Opinion ID: 2595824
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Aesthetics

Text: As the court held in Gump, Kansas appellate courts have long allowed aesthetics to be considered in zoning matters. 35 Kan. App.2d at 509-10, 131 P.3d 1268; see, e.g., Ware v. City of Wichita, 113 Kan. 153, 157, 214 P. 99 (1923) (recognizing in a zoning case that [t]here is an aesthetic and cultural side of municipal development which may be fostered within reasonable limitations. [Citations omitted.] Such legislation is merely a liberalized application of the general welfare purposes of state and federal constitutions.). As our court acknowledged 60 years later: [T]he current trend of the decisions is to permit regulation for aesthetic reasons. See Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U.S. 490, 101 S.Ct. 2882, 69 L.Ed.2d 800 [1981]. Robert L. Rieke Bldg. Co. v. City of Overland Park, 232 Kan. 634, 642-43, 657 P.2d 1121 (1983). In addition to our long-standing case law, we further observe that K.S.A. 12-755(a) expressly provides that [t]he governing body may adopt zoning regulations which may include, but not be limited to, provisions which:... (4) control the aesthetics of redevelopment or new development. As the Court of Appeals has observed when citing this statute, regulation of redevelopment or new development is permitted for aesthetic reasons. K.S.A. 12-755. Blockbuster Video, Inc. v. City of Overland Park, 24 Kan.App.2d 358, Syl. ś 2, 948 P.2d 179 (1998). Judge Ireland relied heavily on Gump. There, the city-county zoning code allowed construction of new communication facility towers up to 85 feet by administrative permit. According to the facts of that case, there was no prohibition against building new towers higher than 85 feet, but such towers required a conditional use permit approved by the city of Wichita. Gump requested a conditional use permit to build a tower with an initial height of 135 feet, with a possible extension to 165 feet. The city denied the request, and Gump argued that the denial of the conditional use permit was unreasonable. The district court upheld the denial and a Court of Appeals panel affirmed, essentially holding that aesthetics alone was a reasonable basis for the city's action. See 35 Kan.App.2d at 509-12, 515-16, 131 P.3d 1268. There are aesthetics considerations alleged in the instant case. The Board's Findings of Fact filed with the district court on October 6, 2006, included, inter alia: 10. The facts presented at various meetings indicate that Wind Farms would likely consist of complexes of a dozen or more turbines, located on ridge lines within the county. A single complex could have a footprint of 7500-20,000 acres. The turbines themselves would be from 260 to over 300' tall, with blades 125' in length. The mounting pad would be 14' × 14' × 28' deep and made of concrete. The complexes could probably be seen from a distance of 20, or more miles. Wabaunsee County is approximately 30 miles, east to west, and 30 miles, north to south. The Zilkha Map (CR-270) shows potential sites that were being actively pursued by developers. These sites are located south of K-4 Highway between Alta Vista and Eskridge along the ridge line. 11. The Flint Hills of Kansas, of which Wabaunsee County is a part, contain the vast majority of the remaining Tallgrass Prairie, which once covered much of the central United States. The Tallgrass Prairie is considered one of the most endangered ecosystems in North America. 12. Wind Farms could have a detrimental effect on the ecology of the area. Prairie Chicken habitat may be altered so as to affect flight patterns, breeding grounds, nesting areas and feeding areas. Flora and Fauna may also be affected by industrial concentration of Wind Farms. (Emphasis added.) The Board's Conclusions filed on October 6 included, inter alia, the following determinations regarding aesthetics and the closely related areas of ecology, flora, and fauna: 1. The location of Wind Farms within Wabaunsee County would not be in the best interests of the general welfare of the County as a whole. In arriving at this conclusion, the Board is mindful of the fact that `general welfare' includes a board spectrum of values, including aesthetics.... Placing complexes of Wind Farms, of the size and scope necessary to accomplish their intended purpose, upon the ridge lines of the County would have a dramatic, and adverse, [e]ffect upon all of those general welfare issues [ e.g., aesthetics]. 2. ... The size, and scope, of the proposed Wind Farms make them objectionable and unsightly, partly as evidenced by the overwhelming opposition by the public. There is no question that the location of Wind Farms will have an adverse effect on the scenic areas of the County. There is also evidence that their presence will have an adverse effect on wildlife. 3. ... In addition to the support set forth in the preceding paragraphs, the Board would note that there was evidence presented that: ... (b) they [Wind Farms] would be harmful to the environment and the tallgrass ecosystem; ... [and] (d) they would have a negative impact on wildlife. 4. Wind Farms would be incompatible with the rural, agricultural, and scenic character of the County. .... 6. Wind farms would be detrimental to property values and opportunities for agricultural and nature based tourism. The Flint Hills are unique in their ecology, heritage and beauty. The adverse effect Wind Farms will have on all of these things will also have an adverse effect on property values and tourism.  (Emphasis added.) Judge Ireland found that [t]here is no doubt the County looked at the aesthetics of having the wind generators as a compatible or incompatible use with the Flint Hills area. We agree, particularly when the Board has cited its finding to the record for our review. We also agree that these Board's findings could reasonably have been found to justify its decision: that the commercial wind farms would adversely, if not dramatically, affect the aesthetics of the county and for that reason should be prohibited. See Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 596, 584 P.2d 130 (1978) (`[A] court is not free to make findings of fact independent of those explicitly or implicitly found by the city governing body, but is limited to determining whether the given facts could reasonably have been found by the zoning body to justify its decision.').