Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/05/2009

Home

Zoning Bulletin The court first concluded that the Commission did not have the dis- cretion to permit or deny the Development based on the county's Com- prehensive Plan's general principles and spirit or on the lack of compel- ling need for an additional cluster development in the county. Contrary to Citizens' claim, a cluster development was not a hybrid combination . of agricultural and residential zoning which warranted unique treat- ment. Nor was a request for a cluster development analogous to a re- quest for rezoning. Rather, a county cluster development was a "permit- ted use within an agricultural zone"-"a subdivision of land." As such, the Commission's power to ?pprove or disapprove the Development was limited by the applicable rules and regulations. If the Development satis- .fied the county's zoning regulations, the Commission had to approve it. The court next concluded that the Commission acted arbitquily and exceeded its authority when it denied Cooper's application based on its conclusion that Cooper's design converted "prime agricultural land to residential use" in a way. which made "the remaining acreage more likely . to be used as 'open space' versus actual, continued, agricultural usage." The county's zoning regulations specifically provided that all cluster sub- division plats must restrict 80% of the reserved acreage "to agricultural use or open space use." Cooper had asserted that 80% of the Develop- ment's acreage would be reserved for agricultural use or open space. Since there was no evidence that contradicted that assertion, the appli- cable zoning regulation was satisfied. As such, the Commission exceeded its authority when it rejected Cooper's application on that ground. The court also concluded that the Commission's two other conclu- sions-that Cooper failed to submit an adequate proposed septic system or '''landscape and buffering plan"-were supported by substantial evi- dence. A landscape architect and engineering consulting firm had con- cluded that the septic system was inadequate: And, Cooper had not~ as required under the county's zoning regulations, submitted a "landscape and buffering plan." See also: Wolf Pen Preservation Ass'n, Inc. v. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning Com'n, Canfield-Knopf Properties, Inc., 942 S. W.2d 310 (Ky. Ct. App. 1997). , i. ...;' ., .\ :y ." 10 @ 2008 Thomson Reuters/West 54 .-- ) ..--'" ") j ...-.1'