Source: http://www.bardlaw.net/articles/negotiating-the-maze-of-land-division-regulation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 23:54:30+00:00

Document:
It is important to consider the difference between a “subdivision” and “subdivision regulations.” A subdivision is a division of a parcel of land into two or more tracts. Subdivision regulations provide the legal framework for development of subdivisions in those Kentucky communities which have adopted subdivision regulations. Subdivision regulations usually include technical requirements for site improvement, construction, bonding, design and construction of streets and street intersections, as well as provisions for pedestrian and vehicular access, layout of lots, provisions for easements, recreational areas, hazardous areas and areas subject to flooding or drainage problems. In short, subdivision regulations regulate the subdivision plan, which is the layout for a particular development. Subdivision regulations apply to all residential, commercial, industrial and other developments, which are not exempt from regulation.
“‘Subdivision’ means the division of a parcel of land into three (3) or more lots or parcels except in a county containing a city of the first, second or third class or in an urban-county government or consolidated local government where a subdivision means the division of a parcel of land into two (2) or more lots or parcels; for the purpose, whether immediate or future, of sale, lease, or building development, or if a new street is involved, any division of a parcel of land; provided that a division of land for agricultural use and not involving a new street shall not be deemed a subdivision. The term includes resubdivision and when appropriate to the context, shall relate to the process of subdivision or to the land subdivided; any division or redivision of land into parcels of less than one (1) acre occurring within twelve (12) months following a division of the same land shall be deemed a subdivision within the meaning of this section;” (Amended language in italics).
Because the Commonwealth ultimately controls all property rights in Kentucky, the exercise of control over the division of property was delegated to local governments by the General Assembly. Subdivision regulations are enacted by the exercise of police power granted to local governments by the General Assembly. Hardin County v. Jost, Ky. App., 897 S.W.2d 592 (1995). Pursuant to KRS 100.273 the power was delegated to local government to enact subdivision regulations by local options. Some local governments have no subdivision regulations. Others have adopted subdivision regulations without zoning regulations. Some communities have both.
After a Planning Commission develops its Comprehensive Plan to the point that it has completed “the objectives, land use plan, transportation plan and community facilities elements” the Planning Commission has the authority to adopt subdivision regulations. KRS 100.273(1). The regulations usually regulate all forms of land development, i.e. residential, commercial, industrial, etc. If located in a county with an urban-county government, the Planning Commission must recommend subdivision regulations to the legislative body and it takes a majority of that legislative body to override the Planning Commission’s recommendation. KRS 100.273(1). Subdivision regulations may also be adopted in counties that do not establish “planning units or planning programs.” In those situations, the Fiscal Court has the authority to adopt subdivision regulations. KRS 100.273(2).
Bellefonte Land, Inc. v. Bellefonte, Ky. App., 864 S.W.2d 315 (1993) involved a legal challenge to a city’s adoption of zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations. The city adopted zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations, before it joined the local “planning unit” and before it had adopted the “goals and objectives” standards of a land use plan. Because of those procedural irregularities, the Court of Appeals reversed the Circuit Court’s dismissal of a property owner’s complaint, which challenged the legality of Boone County’s zoning laws. The case was remanded to the Circuit Court for a judgment declaring that the ordinances were “void ab initio.” As a result the City lacked jurisdiction to regulate the property owner’s road.
“With an ever-expanding population, an increase in urbanization, and the division of farms into residential tracts, our General Assembly recognized the need for an easier way to divide and convey land. Their solution was subdivision regulations, which would change dramatically and forever conveyance law involving most divisions of land of less than five acres.” See, KRS 100.111, Sections 2 and 22.
An independent city planning unit or members of a joint planning unit composed only of two or more cities may adopt subdivision regulations which have extraterritorial jurisdiction up to five miles beyond the city’s boundaries, but not beyond a county line. See, KRS 100.131.
The standards and procedures for subdivision development depend upon the law of the jurisdiction where property is located. A copy of the current subdivision regulations and a familiarity with their requirements, as well as, the requirements of state law is essential. In addition, reference to case law and the legal title of the property may be important. Occasionally legal title prohibits or limits further division of property. Subdivision regulations vary from community to community.
A procedure for submission, approval and disapproval within 90 days of submission of all preliminary and final subdivision plats.
Specifications for format and content of all subdivision plats.
Specifications for streets, utilities and other facilities, public dedication requirements, and requirements for surety to guarantee completion of improvements.
Specifications or dedication of land for public purposes – the Planning Commission may require a reservation not to exceed two (2) years for parks, open space, schools and other public uses.
Ø A fiscal court. KRS 100.273(2).
Sizemore v. Madison County Fiscal Court, supra, illustrated the importance of knowing which entity has the legal authority to approve a subdivision. In Sizemore, a developer proposed development of a 523 lot mobile home park in Madison County, Kentucky. Although the developer had made an informal presentation to the Subdivision Advisory Board of the Fiscal Court and to the County/Judge Executive, it had never formally applied for approval of the proposed subdivision. The informal approvals obtained did not meet the requirements of the local subdivision regulations for subdivision approval.
Local regulations should be carefully consulted for specific details on the platting process and approval process. In the typical subdivision case the Planning Commission grants approval of a Preliminary Plat which is an initial indication of the developer’s plan. As the development proceeds the Planning Commission will usually grant final Plat approval of portions of the property, as it actually developed. KRS 100.277 requires the Planning Commission’s approval of a final plan which should then be recorded in the County Clerk’s Office at the expense of the developer. KRS 100.283. Although a developer by law may enter into contracts to sell a lot or parcel of land within a proposed subdivision, no transfer of property can occur until a final subdivision plat has been approved by the Planning Commission and recorded with the County Clerk. KRS 100.277(2).
KRS 100.287 allows the Kentucky Department of Highways to request an approval right of any subdivision located within one mile of an existing or proposed state highway. The Department of Highway’s recommendation must be made to the Planning Commission within fifteen (15) days of receipt of the Preliminary Plat. KRS 100.287.
Once a final subdivision plan has been prepared in accordance with local regulations, it should be submitted to the Planning Commission for written approval as required by KRS 100.277(2). Approval of a subdivision plat by the Chairman of the Planning Commission or a duly authorized officer of the Planning Commission is a “ministerial act”. Kelly v. Cook, supra, held that if the subdivision plat conforms with zoning regulations and subdivision regulations, it should be approved. There is no statutory requirement that a public hearing be conducted on an application for approval of a subdivision plat. Since approval it is a ministerial act, ordinarily there is no reason for a public hearing. The County Clerk is prohibited from recording a subdivision plat until Planning Commission approval is obtained. Once approved, a record plat not exceeding 24 inches by 36 inches should be recorded at the developer’s expense and indexed by the County Clerk. KRS 100.283.
Property within a subdivision shall not be conveyed until the subdivision plat has been approved and recorded. After recording a legal description of lots may be by lot or parcel number in lieu of a metes and bounds description. KRS 100.277(3); Henry Fischer Builder, Inc. v. Magee, Ky. App., 957 S.W.2d 303, 305 (1997). That case also addressed whether a preliminary plat is binding in a planning and zoning case. The developer had presented a preliminary plat which had been approved by the Planning Commission. Over time portions of the development were approved in the form of final plats. The Court of Appeals decided that only after final plat approval by the Planning Commission does any entity acquire rights in connection with property dedicated by the plat. KRS 100.285(3)(b). The Henry Fischer Builder, Inc., opinion rejected a claim by neighboring property owner that a roadway shown on the preliminary plat of the subdivision was a dedicated street. The opinion confirmed that there could be no dedication until a final subdivision plat was approved and recorded.
Ordinarily, subdivision regulations impose requirements for dedication and reservation of streets, utility easements and other necessary facilities, which must be dedicated as a condition precedent to approval of the subdivision plat. KRS 100.281(4). A dedication must be the act of the property owner(s). A tenant cannot make a statutory dedication such as a dedication for a roadway, because a tenant does not own the property. See, Bluegrass Manor v. Mall St. Matthews Ltd. Partnership, Ky. App., 964 S.W.2d 431 (1998).
In some situations, the Planning Commission may require a reservation not to exceed two years for parks, open space, school and other public uses. KRS 100.281(5). In other cases, a developer may voluntarily elect to reserve land for an indefinite period for open space, parkland or for the future construction of a public school.
To the extent a developer may be required to dedicate land in a subdivision for public purposes, that requirement must be reasonable and a “reasonably anticipated burden” for the developer. If the requirement is reasonable and due process is afforded, it will not be considered an unconstitutional taking of land without just compensation. Lampton v. Pinaire, supra. A developer should not be made to contribute to the cost of public improvements in an amount that far exceeds the anticipated use necessitated by the new subdivision.
Different planning units adopt unique subdivision regulations. Regulations such as the Jefferson County “Metropolitan Subdivision Regulations” provide a simplified approval procedure for what is defined as a “minor subdivision”, as contrasted with the procedure for a “major subdivision.” The minor subdivision procedure in Jefferson County accommodates small and routine subdivisions with few lots, which usually do not require detailed review. For example, where a property owner sells a strip of land to a contiguous property owner or where a single site is divided into five or fewer lots, a detailed plan review is often unnecessary. The procedure for processing a minor subdivision is far simpler than for a major subdivision. In addition to the administrative approval required of the Planning Commission staff, approval of a minor subdivision in Jefferson County must also be obtained from the appropriate Department of Public Works, Metropolitan Sewer District, Fire Department and additional agencies as required, if special circumstances warrant.
Although KRS 100.281 requires that subdivision regulations be based on the Comprehensive Plan, the court in Wolf Pen Preservation Assn., Inc. v. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning Commission, Ky. App., 942 S.W.2d 310, 312 (1997) rejected an argument that a subdivision plat approval was illegal because the local subdivision regulations were inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision was located in a zone allowing up to 4.84 dwellings per acre. The developer’s proposal was for 2.72 dwellings per acre. The developer’s opponents argued that the Planning Commission, in approving the subdivision plat, should consider the Comprehensive Plan’s reference to the “aesthetic effects” of differing densities on nearby properties which were zoned to permit only 1.08 dwellings per acre. The Court of Appeals rejected all arguments of the opponents that Jefferson County’s subdivision regulations which permitted the proposed development, were unlawful because they were inconsistent with portions of Jefferson County’s Comprehensive Plan. The court also rejected the opponents’ argument because that the approval of the subdivision plat was a “ministerial act” and that under Kentucky law the Comprehensive Plan was to serve as a “guide to zoning” and that the subdivision regulations did not fail to comply with the Comprehensive Plan.
Because there is ample authority from the courts that approval of a subdivision is a “ministerial act” by the Planning Commission a case can be made that in the absence of a regulation requiring a public hearing that no public hearing regarding a subdivision approval is ever required. However, the Kentucky Supreme Court in Simpson v. Laytart, Ky., 962 S.W.2d 392, 393 (1998) affirmed an order of the Bourbon Circuit Court which had ordered a local planning commission to conduct a “full evidentiary hearing” regarding whether the agricultural use exemption applied. It may be that a public hearing by a planning commission is only necessary if a developer claims to be exempt from subdivision regulations and an evidentiary hearing on the exemption is necessary and warranted.
Two recent cases illustrate the authority of Kentucky courts to prohibit illegal subdivisions.
In Sizemore v. Madison County Fiscal Court, supra, a developer proposed to develop a 97 acre Madison County farm into a 523 lot mobile home park. Streets, water lines and sanitary sewers were proposed, as well as, a garbage disposal system. The developer argued that its proposal was exempt from “subdivision law” because it had no intention of selling the divided lots and only intended to lease them for use by mobile homes. The Fiscal Court which had the sole authority to approve subdivisions filed a lawsuit and was granted summary judgment by the Madison Circuit Court finding the development was in fact a “subdivision”. The Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that KRS 100.273(2) applied and makes clear that a subdivision of property could be involved whether the property was offered for sale, lease or building development. The Court concluded that before the development could proceed, the developer must seek and obtain subdivision approval from the Madison County Fiscal Court.
In some Kentucky communities there are no subdivision regulations. Unless a division of land is exempt from local and state subdivision regulations, avoidance of local subdivision regulations is not possible. Limited circumstances may be available for the division of land without an approved subdivision. KRS 100.111(22) which defines “Subdivision” exempts division of property into two parcels in counties which do not have a city of the first, second or third class, an urban county government or consolidated local government. In addition, land divided for “agricultural use” and not involving a new street shall not be deemed a subdivision in all counties. KRS 100.111(22).
There are no published Kentucky cases which address specifically KRS 100.292 (the “saving statute”) and KRS 100.277(3). The closest case is First National Bank and Trust Company of Nicholasville v. Carr Building, Inc., supra. In that case, the Kentucky Court of Appeals held that a bank mortgage was void pursuant to KRS 100.277(3) where it was placed on property which was part of an illegal division of land which had not been approved or recorded in the County Clerk’s office. The Court of Appeals rejected the bank’s argument that the mortgage was not a “transfer” under KRS 100.277(3). The bank argued that KRS 100.292 could be used to cure the illegal division of land by recordation of a subdivision plat. The Court of Appeals rejected that argument because KRS 100.292 does not address the situation of a transferee using the “saving provision” of KRS 100.292, after the land in question had been subsequently transferred or sold to a third party.
The validity of KRS 100.277(5), which was amended in 2002 to accommodate the merged government in Jefferson County, has not been tested in any appellate case. It appears to conflict with KRS 100.292 the “saving statute” for illegal division of property. Claims for damages relating to illegal division of property are preserved, even if an approved subdivision plat is recorded later. KRS 100.277(3). Damage claims shall not be the subject of this presentation.
A developer’s conformity with subdivision plans however is critical. For example, in Herron v. Boggs, Ky., 582 S.W.2d 643 (1979), the Kentucky Supreme Court ordered a developer to remove a house and fishing lake he had constructed on a 9.7 acre tract that was part of a 1959 subdivision. The 9.7 acre tract was designated as a “PARK” on the 1959 Subdivision Plan.
Enforcement provisions contained in local subdivision regulations are important. They detail what actions might be taken by local zoning enforcement officers or others in the event of a violation of local subdivision regulations. Clearly, pursuant to KRS 100.291, the Planning Commission has the power to seek injunctive relief to restrain property divisions and activities in violation of subdivision regulations and to restrain violations of subdivision regulations. Zoning enforcement officers by local regulation may also be authorized to issue “stop” orders to prevent violations of the subdivision regulations. KRS 100.991 provides for criminal fines of $10 to $500 per day for violations of KRS 100.201 to 100.347. Each day a violation is considered a separate offense under that statute. A copy of Jefferson County’s Enforcement Code found in Article 10 of its Subdivision Regulations is attached.
WHEN IT IS GRAY AND APPROVAL IS DENIED?
After the Planning Commission takes final action on a subdivision application any aggrieved party must appeal within thirty (30) days pursuant to KRS 100.347(2) by filing suit against the Planning Commission, the property owner of the subject property and all applicants. KRS 100.347(2)(4).
KRS 100.211(7) requires the Fiscal Court of legislative body to take final action upon a proposed zoning change within ninety (90) days of the date the Planning Commission takes it final action. The Kentucky Supreme Court in Evangelical Lutheran Good Samaritan Society v. Albert Oil Co., Ky., 969 S.W.2d 691 (1998) held that the failure of the Fiscal Court to take action on the Planning Commission’s recommendation to rezone rendered the Planning Commission’s recommendation “final” and deprived the Fiscal Court of authority to act further.
Kentucky case law is clear that the rules regarding appeal of administrative decisions must be strictly followed because an appeal of an administrative decision is a matter of “legislative grace and not a right”. Taylor v. Duke, Ky. App., 896 S.W.2d 618, 621 (1995). In that case, Morgantown zoning officials failed to provide notice to adjoining property owners of a proposed subdivision which was approved. Had notice been given by the Planning Commission, KRS 100.347(2) would have made an appeal mandatory. The Taylor case involved another opportunity for appeal by the objecting neighbors. When the neighbors learned that a building permit had been issued by the local Building Department a second opportunity to appeal was created. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court that the neighbors’ complaint filed more than thirty days after they knew a building permit had been issued was barred by law, citing KRS 100.347(2).
The Stringer v. Realty Unlimited, Inc., opinion supra, supports the notion that the developer may appeal to the Circuit Court from an action of a Planning Commission denying a Preliminary Subdivision Plan. Conversely, opponents of the Preliminary Subdivision Plan, may have an obligation to appeal approval of a preliminary plan within thirty days of the final action of the Planning Commission. Such appeals have been recognized. See, Bellemeade Co. v. Priddle, Ky., 503 S.W.2d 734 (1974).
Copies of applicable Kentucky Statues are attached.
 For purposes of this discussion reference to the Planning Commission also refers to the authority having jurisdiction to approve a subdivision.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.