Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/06/2008

Home

() January 10, 2008\ Volume 21 No.1 Development-Neighbor claims commission did not properly consider water drainage in approving development plans ' Plan included system commission had not considered previously Citation: Corman v. SDK Corp., 2007 WL 4292125 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007) KENTUCKY (12/07/07)-SDK owned property located in the city of Nicholasville that was zoned for residential use. The property was adjacent to property owned by Corman. Corman's property was at a lower elevation than SDK's, which caused water to natu- rally drain down from SDK's property onto Corman's. SDK submitted a construction plan to the planning commission for a residential subdivision that included a storm and surface water collection and drainage system. The system allowed water to be collected into a series of pipes and then be discharged near Corman's property. Part of the subdivision plans involved devices called level spreaders, which were "dam-like structures that pur- portedly [caught] the ... discharge water and spread it out into an even, more natural flow.", , The commission held a hearing to determine if the construction plans and the level spreaders complied with the city ordinances. Corman appeared at the hearing and objected to the construction plans and the use of the level spreaders. Ultimately, the commission approved SDK's plan. Corman appealed the commission's decision to court. SDK asked 'the court for judgment without a trial. The trial court granted this request, stating that the commission's decision was not arbitrary, was supported by substantial evidence, and that there was no fac- tual. or legal basis in the commission's records to support any asser- tion of future harm to Corman's property. DECISION: Reversed. The appeals court first noted that it was "limited by the Consti- tutional separation of powers doctrine from substituting its judg- ment for that of an agency designated by statute to decide the mat- ter." The review of the appeals court was confined to the determi- nation of whether the commission's decision was arbitrary. Corman argued that, because the commission made no findings of fact supporting its approval of the construction plans, that deci- sion could not be properly reviewed by the court and should be reversed. SDK argued that findings of fact were not necessary for matters that were "purely ministerial." Importantly, if a zoning 5 ~ 121