Fritz v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government
| Decision Date | 04 September 1998 |
| Docket Number | LEXINGTON-FAYETTE,No. 97-CA-002214-MR,97-CA-002214-MR |
| Citation | 986 S.W.2d 456 |
| Parties | John R. FRITZ; Mary Louise McConathy Fritz; Bettie Fritz Graves; Alfred J. Graves; and Bellerive Development Corp., a Kentucky Corporation, Appellants, v.URBAN COUNTY GOVERNMENT; Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council; Teresa Ann Isaac, vice mayor, Charles W. Ellinger, D.D.S., David B. Stevens, M.D., George A. Brown, Jr., Robert R. Jefferson, Kathy Pratt, Isabel Yates, Fernita Wallace, Bobby Flynn, Willy Fogle, Fred V. Brown, Roy Durbin, Sandy Shafer, Jack E. Hillard, and Gloria Martin, in their official capacity as individual members of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council; Pam Miller, in her official capacity as Mayor of the Government; Lexington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission; Walter W. May, Chairman, Eugene Ballentine, Dr. Thomas M. Cooper, Sarah Gregg, Dallam B. Harper, Jr., Robert D. Kelly, George L. Logan, Rose M. Lucas, Dwight Price, Don Robinson, and Leslie Patterson Vose, in their official capacity as members of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Planning Commission, Appellees. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
William M. Lear, Jr., Rena G. Wiseman, Lexington, for Appellants.
Edward W. Gardner, Chris Westover, Lexington, for Appellee.
Before EMBERTON, GARDNER, and SCHRODER, Judges.
This is a planning and zoning case which alleges error in denying a zone change request which was not in accordance with the comprehensive plan of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. Appellants urge a compelling need for their request and major unanticipated changes in the area.
The appellants filed an application in 1995 to rezone approximately 10 acres of land, located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Wilson-Downing Road and Nicholasville Road, from R-1C (single family residential) to B-6P (planned shopping center). The proposed development is adjacent to an existing residential neighborhood to the east and is residential/agricultural to the south. Across Wilson-Downing Road to the north, the land is also residential. On the land directly across Nicholasville Road, a major arterial highway, from the proposed development sits the Fayette Mall.
The 1988 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Comprehensive Plan (comprehensive plan) recommends that the appellants' property be zoned for high density residential use. The comprehensive plan also recommends residential uses all along the east side of Nicholasville Road, (two miles), from just south of Reynolds Road to the county line. The west side of Nicholasville Road is developed with the Fayette Mall and designated in the comprehensive plan as a commercial corridor. Nicholasville Road is designated as the dividing line between the residential uses on the east and the commercial uses on the west.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on September 28, 1995 and found the zone change request was in disagreement with the comprehensive plan, voting 8-0 to disapprove the change. The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government held a de novo public hearing on December 12, 1995 and voted 14 to 0 to deny the zone change. The circuit court affirmed on August 5, 1997 and appellants appealed, contending the council's refusal to rezone was arbitrary because the council refused to follow City of Louisville v. McDonald, infra; the expansion of the Fayette Mall was a major unanticipated change to the comprehensive plan; and the comprehensive plan was not timely updated as mandated by KRS 100.197. The appellants also contend that the record requires that the property be rezoned as requested.
Appellants contend the council's refusal to rezone is arbitrary under City of Louisville v. McDonald, Ky., 470 S.W.2d 173 (1971), in that the evidence clearly demonstrates that the existing R-1C zoning is inappropriate and that the Fayette Mall expansion was a major unanticipated change to the comprehensive plan. Under City of Louisville v. McDonald, supra, when the legislative body denies the requested change, the property owner must show the decision was "arbitrary," and whether an action is arbitrary depends on whether the proponents of change can show "[n]o rational connection between that action and the purpose for which the body's power to act exists." Id. at 178. The question then becomes "[w]hether or not the evidence shows a compelling need for the rezoning sought or clearly demonstrates that the existing zoning is no longer appropriate." Id. at 179. McDonald, supra, establishes what a property owner needs to show in order to be entitled to a zone change. KRS 100.213 goes further than McDonald, supra, and adds that in order to get the requested zone change, the proponent must also show that the proposed zoning classification is appropriate. Appellants cannot read McDonald in a vacuum.
All zoning is mandated to follow the comprehensive plan. KRS 100.201 and KRS 100.213(1)(a) and (b). KRS 100.213 provides that before a zone change request is granted, (map amendment), the planning commission or respective legislative body must find either that the request is in agreement with the comprehensive plan or that the existing zoning classification is inappropriate and that the proposed zoning classification is appropriate; or that there have been major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature in the area which were not anticipated in the current comprehensive plan and which substantially alter the character of the area.
The planning commission and the legislative body each conducted a public hearing to consider the request. Evidence was introduced by both sides. Much of the evidence was conflicting, which meant a judgment call had to be made in order to make findings of fact. In Kaelin v. City of Louisville, Ky., 643 S.W.2d 590 (1982), our Supreme Court labeled zoning change requests as trial-type hearings for the purpose of determining the adjudicative facts necessary to decide whether or not to grant the zone change. As such, the taking and weighing of evidence is necessary with "[a] finding of fact based upon an evaluation of the evidence and conclusions supported by substantial evidence." Id. at 591. The circuit court's review is authorized by KRS 100.347 and American Beauty Homes Corporation v. Louisville and Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission, Ky., 379 S.W.2d 450 (1964). The question on review is whether the administrative agency's decision is supported by substantial evidence; otherwise it's classified as arbitrary. Id. at 456. In Danville-Boyle County Planning and Zoning Commission v. Prall, Ky., 840 S.W.2d 205 (1992), our Supreme Court held that in planning and zoning cases, the property owner has the burden of proof, and judicial review is limited to the question of whether the administrative decision was arbitrary. "By arbitrary we mean clearly erroneous and by clearly erroneous we mean unsupported by substantial evidence." Id. at 208.
Using these standards of review, was the decision to deny the requested zone change arbitrary? We agree with the circuit court that it was not. The existing R-1C zoning classification may be inappropriate, but there is no finding that the comprehensive plan's recommended high density residential zoning classification is inappropriate. See Landgrave v. Watson, Ky.App., 593 S.W.2d 875 (1979). From a planning point of view, those are consistent findings, especially in a transitional area, which this is. The R-1C zoning reflects the existing single family uses, but the comprehensive plan recognizes the site is more suitable for high density residential and the need for a buffer or transition between the commercial on the west side of Nicholasville Road and the residential on the east side of Nicholasville Road.
Chapter 100 of the Kentucky Revised Statutes mandates that the planning commission prepare a "comprehensive" plan which serves as a guide for public and private development in the most appropriate manner. KRS 100.193. This master plan for an area is comprehensive in that numerous and extensive elements or studies are to be considered in formulating and adopting the plan. KRS 100.187. By nature, a comprehensive plan speaks to future development even though it takes into consideration the current land uses. The comprehensive plan as here can include a current land-use plan or map which the legislative body can zone appropriately. KRS 100.201, 100.203. The comprehensive plan, however, looks beyond current uses, to the future, and is constantly undergoing review. KRS 100.197. Zoning changes are allowed if they are in accordance with the comprehensive plan, KRS 100.213, or if the plan is out of touch with reality, KRS 100.213(1)(a) & (b); Wells v. Fiscal Court of Jefferson County, Ky., 457 S.W.2d 498 (1970), and there is a compelling need for the proposed change. McDonald, supra; and KRS 100.213.
Was the Fayette Mall expansion a major unanticipated change to the comprehensive plan which would render the commission's and council's decision arbitrary? The phrase, "major unanticipated change," is relative. To the appellants directly across Nicholasville Road, the new McAlpins store is surely a major local change. However, it does not necessarily follow that it would totally...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fritz v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government
...M. Lear, Jr., Rena G. Wiseman, Lexington, Kentucky. Brief For Appellees: Edward W. Gardner, Chris Westover, Lexington, Kentucky. --> [1] 986 S.W.2d 456[2] JOHN R. FRITZ; MARY LOUISE MCCONATHY FRITZ; BETTIE FRITZ GRAVES; ALFRED J. GRAVES; AND BELLERIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP., A KENTUCKY CORPORATI......