Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/03/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin September 25, 2011 !Volume 5 No. 18 For several decades, the Property had been zoned agricultural. Land- owners sought to develop the Property with a 230-lot subdivision. In furtherance of that proposal, Landowners filed an application with the City to rezone the Property as "RP-1" (planned single-family residential). Because the Property was located within one mile of an airport, it was subject to Kansas statutory law, K.S.A. 3-307e. That statute provides that any changes in existing city zoning within one mile of public air- ports that is approved by a city "must have the approval of the board of county commissioners." Here, the City approved the Landowners' rezoning request for the Property. A copy of the Landowner's application was then sent to the County for consideration. The County Commissioners denied the Land- owners' rezoning application. The Johnson County Executive Airport Comprehensive Compatibility Plan (the "Airport Compatibility Plan"), which had been adopted by the County but not the City, allowed a hous- ing density of one dwelling unit per acre on the Property. The County Commissioners determined that the Landowners' proposed subdivision's density of 2.4 dwellings per acre was incompatible with the Airport Compatibility Plan and raised safety concerns. The Landowners appealed the County's denial of their rezoning application. The district court held, in part, "that the City was the zoning author- ity and the County took a quasi-judicial review in reviewing the City's zoning decision." The district court concluded that in order to deny the Landowner's rezoning application after the City had approved it, the County had to overcome the presumption that the City's decision was reasonable. The district court determined that the County had failed to meet this burden of proof. The court "deemed the City's decision to re- zone the [P]roperty lawful and ordered the publication of the City's re- zoning ordinance." The County appealed. Among other things, the County argued that: K.S.A. 3-307e authorized the County to make an independent, discre- tionary rezoning determination; and the County's decision to disapprove the Landowners' proposed rezoning was entitled to a presumption of reasonableness that the Landowners were required to overcome by prov- ing that the County's action was unreasonable. DECISION: Reversed and matter remanded. The Supreme Court of Kansas agreed with the County. Interpreting K.S.A 3-307e, the court held that the statute did "not relegate the coun- ty to the role of reviewing the city's action." "Rather," found the court, "K.S.A. 3-307e clearly indicates that the county is a vital authority in the rezoning decision -making process and is entitled to make its own inde- pendent, discretionary determination to approve or disapprove any pro- posed rezoning." © 2011 Thomson Reuters 3