Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, <br /> <br />December 10,2008 I Volume 2 I No. 23 <br /> <br />) <br /> <br />Case Note: The court remanded the matter to die trial court for <br />consideration of other, remaining issues that were raised by the Res- <br />idents on appeal. ' <br /> <br />Grounds for Denial-Although a permitted use, <br />planning commission denies application for <br />cluster development <br /> <br />Commission says it had the discretion to deny application <br />on grounds other than the applicable zoning regulations <br /> <br />Citation: Citizens for Preservation of Jessamine County, LLC v. Cooper <br />Development, LLC, 2008 WL 4601268 (Ky. Ct. App. 2008) <br /> <br />KENTUCKY (10/17/08)-CooperDevelopment, LLC ("Cooper") <br />proposed a cluster development (the "Development") inthe county as a <br />permitted use within an agriculturally zoned area. It filed an application <br />with the county's planning commission (the "Commission"), seeking ap- <br />proval of a preliminary plat. . <br />Citizens tor Preservation of Jessamine County, LLC ("Citizens") op- <br />posed the Development. They asserted that the Development would <br />harm both the op~ration of an adjacent horse farm, and the ongoing ef- <br />forts to preserve the agricultural nature of the surrounding community. <br />After a hearing, the Commission denied Cooper's application~ The <br />Commission's denial was based, in part, on its conclusions that: (1) al- <br />though a cluster development was a permitted use in the agricultural <br />zone, the Commission had the discretion to deny the Development based <br />on the county's Comprehensive Plan's general principles and spirit and <br />on the lack of compelling need for an additional cluster development rr;. <br />the county; (2) Cooper's design converted "prime agriculturallarid to <br />residential use" in a way which made "the remaining acreage more likely <br />to be used as 'open space' versus actual, continued, agricultural usage;" <br />(3) Cooper failed to prove the adequacy elf its proposed septic system for <br />the Development, as required by the county's zoning regulations; and (4) <br />Coo~~r failed to submit a "landscape and buffering plan" as required by <br />the cbUnty's zoning regulations. <br />~ooper appealed to the circuit court. <br />,1f.\1e court reversed. the Commission's decision and approved the re- <br />Q}1es"ted land use. . <br />. Citizens appealed. <br /> <br />DECISION: Affirmed in part; reversed and remanded in part. <br /> <br />@ 2008 Thomson ReuterslWest <br /> <br />9 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />53 <br />