Agenda - Council - 10/28/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

I I I 'i I I I. I I Subdivision -- Should commission have considered aesthetic issues not listed in zoning laws? Wolf Pen Preservation Association Inc. v. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning Commission, 942 S.W. 2d 310 (Kentucky) 1997 Canfield-Knopf Properties Inc. (developer) wanted to subdivide and develop about 57 acres of land known as Wolf Pen Woods in Jefferson County, Ky. The property was zoned to allow up to 4.8 dwellings per acre; the developer's proposed density was 2.7 units per acre, about half that permitted by the town zoning ordinance. The developer applied to the Louisville and Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission for approval to subdivide and develop the land. The Wolf Pen Preservation Association Inc., a group of property owners formed to safeguard "the rural residential character and integrity of the Wolf Pen Branch Corridor," opposed the subdivision. The association claimed the proposed development's density wasn't compatible with the "existing residential density" along Wolf Pen Branch Road. Many of the association's members owned property zoned to allow only one dwelling per acre. The developer claimed the association was trying to down- zone the acreage requirements of Wolf Pen Woods, which acted as a natural buffer between its members' properties and a noisy freeway. The commission concluded the plan complied with the town's very detailed subdivision regulations, so it approved the developer's request. The association appealed to court. It claimed the commission's subdivision approval was arbitrary and capricious because the commission didn't consider whether the proposed subdivision was compatible with adjacent properties. The commission claimed it couldn't consider "aesthetics" when deciding whether to grant or deny a subdivision application. It also claimed it had no authority to require a lower density than that permitted by zoning taws Unless matters of health and safety were at issue. The court affirmed the commission's decision, and the association appealed again. DECISION: Affirmed. The commission's decision was neither arbitrary nor capricious. 'The commission properly approved the developer's subdivision plan after concluding the plan complied with the town's subdivision regulations. The commission couldn't requi~:i a lower density than that permitted by zoning laws, as the association wanted, unless matters of health and safety were at issue. As the developer noted, the association was trying to down-zone the acreage requirements of Wolf Pen Woods without following the appropr/ate procedures to effect zoning changes. The association simply refused to accept the rights associated with ownership of property, specifically the right to use property as one saw fit within the parameters of zoning laws. see also: Snyder v. Owensboro, 528 & W. 2d 663 (1975). American Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission, 379 S. W. 2d 450 (1964).