Agenda - Planning Commission - 08/05/2004

Home

142 Page 8 -- July 10, 2004 Za¥ota relief simply to ensure no house was ever built on the property, as some neighboring property owners wanted. Such a denial would result in an illegal taking of the property without just compensation. see also; yon Bernuth v. Zoning Board of the Town of New Shoreham, 770 A.2d 396 (200!). see also: Sciacca v. Caruso, 769 A.2d 578 (2001). Subdivision -- County fails to follow usual procedure City argues county had agreed to do so over 40 years before Citation: Ci~, of Topeka v. The Board of County Commissioners of the Coun~ of Shawnee, Supreme_ Court of Kansas, No. 90,620 (2004) KANSAS (05/14/04) -:-- The Shawnee County Board.of Comm/ssioners en- acted a charter resolution approving the subdivision plat for Hickory ~Creek Scbdivision. In 1958, the city and county agreed to cooperate in planning and zoning in the Topeka-Shawnee County metropohtan area. At the time, the city adopted subdivision regulations governing land within the city limits and within three miles outside the city limits. The county's' subdivision regulations incorpo- rated this three-mile boundary. The city had opposed the Hickory Creek Subdivision plat, which was within the three-mile limit. After Hickory Creek exhausted judicial appeals, it con- vinced the county to approve the plat. To approve the subdivision plat, the county enacted a charter resolution exempting the county from the general planning and zoning law with regard to this particular proposal. The city sued, challenging the county's authority to approve the subdivi- sion plat. The court found in favor of the county. The city appealed, arguing the charter resolution could not exempt the county from following the city/county metropolitan procedure. DECISION: Reversed. The county was bound to use the procedure it elected and agreed to follow. An enactment with optional applicability was deemed uniformly appli- cable to the governing bodies that elected to follow the procedure prescribed by the enactment. It was clear the county elected to follow the original proce- dure and zoning code. The charter resolution at issue was simply ineffective to exempt the county from the city/county metropolitan planning procedure. see ~lxo: Bi.~x v. Cio, 07' Wichita, 23 P3d 855 (2001). .';ee also: ,~_~ine ',.,. ~¢ocu'd of Commi~'sioner?, of' Unified Governme,,~t of Wyandotte Co., ,?5 P. 3d 1237 t2004",. '~; "-'CO'-' Oulnlan :'uDiisl]ing 3rOLIp. Any :el)roduc!ion ~s 9rohlblted. ,:or more ~aformatlon ~lease call ,.6i71 542-0048.