Sansbury v. City Council of Hillview
| Decision Date | 05 December 2014 |
| Docket Number | NO. 2013-CA-001660-MR,2013-CA-001660-MR |
| Parties | JOSEPH C. SANSBURY, GROVER VORBRINK AND DOYLE JACKSON APPELLANTS v. CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HILLVIEW, KENTUCKY, AND THE BULLITT COUNTY JOINT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND ANNIE REEVES TRUST, DAVID A. BATES III, SONIA BATES, RONALD KITTLE, SR., MARY KITTLE, BETTY LOU SIMPSON, AND THE ROGERS GROUP, INC. APPELLEES |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL FROM BULLITT CIRCUIT COURT
In May 2012, Appellee Rogers Group filed an application in the Bullitt County zoning office seeking to rezone approximately 301.41 acres of land on Pecan Lane in the City of Hillview from Agricultural and Stream Valley Reserve to Earth Products (EP). The planning commission held a public hearing on July 12, 2012, during which Rogers Group elected not to call any expert witnesses. The planning commission subsequently recommended denial of the application because there was no proof to sustain a change from agricultural and stream reserve to earth products. The recommendation was thereafter transferred to the city clerk.
On July 31, 2012, the Hillview City Council conducted a public hearing on the rezoning application, wherein Rogers Group presented significant expert and lay witness testimony and reports justifying the rezoning request. Further, each opponent who signed up to speak was given the opportunity to address the council and propound questions to the witnesses through the moderator of the meeting. After the presentation of all evidence the city council closed the meeting to consider the issues presented.
At the city council's next regular meeting on August 20, 2012, Ordinance 2012-06, rezoning the property in question to EP, was on the agenda.The minutes of the meeting reflect that prior to a vote being taken on the ordinance, the city council approved 23 zoning restrictions with respect to use of the subject property that had been negotiated by the city of Hillview and Rogers Group. Immediately thereafter, Ordinance 2012-06 was read and approved by a vote of 4-2. No public comments were accepted during the meeting.
Appellants thereafter filed an appeal in the Bullitt Circuit Court pursuant to KRS 100.347 seeking judicial review of the ordinance. By order entered on August 26, 2013, the circuit court upheld the actions of the city council in adopting the ordinance. This appeal ensued.
Appellants first argue that the circuit court erred in upholding the ordinance because the city council failed to make sufficient findings of basic fact to satisfy the statutory requirements for rezoning pursuant to KRS 100.213. We must disagree.
An administrative body's decision is not subject to de novo review in this Court. Rather, judicial review of an administrative action is concerned with the question of arbitrariness. In American Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville and Jefferson County Planning and Zoning Commission, 379 S.W.2d 450 (Ky. 1964), our then-highest Court enunciated three factors to consider in determining arbitrariness: (1) did the administrative agency act within its statutory powers; (2) was due process afforded; and (3) was the decision reached supported by substantial evidence. See also Minton v. Fiscal Court of Jefferson County, 850 S.W.2d 52 (Ky. App. 1992). An administrative ruling is arbitrary, and thereforeclearly erroneous, if it is not supported by substantial evidence. Fritz v. Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, 986 S.W.2d 456, 458-459 (Ky. App. 1998)(internal citation omitted). Reviewing courts may not disturb factual findings made by an administrative agency if those findings are supported by substantial evidence. In other words, "[a] reviewing court is not free to substitute its judgment for that of an agency on a factual issue unless the agency's decision is arbitrary and capricious." McManus v. Kentucky Retirement Systems, 124 S.W.3d 454, 458 (Ky. App. 2003)(internal citation omitted). On determinations of fact "[t]he administrative agency's findings will be upheld even though there exists evidence to the contrary in the record." Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Kentucky, 91 S.W.3d 575, 578 (Ky. 2002) (internal citation omitted).
There is no allegation herein that the city council was not the statutory agency to make this decision, or that it exceeded its statutory powers. Further, we agree with the circuit court that due process was afforded at every level as Appellants were provided sufficient opportunity to present their case, cross-examine the proponents of the zoning ordinance, as well as rebut the proponents' arguments. Appellants do not argue that they were denied notice, a hearing, and sufficient opportunity to present their case. As such, the only question that remains is whether the city council's decision was supported by substantial evidence. We believe that it was.
KRS 100.213, which sets forth the findings necessary for a proposed zoning map amendment, provides in pertinent part:
(b) That there have been major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature within the area involved which were not anticipated in the adopted comprehensive plan and which have substantially altered the basic character of such area.
The city council did not find that the proposed rezoning was in compliance with the existing comprehensive plan. Rather, the City stated in Ordinance 2012-06:
Appellants argue that the above findings are nothing more than a parroting of the statutory language of KRS 100.213, and that there is a complete lack of any basic factual findings to support the city council's conclusion that the existing zoning classification was inappropriate and the proposed zoning was appropriate. Accordingly, Appellants maintain that the city council's decision was arbitrary and the ordinance should be declared void. We disagree.
Appellants' efforts to characterize the city council's findings as simply a parroting of the statute completely ignore the earlier language in the ordinance referencing the multiple expert reports and other evidence presented during the July 31st public hearing. In addition to citing the testimony and reports of numerous experts recommending the zoning change that had been presented during the public hearing, the city council noted that Bullitt County Zoning Regulation § 5.301 permitted mineral extraction with a conditional use permit in both the agricultural and stream valley reserve zones. Further, the city council recognized that the comprehensive plan failed to take into consideration that the neighborhood in question was used as a mineral extraction area for more than thirty years prior to the adoption of the plan. As the trial court herein noted in its order:
Ordinance 2012-06 contains approximately two pages of findings summarizing the voluminous testimony and expert reports tendered at the public hearing. The Ordinance specifically provided that the Council made their findings based on the public hearing, the record provided to them, and "the following adopted legislativefindings of adjudicative facts." These two pages describing how the use of the land for a quarry were [sic] compatible with other uses in the area further incorporated into the final findings as the final findings were "based on all of the above and the record." The Council noted that the comprehensive zoning plan did not address the appropriate location for earth products zones despite the fact that neighboring properties had been used as a quarry for over thirty years prior to the comprehensive plan's adoption. These findings are specific enough to support the Council's conclusion that the existing zoning classification for the property was inappropriate and the proposed classification is appropriate. The Court finds that the City Council did make specific findings of fact.
Substantial evidence has been defined as "some evidence of substance and relevant consequence, having the fitness to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable people." Smyzer v. B.F. Goodrich Chemical Co., 474 S.W.2d 367, 369 (Ky. 1971); Warren County Citizens for Managed Growth, Inc. v. Board of Com'rs of City of Bowling Green, 207 S.W.3d 7, 16 (Ky. App. 2006). In its role as a finder of fact, the city council was afforded great latitude in its evaluation of the evidence heard and the credibility of witnesses, including its findings and conclusions of fact. Kentucky State Racing Commission v. Fuller, 481 S.W.2d 298, 309 (Ky. 1972). Based upon the record herein, we conclude that the city council's...
To continue reading
Request your trial