Agenda - Planning Commission - 06/01/2006

Home

Page 2 --May 10, 2006 Z.B. Rezoning-- Petition to reclassify land' for commercial use denied Circuit court says decision was arbitrary Citation: Danville-Boyle County Planning Commission v. Centre Estates, Court of Appeals of Kentuclcy, No. 2004-CA-OO4568-MR (2006) KENTUCKY (03/24/06) -- Centre Estates owned a tract of land in the city of Danville that was more than 70 acres of undeveloped land. The land was zoned for agricultural-residential (AR-l) use, despite being bordered by two major roadways that were heavily developed with hotels, restaurants, and retail busi- nesses. Centre Estates fzled an application with the Danville-Boyle County Plan- ning Commission (commission) to rezone the property from AR-1 to Highway- Commercial (H-C) in 1999, but it was denied. In December 2002, Centre Estates filed another petition that was ultimately heard and voted on in two different commission meetings, which were held on Jan. 15, 2003, and March 19, 2003, respectively. The commission recommended that the city of Danville deny Centre Estate's request, and issued a nine-page document in support of its decision. On April 28, 2003, the city adopted the commission's findings, and denied the zone change request. Centre Estates appealed that decision to the circuit court. The circuit court ruled in favor of Centre Estates, finding that the commis- sion had acted erroneously and arbitrarily when it denied the zone change request. Specifically, there were two issues that the court found problematic. First, the commission had stated that Centre Estate's application should be denied because it did not vary significantly from the initial application that was submitted and denied, and -- by law -- the commission did not have to recon- sider an identical proposal. The court found that, according to the relevant city ordinance, the commission could only prohibit the reconsideration of an iden- tical proposal for one year after the initial proposal was submitted. Second, the commission's recommendation stated that "the existing AR-1 zoning may be inappropriate, but the proposed H-C zoning was not demon- strated to be an appropriate use for the ... parcel." The court found that, in denying the reclassification of the land to H-C, it was arbitrary to suggest that the existing zoning was inappropriate without making a finding as to what was the appropriate zoning classification. The court ruled that, despite the commission's error, Centre Estates had received a fair hearing. The court only objected to the commission's decision because it was arbitrary. The matter was sent back to the commission, with an order to recommend rezoning the property to the appropriate classification, The city appealed. DECISION: Reversed. The appeals court found that the lower court had applied the wrong stan- ,(" © 2006 Quinlan Punlishing Group. Any reproduction is pronibited. For more information please call (617) 542-0048. 74