Title: Scherrer v. Board of County Commissioners

State: kansas

Issuer: Kansas Supreme Court

Document:

201 Kan. 424 (1968)
441 P.2d 901
DAN SCHERRER, JR. and MILDRED R. NESSELRODE, Appellees,
v.
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY, KANSAS, Appellants.
No. 45,035

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed June 8, 1968.
Robert J. Foster, of Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellants.
Edward H. Powers, of Kansas City, argued the cause and was on the briefs for the appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
HATCHER, C.:
This appeal challenges the propriety of a judgment of the district court which set aside an order of the Board of County Commissioners refusing a special permit for a mobile home park.
The plaintiff, Mildred R. Nesselrode, is the owner of a tract of land consisting of slightly more than 30 acres known as 7300 Swartz Road in Wyandotte County, Kansas. The tract is west of the town of Muncie which lies just west of the city of Kansas City, Kansas. It is bounded on the south by Highway 32 adjacent to an industrial district and the main line of the Union Pacific Railroad.
The plaintiff, Dan Scherrer, Jr., has an option to purchase the tract of land contingent upon obtaining a special permit for the construction, development and operation of a mobile home park. The area is presently zoned for single family dwellings. In Wyandotte County there is no separate zoning classification for mobile home parks and such projects are authorized in the form of special permits. The plaintiffs made application for such special permit which was referred to the planning commission of Wyandotte county. The planning commission recommended that the special permit be denied, giving as their reason  "We think the land should be preserved for single family residential development." The matter *425 was then heard by the county commissioners who denied the application without giving a reason.
This action followed, the petition alleging unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious conduct and requesting relief under K.S.A. 1967 Supp. 19-2926 which provides:
The matter was tried before the district court which made comprehensive findings and concluded that the denial of the application was unreasonable. The defendant, the Board of County Commissioners, has appealed.
Both parties, and the trial judge in particular, appear to be well versed as to the rules of this court governing the power and authority of a district court on review of the reasonableness of an act of an administrative body.
Both parties call our attention to Moyer v. Board of County Commissioners, 197 Kan. 23, 415 P.2d 261, where we state at page 29:
We also call attention to cases stating a similar rule brought under K.S.A. 12-712 to determine the reasonableness of administrative acts of governing bodies of cities. (Arkenberg v. City of Topeka, 197 Kan. 731, 421 P.2d 213; Bodine v. City of Overland Park, 198 Kan. 371, 424 P.2d 513.)
The trial court made findings of fact which supported its conclusion of unreasonableness. The only controversial issue we have before us is whether the evidence supports the trial court's findings.
The trial court's findings of fact and evidence to support them will be summarized.
An increasing percentage of today's population live in mobile *426 homes and balanced planning requires that communities designate and set aside areas for mobile home courts. Wyandotte county has failed to plan for mobile home areas and one must seek permission for a mobile court area by special permit.
Years ago the land in question was farmed but it can no longer be farmed profitably. It has not served a useful purpose for 15 years and there has not been a request to purchase the land for single family dwellings, the only purpose for which it is now zoned. It is of doubtful value for residential development because of its proximity to industry and a railroad. The testimony showed:
The land is also of doubtful value for family dwellings because of the terrain. The testimony showed:
The court found that the most advantageous use to which the land can be put is for a mobile home court and to deny its use for this purpose would result in financial loss to its owner. The overwhelming testimony was that this was about the only use to which the land could be put in the prospective future. There was testimony that it might someday be used for light industry but this use was doubtful because there was a four lane highway between the land and the railroad.
The trial court further found that a well operated three or four *427 star mobile home will not adversely affect the value of the surrounding residential property and that 
The trial court made a personal inspection of the site with the consent of the parties.
An expert on land uses and values, whose qualifications were admitted, testified:
The chairman of the Planning Board of Wyandotte County testified that the application called for a departure from the present use of the land which was for single family dwellings. He further testified:
He further testified that where mobile home courts were to be located was not the planning board's problem but they must be kept out of areas where they might discourage planned development.
The trial court was justified in concluding:
An examination of the entire record justifies the conclusion that those in charge of zoning intended holding the land in the area *428 west of Muncie and north of Highway 32 to residential use only and if the land is not fitted for that purpose to force it to remain idle. We must conclude that this is approaching confiscation and that there was ample evidence to support the trial court's judgment that the refusal of the special permit was unreasonable.
The judgment is affirmed.
APPROVED BY THE COURT.