02/04/10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

The court also found th~t the Board's decision to adopt the Amend- ment was reasonably justified by its findings that the commercial wind farms would not be in conformance with the county's comprehen- sive plan. An objective of the comprehensive plan was to: "Maintain the rural character of the county with respect to its landscape, open spaces, scenery, peace,.tranquility and solitude." The Board had deter- mined that the "size, scope and location" of commercial wind farms would be "inconsistent" with that objective. The court found these findings reasonably justified its decision to adopt - the Amendment banning commercial wind far~s in the entire county. Finally, the court rejected the Landowners' and Wind Right Owners' argument. that the scope of the commercial wind farm ban (i.e., countywide) was unreasonable and therefore improper. Under certain circumstances a total ban could be appropriate, .said the court. In any case, here, the court found there was nQt such an "absoJute" ban. The Board allowed small wind farms; it disallowed only large, commercial wind farms; Kansas statutory law (K.S.A. 12-753(a)) allowed zoning restrictions based on size. Moreover, even a ban on any~sized commercial wind system would be a valid, restriction, commented the court. ' See also: R.H. Gump Revocable Trust v. City of Wichita, 35 Kan'-~f App. 2d 501, 131 P.3d 1268 (2006)., (, ,c=') ( , . / Ii 11 Ii I' ri. I! I' Ii 'I II I December 10, 20091 Volume 31 No. 23 Zoning Bulletin See also: Town of Beacon Falls v. Posick, 212 Conn. 570, 563 A.2d 285 (1989). ' Case Note: The Landowners and Wind Right Owners had also alleged that the Board's' decision to adopt the Amendment was_ unlawful for failure to follow statutorily-required procedures (see K.S.A. 12-757(d)). More specifically, they argued that the Board unlawfully amended the zoning regulations to prohibit commercial wind farms because it modified the planning com- mission's initial recommendation without first resubmitting it to the planning commissiOJ:l. which had recorirmended approval and regulation of all wind farms. The court held that since the Board had a "super-majority" (i.e., two-thirds majority vote) it could modify a recommendation without first returning'the pro- posal to the planning commission for review. Since the Board complied with the statutorily-required procedures, 'its adoption of the Amendment was lawful. Case Note: The Landowners and Wind Right Owner had C) also contended that the Amendment: (1) violated the fed- eral constitutions' Contract Clause; (2) was pre-empted 4 @ 2009 Thomson Reuters ! .. _____.__._r 66,