Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/03/1995

Home

Page 8 m September 15, 1995 Z.B. ' Zoning Change -- Denied Property Owner Says City Didn't Follow Proper Procedures City of Lyndon v. Proud, 898 S. W. 2d 534 (Kentucky) 1995 Proud owned a tract of land zoned commercial and residential in the city of Lyndon, Ky. He petitioned to have the entire tract rezoned to commercial/manu- facturing so he could build a warehouse and office building behind his existing antique shops. State law outlined the procedures for a city council to follow when consider- ing planning and zoning matters. A planning commission had to hold a public hearing, make factual findings, and return the proposed map amendment with a recommendation of approval or denial, or no recommendation. If the commis- sion recommended approval, that recommendation would become final and effective unless "a majority of the entire legislative body or fiscal court votes to override the planning commission's recommendation." Without the over- ride, "the ordinance of the fiscal court or legislative body adopting the zoning map amendment shall be deemed to have passed by operation of law." On Feb. 18, 1993, the Louisville and Sefferson County Planning Commis- sion held a public hearing on Proud's request. After receiving no opposition, the commission unanimously recommended that the city approve the change. The city held three meetings about the petition, but no public hearing. On May t0, 1993, the city unanimously passed a resolution denying the commission's recommendation and stating the reasons for its decision. Proud appealed to court, alleging that the city's action was arbitrary. He claimed that under state law, the city could refuse the planning commission's recommendation only by passing an ordinance, not by adopting a resolution. Proud asked for judgment without a trial. The court granted Proud's request, agreeing that an ordinance was required to reject the planning commission's recommendation. Therefore, the court found, the commission's recommenda- tion was deemed to have passed. The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned to the lower court. The lower court improperly granted Proud judgment without a trial. The case was returned to the lower court to decide whether the city's reasons for denying Proud's petition were sufficient and based on the record. State law required an ordinance to adopt a map amendment, not to reject a planning commission's recommendation. The statute on which Proud relied referred to an ordinance only if the legislative body approved the recommen- dation. It said nothing about whether an ordinance was needed to deny the recommendation. Apparently, local legislative bodies throughout the state used both resolutions and ordinances to reject planning commission recommenda- tions. Proud's was the first case to challenge either method. Despite Proud's ctaim to the contrary, due process did not require the denial to be in any particular form. As long as a majority of the city council voted to override the planning commission's recommendation, the city could put /ts decision in the form of a resolution. The city had to show only that it did not act arbitrarily (i.e. that it based its reasons on the record and those reasons were enough to support denial).