Opinion ID: 2450547
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Procedure for Rezoning of Property in 1-Mile Radius

Text: As a result, we base our analysis, as did the district court, on the second sentence of K.S.A. 3-307e, which empowers the Airport Commission to make recommendations concerning type and boundary of zones and regulations to be adopted for public airports and all property within one (1) mile thereof. The district court interpreted this sentence to grant the County authority over property within the 1-mile radius of the Airport regardless of whether a rezoning proposal would create a hazard. As the City and the landowners note, neither this sentence nor the remainder of the provision provides guidance as to the procedure or substantive considerations that may apply. Nevertheless, other statutes define the procedures. Specifically, K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 19-2960, which addresses amendments to regulations and rezoning by a county commission, states in part: A proposal for an amendment, rezoning or conditional use permit may be initiated by the board of county commissioners, the planning commission, any zoning board or upon application of the owner of property affected. .... All such proposed amendments, rezonings or conditional use permits first shall be submitted to either the planning commission for recommendation regarding amendments or the appropriate zoning board for recommendation regarding rezonings or conditional use permits. All notice, hearing and voting procedures for consideration of proposed amendments, rezonings and conditional use permits shall be the same as that required for amendments, extensions or additions to the comprehensive plan as provided by K.S.A. 19-2958. (Emphasis added.) K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 19-2960(d). The remainder of K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 19-2960 includes specifics regarding notice and the procedure for the consideration and adoption of amendments and rezonings. By operation of the second sentence of K.S.A. 3-307e, this provision is applicable to the proceedings of the Airport Commission as a zoning board and to the subsequent consideration by the County Commissioners. Hence, in combination, K.S.A. 3-307e and K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 19-2960 define the procedural aspects of a rezoning application that is before the County Commissioners for approval. As to the criteria or substantive considerations for the County's decision, this court has provided guidance to zoning authorities by suggesting that they utilize the nonexclusive factors established in Golden v. City of Overland Park, 224 Kan. 591, 598-99, 584 P.2d 130 (1978), and consider other relevant factors, including the zoning authority's own comprehensive plan when acting on a rezoning application. Board of Johnson County Comm'rs v. City of Olathe, 263 Kan. 667, 683, 952 P.2d 1302 (1998); see Davis v. City of Leavenworth, 247 Kan. 486, 493, 802 P.2d 494 (1990) (Our observation [in Golden ] continues to have merit. We commend it to any board, council, or commission denying or granting a specific zoning change.). The Airport Compatibility Plan, which served as the County's comprehensive plan for the area including the subject property, recognized the Golden factors and covered issues specific to airport development and safety. The factors listed in Golden were: `Even though the validity of each zoning ordinance must be determined on its own facts and circumstances ... an examination of numerous cases discloses that among the facts which may be taken into consideration in determining validity of an ordinance are the following: (1) The existing uses and zoning of nearby property ... (2) the extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions... (3) the extent to which the destruction of property values of plaintiff promotes the health, safety, morals or general welfare of the public ... (4) the relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual property owner ... (5) the suitability of the subject property for the zoned purposes... (6) the length of time the property has been vacant as zoned considered in the context of land development in the area in the vicinity of the subject property.... `No one factor is controlling.' Golden, 224 Kan. at 598-99, 584 P.2d 130. In light of the general guidance given to the County by operation of K.S.A. 2010 Supp. 19-2960 and this court's decision in Golden and subsequent decisions, we reject the landowners' argument that the County's approval procedures and considerations are not defined by Kansas law.