## Facts

- Crooked Creek operated a trap-and-skeet club for decades and sought to relocate to rural Hamilton County.
- The proposed site was zoned A-2 under the county zoning ordinance; gun clubs were permitted in A-2 only by special exception.
- The ordinance required written findings that the use (1) would not harm public health, safety, morals, or general welfare; (2) would not substantially and adversely affect nearby property use and value; and (3) would be consistent with district character.
- At a public hearing, neighboring landowners and other remonstrators presented evidence of potential lead-related health risks, increased noise and activity, and negative effects on surrounding property values and rural character.
- Crooked Creek presented contrary expert evidence asserting minimal health risks and no adverse property-value impacts.
- The Board of Zoning Appeals denied the special exception, finding the ordinance criteria were not satisfied.
- The trial court, on certiorari review, affirmed; Crooked Creek appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the zoning board’s denial of the special exception, such that the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.
2. Whether the trial court improperly made findings of fact beyond the zoning board’s findings when affirming the decision.
3. Whether the zoning board erred by refusing to consider additional evidence submitted after the initial hearing.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of Indiana affirmed the trial court’s judgment upholding the zoning board’s denial.
- The court held the record contained substantial evidence supporting the board’s determination that Crooked Creek failed to satisfy the ordinance’s health/welfare and property-impact criteria.
- The court held the trial court’s discussion did not amount to improper independent fact-finding; it explained the evidentiary support for the board’s decision.
- The court held the board acted within its discretion in closing the record after a duly noticed public hearing and refusing post-hearing submissions.

## Legal Principles

- A special exception is a use permitted by ordinance only upon proof of the ordinance’s specified criteria; listing the use does not eliminate the applicant’s burden of proof.
- Judicial review of zoning board action is highly deferential: courts do not substitute their judgment or reweigh evidence if the decision has a reasonably sound evidentiary basis and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful.
- Conflicting expert opinions are resolved by the zoning board; substantial evidence may include both expert and lay testimony about likely impacts.
- Zoning boards may control their hearing process and close the evidentiary record after a properly conducted public hearing; they are not required to accept post-hearing materials.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the denial of a special exception for a shooting range because probative evidence supported findings of potential harm to public health and adverse effects on neighboring properties, and because courts reviewing zoning decisions defer to the board’s weighing of conflicting testimony and its management of the hearing record.


Crooked Creek Conservation & Gun Club, Inc. v. Hamilton Cnty. N. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 677 N.E.2d 544 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997)