TACKETT v. WAYNE COUNTY BY AND THROUGH BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS LLC (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] John and Tammy Tackett, pro se, appeal the trial court's judgment affirming the granting of a zoning variance and a special exception for a planned auction facility in Wayne County. We affirm, finding the Tacketts have waived appellate review of their claims by failing to present cogent argument supported by legal authority.

Facts

[2] Levi and Sadie Beiler own land in an A-1 Agricultural district in Wayne County. On about 20 acres of that land, Midway Auction Barn, LLC (Midway), hoped to operate a livestock auction facility and a general merchandise auction facility. Such facilities required both a zoning variance and a zoning special exception, for which Midway applied to the Wayne County Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). The Tacketts spoke in opposition at a public hearing on Midway's applications, but the BZA unanimously approved the special exception and variance requests.

[3] The Tacketts, pro se, filed a petition for judicial review in the Wayne Circuit Court. After a hearing, the trial court affirmed the BZA's decisions, finding that the Tacketts failed to meet their burden of proving that the BZA's decisions were unsupported by substantial evidence or were arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise not in accordance with law. The Tacketts appeal.

Discussion and Decision

[4] At the outset, we note that the Tacketts have chosen to proceed pro se on appeal. Pro se litigants are held to the same legal standards as licensed attorneys and must follow established rules of procedure, including the requirement to present cogent argument on appeal. Basic v. Amouri, 58 N.E.3d 980, 983-84 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). Although we recognize the significant challenges of self-representation, “[a] litigant who fails to support [their] arguments with appropriate citations to legal authority and record evidence waives those arguments for our review.” Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258, 1267 (Ind. 2015). This is so because, “[i]f we were to address such arguments, we would be forced to abdicate our role as an impartial tribunal and would instead become an advocate for one of the parties.” Shepherd v. Truex, 819 N.E.2d 457, 463 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004).

[5] The Tacketts’ brief is deficient in several respects. First, it violates Indiana Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a), which provides:

The argument must contain the contentions of the appellant on the issues presented, supported by cogent reasoning. Each contention must be supported by citations to the authorities, statutes, and the Appendix or parts of the Record on Appeal relied on ․

The closest the Tacketts come to providing legal authority is citing Indiana Code § 36-7-4-1614 in their Appellants’ Brief. But this statute simply establishes the standard of review applicable to their petition for judicial review. Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(d). Merely reciting the standard of review is not argument. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a) requires more—specifically, at least one contention supported by cogent reasoning and citations to authorities. The Tacketts fail to meet this minimum requirement.

[6] Their appellate argument consists entirely of a single paragraph that merely expresses general concerns about rural character and agricultural preservation:

The primary issues in community discussions were that the protection of agricultural lands, and [d]evaluation of surrounding properties. Concerns include a loss of the rural character and a loss of economically viable way of life. [T]he community wants to maintain the aesthetics of the rural character in the unincorporated area. [P]reserving rural heritage must be a major driving force behind the comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan then detailed the community development goal stating the comprehensive plan encourages growth in and around urban areas while retaining the balance of the Wayne County rural areas for agricultural use and open space. [T]he comprehensive plan provides that[ ] agriculture plays a significant role in defining the physical and functional character of Wayne County. Accordingly, the preservation of agriculture and rural character has been identified as the highest priority throughout all phases of the planning process. [E]nforcing a highly restrictive growth management program to remove development pressures from prime agricultural land should be a tool that is considered.

Appellants’ Br., pp. 7-8.

[7] The Tacketts do not explain how these general concerns translate into legal error by the BZA or the trial court. For instance, they do not cite any legal authority establishing how the comprehensive plan legally binds zoning decisions. They also do not cite the legal standard governing a BZA's interpretation of such a plan. They provide no analysis of how the BZA's decision fell within any of the categories of error for which judicial reversal is allowed. See Ind. Code § 36-7-4-1614(d) (allowing reversal of a BZA decision when it 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 rights; (4) without observance of procedure required by law; or (5) unsupported by substantial evidence).

[8] In their brief, the Tacketts list the statutory criteria for granting variances and special exceptions but fail to apply these criteria to the facts with cogent reasoning supported by legal authority. Their reply brief similarly asserts that the BZA's decision was “arbitrary or capricious” without explaining how this legal standard applies to these facts.

[9] The Tacketts’ expressions of concern about rural character, without more, do not constitute the cogent legal argument that is required by our appellate rules. Though we prefer to decide cases on the merits, we deem alleged errors waived where an appellant's noncompliance with the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure is “so substantial it impedes our appellate consideration of the errors.” Ramsey v. Review Board of Indiana Dept. of Workforce Dev., 789 N.E.2d 486, 487 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (quoting Mullis v. Martin, 615 N.E.2d 498, 500 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993)).

[10] As the Tacketts have waived appellate review of their claim through their lack of cogent reasoning and citations to relevant legal authority, we affirm the trial court's judgment denying their petition for judicial review.

Affirmed

Weissmann, Judge.

May, J., and Scheele, J., concur.