Ct. App. 2002)). Accordingly, if the BZA’s findings are merely a general replication of the requirements of the ordinance at issue, they are insufficient to support the BZA’s decision. Id. (citing Metro. Bd. of Zoning Appeals, Div. II, Marion Cty. v. Gunn, 477 N.E.2d 289, 300 (Ind. Ct. App. 1985)). Here, the BZA’s findings of fact are nothing more than a recitation of the statutory language and an indication of how the members of the BZA voted on whether these statutory requirements had been met. In the portion of the form used by the BZA to record its findings, the space left for specific findings was left blank. Thus, the BZA’s “findings” are nothing of the sort required to permit adequate judicial review of the BZA’s decisions. See Carlton, 252 Ind. at 62-63, 245 N.E.2d 337, 342-43 (<HOLDING>); Wastewater One, 947 N.E.2d at 1051 (citing
holding documents insufficient when they simply restate the language of the statute and defendant enters a plea without elaboration holding that instructions are sufficient which substantially follow the language of the statute or use equivalent language holding that the language of the statute and the courts duty to apply the statute as written requires the court to interpret the statute to apply when the prisoner is sentenced without regard to the institution where the prisoner is incarcerated after the sentencing holding that boards findings were insufficient where they merely repeated language of relevant statute and rejecting claim that voting foims of the members of the board which also simply mirrored the language of the relevant statute without specific findings were findings sufficient to permit judicial review recognizing that a 2422b indictment that merely tracks the language of the statute without identifying an underlying statute may be insufficient