. Plan Comm'n, 624 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)