The Court vacated the Administration Commission decision, finding that reliance in part on neighboring landowner's layperson testimony regarding potential increase of traffic, litter, noise, and light pollution coming from the Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground was not considered substantial evidence. The Court also found that the County's ordinance amending the zoning plan did not make the zoning plan "internally inconsistent." The Court remanded the case to the Administration Commission for reinstatement of the ordinance allowing the Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground as an amended part of the County's zoning plan.
Developer sought to rezone property to Recreational Vehicle Park/Campground (RVP) and in response the County adopted an ordinance to amend the zoning plan. Neighboring property owner challenged the rezoning ordinance, citing potential increase of traffic, litter, noise, and light pollution. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) ruled that the County's rezoning of property to include the RVP was invalid because it rendered the zoning plan "internally inconsistent." The Administration Commission adopted the ALJ's ruling.