Brown v. Kenley
Opinion of the Court
The question is whether or not there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the State Health Commissioner and was his decision arbitrary and capricious?
The court was much impressed with the manner in which the Hearing Officer conducted the hearing and his reasoning in recommending that the permit be issued. In making this statement, the court is not in any way demeaning the Commissioner or his reasoning.
It appears that the main basis for the rejection of the permit was the finding of gray mottles in the soil which is indicative of a high seasonal water table. However, it seems that the other findings of the Hearing Officer, namely that it is not possible to say when the property was affected by seasonal high water, and it can only be said that it occurred sometime during the soil forming process which could have been hundreds or thousands of years ago; all other properties in the vicinity of this lot are served by septic tanks and they seem to be functioning properly; no repair permits have been issued for lots in Block Al despite the fact that the houses are twenty-five to thirty years old; the closest city sewer line available to the said property is about 2400 feet from the property in question; the subject property was inspected and examined two days prior to
The court is of the opinion that there is not substantial evidence in the record to support the decision of the State Health Commissioner and that his decision was arbitrary and capricious.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.